-
#3300
by
iskyfly
on 06 Nov, 2014 22:32
-
Thank you.
Let me rephrase;
What does "droop" mean in this context?
-
#3301
by
Specifically-Impulsive
on 07 Nov, 2014 00:08
-
THE DROOP BOUNDARY REPRESENTS THE EARLIEST TIME AFTER
WHICH A TWO-SSME-OUT TRAJECTORY WILL NOT FALL BELOW
265,000 FEET AND TAL GUIDANCE WILL CONVERGE TO THE
SELECTED/REDESIGNATED SITE’S MECO TARGETS PRIOR TO
THE DESIRED MECO TIME.
You can read all about it from the source:
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/news/columbia/fr_generic.pdf, flight rule A4-56
-
#3302
by
Hog
on 12 Nov, 2014 10:31
-
Was fitting the SRB segments for rail delivery at all a driving force on Shuttle's cargo bay size?
-
#3303
by
Jim
on 12 Nov, 2014 13:30
-
Was fitting the SRB segments for rail delivery at all a driving force on Shuttle's cargo bay size?
Unrelated. The payload bay size was decided before booster selection.
-
#3304
by
Hog
on 13 Nov, 2014 21:11
-
Was fitting the SRB segments for rail delivery at all a driving force on Shuttle's cargo bay size?
Unrelated. The payload bay size was decided before booster selection.
Thanks Jim. +1
-
#3305
by
cautionjump
on 26 Nov, 2014 00:15
-
-
#3306
by
Hoonte
on 07 Dec, 2014 11:17
-
How much weight could be saved on the orbiter (thus extra weight to be carried in to space) if it had a wingless design and re-entered like apollo
-
#3307
by
Hog
on 08 Dec, 2014 14:07
-
How much weight could be saved on the orbiter (thus extra weight to be carried in to space) if it had a wingless design and re-entered like apollo
You could save as much or as little as you desired as you would be designing an entirely different system than STS.
-
#3308
by
extide
on 11 Dec, 2014 16:54
-
What is the name of those really really big gimballed cameras they used to use to track shuttle launches? I can't remember what they're called and it's driving me nuts!
-
#3309
by
DaveS
on 11 Dec, 2014 17:10
-
What is the name of those really really big gimballed cameras they used to use to track shuttle launches? I can't remember what they're called and it's driving me nuts!
DOAMS (Distant Object Attitude Measurement System):
http://www2.l-3com.com/ios/products/r_doams.htm
-
#3310
by
Jim
on 11 Dec, 2014 17:15
-
ROTI, IGOR, IFLOTS, DOAMS, MOTS, ATOTS?
DOAMS was in Cocoa Beach and IGOR is at PAAFB. DOAMS no longer exists.
-
#3311
by
spacecane
on 11 Dec, 2014 17:50
-
How much weight could be saved on the orbiter (thus extra weight to be carried in to space) if it had a wingless design and re-entered like apollo
You could save as much or as little as you desired as you would be designing an entirely different system than STS.
If you did this but still wanted the same crew cabin size, payload bay size and capabilities and had the engines attached to the orbiter like they were for STS, wouldn't it become enormous if you tried to design that inside of a capsule shape? I would think that it might actually end up heavier than the orbiter.
I'm certainly no expert, but I don't think that a 60 foot long payload bay capable of returning cargo lends itself well to a capsule design. I would guess to eliminate the wings, you'd probably have to go with a powered re-entry system like SpaceX plans for the reusable Falcon 2nd stage since it would be roughly shaped like a fuel tank to be structurally efficient.
-
#3312
by
extide
on 11 Dec, 2014 18:17
-
Yeah, DOAMS was the one I was thinking of. Thanks! Some of those other ones are pretty cool too.
-
#3313
by
Jim
on 11 Dec, 2014 18:49
-
Yeah, DOAMS was the one I was thinking of. Thanks! Some of those other ones are pretty cool too.
There were only two. Cocoa Beach and Playalinda Beach
-
#3314
by
Hoonte
on 16 Dec, 2014 09:26
-
How much weight could be saved on the orbiter (thus extra weight to be carried in to space) if it had a wingless design and re-entered like apollo
You could save as much or as little as you desired as you would be designing an entirely different system than STS.
If you did this but still wanted the same crew cabin size, payload bay size and capabilities and had the engines attached to the orbiter like they were for STS, wouldn't it become enormous if you tried to design that inside of a capsule shape? I would think that it might actually end up heavier than the orbiter.
