-
#3400 by Lee Jay on 07 Jan, 2016 20:34
-
After MECO, what composes the various particles/debris that are seen escaping from the Orbiter?
A good bit is ice peeling off of the SSMEs. -
#3401 by Hog on 07 Jan, 2016 21:02
-
As in water ice from combustion?After MECO, what composes the various particles/debris that are seen escaping from the Orbiter?
A good bit is ice peeling off of the SSMEs. -
#3402 by Graham on 08 Jan, 2016 11:21
-
How long after MECO are the payload bay doors opened?
TIA
I seem to recall that, at least on STS 1, if the PLBD were not opened during the first orbit there would be an immediate abort. -
#3403 by Hog on 08 Jan, 2016 17:00
-
Excellent!How long after MECO are the payload bay doors opened?
TIA
I seem to recall that, at least on STS 1, if the PLBD were not opened during the first orbit there would be an immediate abort.
This discussion jogged my memory and I went and looked up the Mission Events Lists in the Historical section of L2.
STS-1 35minutes:29 seconds after MECO
MECO 12:08:36:8
PLBD open 12:44:05:3
STS -69 34:17 after MECO
MECO 250:15:17:30.171
PBD RIGHT OPEN 250:16:51:47
PBD LEFT OPEN 250:16:53:06
STS-132- roughly 24:29 after MECO
MECO 134:18:28:34
PLBD open right 134:19:52:53
left 134:19:54:11
Thanks everyone. -
#3404 by mtakala24 on 09 Jan, 2016 12:18
-
Space Shuttle checklists say that if the contingency/manual procedures to drive the payload bay doors open would not work, the next step is to go to deorbit next PLS (Primary Landing Site) checklist. I'm guessing that the mission length would be 2 or 3 orbits that way.
-
#3405 by ludo on 20 Jan, 2016 12:18
-
Hi
Have a quick question that I can't seem to find an answer for. I know there I radiation in space and am wondering does that radiation dissipate when the shuttle enters back into earth's atmosphere or does it stick to the space shuttle when it's back on planet earth? Or does the re entry wipe the shuttle clean? Thanks in advance. -
#3406 by rocx on 20 Jan, 2016 12:32
-
Hello ludo,
Radiation does not stick to things. Solar and cosmic radiation in space consists of very small very energetic particles (protons, electrons, rarely a larger nucleus). It is possible that radiation impacts a nucleus on the spacecraft and changes it to a radioactive isotope. In this case going through reentry won't wash it away. I think that spacecraft design generally tries to avoid using materials that can turn into radioactive istopes on the outside of the ship, but I'm not sure. -
#3407 by Zero-G on 31 Jan, 2016 16:40
-
How had the Lockheed ejection seats been tested, which were installed for the OFT missions? I know their envelope was up to Mach 2.7 and 80'000 ft, but how was this tested? Which methods were used?
Also: Had the seats actually been tested together with the EES suits? If so, how?
The ejection seats for Buran had been tested together with the Strizh suits during five Progress launches in addition to the usual ground tests on rocket sleds and test aircraft.
Was something similar done with the Shuttle seats? -
#3408 by Jim on 31 Jan, 2016 19:21
-
How had the Lockheed ejection seats been tested, which were installed for the OFT missions? I know their envelope was up to Mach 2.7 and 80'000 ft, but how was this tested? Which methods were used?
There was sled testing and they used SR-71 suits.
Also: Had the seats actually been tested together with the EES suits? If so, how? -
#3409 by GigaG on 01 Feb, 2016 03:24
-
For a school project, I need a list of every shuttle mission's payload weight. Somewhere other than Wikipedia. Does this exist? Where can I find it?
