-
#3360
by
roma847
on 18 Mar, 2015 06:53
-
Hi Hoonte,
this is the opening for the so-called
Star trackers. The star tracker system is part of the orbiter's navigation system.
I hope this helps.
-
#3361
by
AnalogMan
on 18 Mar, 2015 10:19
-
Another drawing showing the left-hand side of the orbiter
-
#3362
by
ZachS09
on 23 Apr, 2015 22:37
-
Where may I find every single flight deck camera-during-liftoff video? I've seen the following missions that had this particular camera along with ICOM audio:
STS-8
STS-65
STS-78
STS-83
STS-87
STS-92
STS-110
STS-112
STS-113
STS-121
STS-118
STS-122
STS-123
STS-130
STS-133
STS-135
Any other missions but those I listed I have not yet seen.
-
#3363
by
Hog
on 01 Jun, 2015 18:25
-
Does anyone have any info/history on ME-2050. It was last flown on STS-120 Discovery along with ME-2048(which flew again on 4 more STS missions #'s 124, 119, 129, 133) and ME-2058 which also flew 4 more missions (124, 119, 129, 133)coupled with ME 2048.
Seeing that ME-2048 and ME-2058 flewout the remainder of the SSP as a pair, what happened to ME-2050 that caused it to be pulled from service back after its last mission of STS-120 in 2007?
-
#3364
by
AnalogMan
on 01 Jun, 2015 20:21
-
Does anyone have any info/history on ME-2050. It was last flown on STS-120 Discovery along with ME-2048(which flew again on 4 more STS missions #'s 124, 119, 129, 133) and ME-2058 which also flew 4 more missions (124, 119, 129, 133)coupled with ME 2048.
Seeing that ME-2048 and ME-2058 flewout the remainder of the SSP as a pair, what happened to ME-2050 that caused it to be pulled from service back after its last mission of STS-120 in 2007?
There is an SSME Schedule on L2 dated August 31, 2007 that shows Engine Assignments from STS-118 thru' STS-127.
E2050 is allocated to STS-120 (and actually flew as we know) but is marked with an note saying "Last Planned Flight due to DAR Life Limits". DAR stands for
Deviation Approval Request - these cover special inspections and part life-limits that are imposed to preclude inflight problems.
Link to schedule [L2 access only] is:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=9767.0Interestingly an earlier flight plan for HPOTPs dated March 12, 2007 [also on L2] shows E2050 was previously allocated to STS-119.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=7081.msg120394#msg120394
-
#3365
by
mtakala24
on 01 Jun, 2015 20:27
-
Now, is it on display somewhere?
-
#3366
by
AnalogMan
on 01 Jun, 2015 21:00
-
Now, is it on display somewhere?
In storage awaiting use on SLS (have not seen a mission allocation for this particular engine yet).
[and your follow-up question is going to be a good one!]
-
#3367
by
mtakala24
on 01 Jun, 2015 21:41
-
Oh yeah! How is it gonna be OK for SLS but not for STS? I presume the STS program just dumped it for cost reasons, and with some extended work it will be 100% good to go on SLS.
.. and for which part the DAR was for.
-
#3368
by
Hog
on 02 Jun, 2015 02:24
-
Does anyone have any info/history on ME-2050. It was last flown on STS-120 Discovery along with ME-2048(which flew again on 4 more STS missions #'s 124, 119, 129, 133) and ME-2058 which also flew 4 more missions (124, 119, 129, 133)coupled with ME 2048.
Seeing that ME-2048 and ME-2058 flewout the remainder of the SSP as a pair, what happened to ME-2050 that caused it to be pulled from service back after its last mission of STS-120 in 2007?
There is an SSME Schedule on L2 dated August 31, 2007 that shows Engine Assignments from STS-118 thru' STS-127.
E2050 is allocated to STS-120 (and actually flew as we know) but is marked with an note saying "Last Planned Flight due to DAR Life Limits". DAR stands for Deviation Approval Request - these cover special inspections and part life-limits that are imposed to preclude inflight problems.
Link to schedule [L2 access only] is:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=9767.0
Interestingly an earlier flight plan for HPOTPs dated March 12, 2007 [also on L2] shows E2050 was previously allocated to STS-119.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=7081.msg120394#msg120394
Thank you. Great info.
It's interesting to see that ME2050 and ME 2048 both had the same note "last planned flight due to DAR life limits" but ME2048 flew on flew again on 4 more STS missions 124, 119, 129, 133.
1) Was that DAR life limit for the SSME or for the HPOTP? In the list the asterisk appears under the HPOTP column.
For STS-120 ME-2048 had 7 flights while ME-2050 had 6 flights at the time, while ME's 2044, 2045 and 2047 which were scheduled for STS-123 planned for launch 4 months after STS-120 had 10, 10 and 11 flights on each of them respectively.
2)How can an engine with twice the flights, not have a DAR life limit that an engine with half the number of flights has?
-
#3369
by
MikeEndeavor23
on 04 Jun, 2015 07:08
-
Okay,
Here is a question. What was with STS 76's External tank?
It looks like they tried to paint the tank white like they did on STS 1 and STS 2 and then forgot to finish.