I'm certainly no expert, but I don't think that a 60 foot long payload bay capable of returning cargo lends itself well to a capsule design. I would guess to eliminate the wings, you'd probably have to go with a powered re-entry system like SpaceX plans for the reusable Falcon 2nd stage since it would be roughly shaped like a fuel tank to be structurally efficient.
Just makes me wondering if the Crewcabin was to reenter like a capsule and the rest was to burn up (cargo and engine part). Could this be actually cheaper and carry more to orbit then to carry those costly wings which are only used for landing. And therefore flights be cheaper as there would be much less maintanance?
-
#3315
by
spacecane
on 16 Dec, 2014 11:57
-
How much weight could be saved on the orbiter (thus extra weight to be carried in to space) if it had a wingless design and re-entered like apollo
You could save as much or as little as you desired as you would be designing an entirely different system than STS.
If you did this but still wanted the same crew cabin size, payload bay size and capabilities and had the engines attached to the orbiter like they were for STS, wouldn't it become enormous if you tried to design that inside of a capsule shape? I would think that it might actually end up heavier than the orbiter.
I'm certainly no expert, but I don't think that a 60 foot long payload bay capable of returning cargo lends itself well to a capsule design. I would guess to eliminate the wings, you'd probably have to go with a powered re-entry system like SpaceX plans for the reusable Falcon 2nd stage since it would be roughly shaped like a fuel tank to be structurally efficient.
Just makes me wondering if the Crewcabin was to reenter like a capsule and the rest was to burn up (cargo and engine part). Could this be actually cheaper and carry more to orbit then to carry those costly wings which are only used for landing. And therefore flights be cheaper as there would be much less maintanance?
Then you may as well have just kept flying the Apollo program. The whole point of STS was reusability and the ability to return satellites from space. There is also weight associated with the reentry system of a capsule (parachutes and things). The service module also needs to go into orbit even if it isn't returned intact.
The wings were the size that they were because of the size of the payload bay and the desired cross range due to the single polar orbit missions envisioned by the Department of Defense.
To really get an idea of the weight penalty of wings vs. a capsule, you'd have to have the weights of a winged and non-winged spacecraft designed for the same mission. Something like Dreamchaser vs. CST-100 or Dragon 2. All of those are pretty much designed to take a crew of 6 to the ISS and back and don't have integrated/reusable engines.
-
#3316
by
Hoonte
on 16 Dec, 2014 13:39
-
How much weight could be saved on the orbiter (thus extra weight to be carried in to space) if it had a wingless design and re-entered like apollo
You could save as much or as little as you desired as you would be designing an entirely different system than STS.
If you did this but still wanted the same crew cabin size, payload bay size and capabilities and had the engines attached to the orbiter like they were for STS, wouldn't it become enormous if you tried to design that inside of a capsule shape? I would think that it might actually end up heavier than the orbiter.
I'm certainly no expert, but I don't think that a 60 foot long payload bay capable of returning cargo lends itself well to a capsule design. I would guess to eliminate the wings, you'd probably have to go with a powered re-entry system like SpaceX plans for the reusable Falcon 2nd stage since it would be roughly shaped like a fuel tank to be structurally efficient.
Just makes me wondering if the Crewcabin was to reenter like a capsule and the rest was to burn up (cargo and engine part). Could this be actually cheaper and carry more to orbit then to carry those costly wings which are only used for landing. And therefore flights be cheaper as there would be much less maintanance?
...Then you may as well have just kept flying the Apollo program...
What a moneysaver that would have been :-)
-
#3317
by
ZachS09
on 15 Jan, 2015 21:21
-
On STS-134's liftoff, I saw that the External Tank Camera was a bit too bright for small details to be noted in, for example, STS-133's ET Cam footage. What went wrong with the ET Cam before the STS-134 launch?
-
#3318
by
mtakala24
on 15 Jan, 2015 22:05
-
I recall that the camera settings had to be adjusted beforehand. STS-134 was scrubbed with APU heater issues, and finally launched around two weeks later, if I read the timestamps correctly. I don't know if they reset the camera settings for the new lighting conditions - access to intertank would have been required, I believe.
-
#3319
by
ZachS09
on 16 Jan, 2015 13:38
-
If possible, can someone acquire the ET Cam footage from STS-134 and make enhancements to reduce the brightness like the STS-133 example I talker about?