-
#3410 by Jim on 01 Feb, 2016 13:54
-
For a school project, I need a list of every shuttle mission's payload weight. Somewhere other than Wikipedia. Does this exist? Where can I find it?
http://www.spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/green/cargsumm.pdf -
#3411 by Hog on 02 Feb, 2016 13:57
-
Anything that includes STS-89 through STS-135. That was a nice document Jim.For a school project, I need a list of every shuttle mission's payload weight. Somewhere other than Wikipedia. Does this exist? Where can I find it?
http://www.spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/green/cargsumm.pdf -
#3412 by mkirk on 08 Feb, 2016 23:37
-
Anything that includes STS-89 through STS-135. That was a nice document Jim.For a school project, I need a list of every shuttle mission's payload weight. Somewhere other than Wikipedia. Does this exist? Where can I find it?
http://www.spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/green/cargsumm.pdf
This Space Shuttle Mission Summary book has payload weights for all the program's missions.
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/reference/TM-2011-216142.pdf
Mark
-
#3413 by Hog on 02 Mar, 2016 13:48
-
Thank you IMOM, I appreciate the link. A "LIKE" for you!
Anything that includes STS-89 through STS-135. That was a nice document Jim.For a school project, I need a list of every shuttle mission's payload weight. Somewhere other than Wikipedia. Does this exist? Where can I find it?
http://www.spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/green/cargsumm.pdf
This Space Shuttle Mission Summary book has payload weights for all the program's missions.
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/reference/TM-2011-216142.pdf
Mark -
#3414 by Zero-G on 25 Apr, 2016 22:00
-
When the Soviets had their own Shuttle program, one of their concerns was a possible negative influence on the piloting skills of the cosmonauts during a mission, i.e. their ability to fly and precisely land Buran after staying in zero-gravity for more than a week. To address this concern and simulate these conditions, both Igor Volk and Anatoliy Levchenko, right after landing of their respective Soyuz missions, had to fly the Tu-154LL Buran training aircraft back to Zhukovsky to perform a Buran style approach and landing. After that, they had to fly right back to Baykonur in a MiG-25 to do some more Buran profile landings there.
Had there been any similar concerns for the US Space Shuttle astronauts? If so, how were these concerns addressed and dealt with? -
#3415 by Jim on 25 Apr, 2016 22:15
-
When the Soviets had their own Shuttle program, one of their concerns was a possible negative influence on the piloting skills of the cosmonauts during a mission, i.e. their ability to fly and precisely land Buran after staying in zero-gravity for more than a week. To address this concern and simulate these conditions, both Igor Volk and Anatoliy Levchenko, right after landing of their respective Soyuz missions, had to fly the Tu-154LL Buran training aircraft back to Zhukovsky to perform a Buran style approach and landing. After that, they had to fly right back to Baykonur in a MiG-25 to do some more Buran profile landings there.
Had there been any similar concerns for the US Space Shuttle astronauts? If so, how were these concerns addressed and dealt with?
The shuttle flew a laptop and hand controller in the 90's for long duration missions to maintain proficiency. But even before that, there was no real concern. Apollo astronauts were in control for all entries. -
#3416 by alk3997 on 25 Apr, 2016 22:16
-
When the Soviets had their own Shuttle program, one of their concerns was a possible negative influence on the piloting skills of the cosmonauts during a mission, i.e. their ability to fly and precisely land Buran after staying in zero-gravity for more than a week. To address this concern and simulate these conditions, both Igor Volk and Anatoliy Levchenko, right after landing of their respective Soyuz missions, had to fly the Tu-154LL Buran training aircraft back to Zhukovsky to perform a Buran style approach and landing. After that, they had to fly right back to Baykonur in a MiG-25 to do some more Buran profile landings there.
Had there been any similar concerns for the US Space Shuttle astronauts? If so, how were these concerns addressed and dealt with?
Yes, particularly for the Extended Duration Orbiter (EDO) missions.
The timing was completely different in that Shuttle didn't overlap Apollo, so there was no way for the U.S. to fly astronauts on a different vehicle to find out how they would perform on Shuttle. Instead the idea was to build-up to longer flights to make sure that there wasn't a negative impact (a cliff or gradual build-up) due to microgravity.