Or was this the Woody Woodpecker tank where the area Woodpeckers punched holes in the insulation and the white stuff is touch up paint?
MikeEndeavour23
-
#3370
by
Ronpur50
on 04 Jun, 2015 13:03
-
I remember that and I just assumed it was frost when I saw it on TV. I don't remember it being mentioned at the time, but it may have been. That was a few years ago!
-
#3371
by
alk3997
on 04 Jun, 2015 13:12
-
Okay,
Here is a question. What was with STS 76's External tank?
It looks like they tried to paint the tank white like they did on STS 1 and STS 2 and then forgot to finish.
...
MikeEndeavour23
No, that's silly. People didn't start to paint an ET and then forget to finish it. That would have been noticed. Nor did they suddenly decide to add more weight to one tank in the middle of the program.
I was there that early (pre-dawn) morning and it was one of the most humid launches in the program history. There was plenty of condensation in the air. The condensation then became very light frost on the tank in one direction.
Liquid hydrogen is very cold. Add moisture and you get a light coating of frost. You'll see in the launch video that by lift-off much of it had evaporated but not all.
If we had the ice debris prevention rules in place for STS-76 that we had later in the program, I don't know if we would have launched. But, the frost was not dense and would have been moving very slow if it fell off at liftoff, so it may still have been acceptable.
-
#3372
by
psloss
on 04 Jun, 2015 15:36
-
Another memorable instance of frost was on at least one of the STS-36 launch attempts, but this predates interwebs, so maybe I'm imagining.
-
#3373
by
MikeEndeavor23
on 05 Jun, 2015 04:19
-
Ah okay!
Thanks for that info! I thought it looked wierd because I had never seen that on a launch prior or after.
The more you know...
MikeEndeavour23
-
#3374
by
MikeEndeavor23
on 05 Jun, 2015 04:30
-
Okay,
Here is another one. Why did they change the camera targets on SRBs from the glymph design to the simple black strip for the left SRB?
I think the glymphs were more "artistic."
MikeEndeavour23
-
#3375
by
Jim
on 05 Jun, 2015 14:20
-
Okay,
Here is another one. Why did they change the camera targets on SRBs from the glymph design to the simple black strip for the left SRB?
I think the glymphs were more "artistic."
MikeEndeavour23
What is "glymph"?
Anything more other than a stripe differentiating the two SRB's was no longer required.
-
#3376
by
NovaSilisko
on 05 Jun, 2015 16:08
-
No, that's silly. People didn't start to paint an ET and then forget to finish it. That would have been noticed. Nor did they suddenly decide to add more weight to one tank in the middle of the program.
Pretty sure he was making a joke...
-
#3377
by
mako88sb
on 06 Jul, 2015 18:29
-
I've done some searching but not having much luck. What I'm curious about is the maintenance breakdown of the Space Shuttle system. Just how many man hours of it were required between launches? How much percentage wise did it increase for each shuttle as they got older. Considering they were designed for at least a 100 missions each, they were relatively low on actual flight time hours with Discovery at 39 missions and Endeavor at only 25 missions. Sorry if it's been addressed before.
-
#3378
by
psloss
on 06 Jul, 2015 20:34
-
I've done some searching but not having much luck. What I'm curious about is the maintenance breakdown of the Space Shuttle system. Just how many man hours of it were required between launches? How much percentage wise did it increase for each shuttle as they got older. Considering they were designed for at least a 100 missions each, they were relatively low on actual flight time hours with Discovery at 39 missions and Endeavor at only 25 missions. Sorry if it's been addressed before.
I can't answer, but maybe you'll be interested in this paper I saw on NTRS a few years ago and thankfully it is back on NTRS (because I can't remember which backup hard drive I originally stored it on): "Space Shuttle Operations and Infrastructure: A Systems Analysis of Design Root Causes and Effects" by Carey M. McCleskey (NASA/TP—2005–211519)
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050172128.pdfThere's a lot of interesting data, including some chronological detail on a single ground processing flow (for STS-86, in 1997) in Appendix D.
-
#3379
by
mako88sb
on 07 Jul, 2015 09:09
-
I've done some searching but not having much luck. What I'm curious about is the maintenance breakdown of the Space Shuttle system. Just how many man hours of it were required between launches? How much percentage wise did it increase for each shuttle as they got older. Considering they were designed for at least a 100 missions each, they were relatively low on actual flight time hours with Discovery at 39 missions and Endeavor at only 25 missions. Sorry if it's been addressed before.
I can't answer, but maybe you'll be interested in this paper I saw on NTRS a few years ago and thankfully it is back on NTRS (because I can't remember which backup hard drive I originally stored it on): "Space Shuttle Operations and Infrastructure: A Systems Analysis of Design Root Causes and Effects" by Carey M. McCleskey (NASA/TP—2005–211519)
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050172128.pdf
There's a lot of interesting data, including some chronological detail on a single ground processing flow (for STS-86, in 1997) in Appendix D.
Thanks for the link. Skimmed through it real quick and definitely looks interesting. Hopefully I can find some time this week to go over it some more.