There was also a tool, called PILOT, put onboard for practicing crew coordination and piloting during landing. A cross-program team worked on that in 1992/1993 and it first flew on STS-58.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1993-10-22/news/9310220155_1_shuttle-pilot-astronauts
The unique suitcase-sized computer that PILOT used originally was replaced by the standard PGSC in the late-1990s or early-2000s.
Finally, had it been needed, the orbiter had an autoland capability as long the pilot (PLT) could deploy the gear and CDR/PLT could apply the brakes. There were ways to automate the gear deploy and braking but the program didn't feel it was necessary and history shows that was correct.
Andy
-
#3417 by Hog on 01 May, 2016 15:07
-
How had the Lockheed ejection seats been tested, which were installed for the OFT missions? I know their envelope was up to Mach 2.7 and 80'000 ft, but how was this tested? Which methods were used?
The upper limits were educated guesses, there was no certification at Mach 3 or 80,000-100,000ft.
Also: Had the seats actually been tested together with the EES suits? If so, how?
The ejection seats for Buran had been tested together with the Strizh suits during five Progress launches in addition to the usual ground tests on rocket sleds and test aircraft.
Was something similar done with the Shuttle seats?
Here is footage of a Mach 3+ M-21 Blackbird breakup. Both the Pilot and the Launch Control Officer(LCO-backseater) ejected successfully while the LCO drowned after his suit filled with water after he opened his faceshield.
There was the A-12(1 seater CIA spy plane), M-21 (M for Mother which launched the D-21 drone D for Daughter) the 3 YF-12(interceptor which fired missiles) and finally the least rare SR-71 spy plane-2 seater
-
#3418 by drnscr on 05 May, 2016 01:35
-
Actually, all SR71s were two seaters (one pilot, one RSO). However, I think you're referring to the SR71 pilot training aircraft which is a totally bizarre looking variant.
-
#3419 by Hog on 07 May, 2016 22:34
-
Actually, all SR71s were two seaters (one pilot, one RSO). However, I think you're referring to the SR71 pilot training aircraft which is a totally bizarre looking variant.
Like I wrote "the LEAST rare SR-71 spy plane 2 seater", meaning the most common of the Blackbirds was the 2 seat SR-71(32 built), as there were more 2 seat SR-71s built than 1 seat A-12s(13 built, plus 2 M-21s and 3 YF-12 models being built-the YF-12 has no chines on its nose to allow a radar suite to be installed, this forced designers to include a single fin that is retractable under the fuselage as well as a fin under each engine nancelle)
The bizarre looking twin cockpit trainer aircraft was a SR-71B model(2 of the 32 SR-71s were built as dual control, elevated and offset rear cockpit B models). The SR-71B also had the ventral fins of the YF-12.
The A-12 trainer had 2 sets of controls, like the SR71-B. The A-12 trainer was called the "Titanium Goose.".
There was also an SR-71-C built which was the front section of the Static Test Article and the rear section was the back section of a crashed YF-12.
Pic #1 SR-71 trainer with raised 2nd cockpit slightly offset
Pic #2 YF-12A Interceptor notice the chine-less nose that houses the fire control radar to track AIM-47 missiles
Pic #3 Good pic of a YF-12A in NASA livery, notice the 3 ventral fins, 1 in the center, and 1 under each engine. Also carrying a "cold tube" experiment for NASA.
Pic #4 Pic of SR-71 C model, front is SR-71 test article, rear was a crashed YF-12A, so it has the fully chined front coupled with the 3 ventral finned rear fuselage This craft was nicknamed "The Bastard" as it supposedly yawed slightly during its high Mach cruise.
Pic #5 A-12 trainer with its dual cockpit, used to train CIA Pilots, no "Geneva Conventions" card for these Pilots, it was a covert mission, the SR-71 was the overt mission. This trainer retained the J-75 engines and maxxed out at Mach 1.6. Proper A-12's being the smallest and lightest of the Blackbirds also had the smaller fuel load of just 64,000lbs, the SR-71 took 80,000pounds of JP-7. One A-12 mission saw 94,780ft in altitude.