-
#3420
by
rtphokie
on 08 Jun, 2016 16:28
-
How much do these things weigh? Specifically the older design before the crossover was added to ensure both sides blew simultaneously.
-
#3421
by
Jim
on 08 Jun, 2016 16:55
-
How much do these things weigh? Specifically the older design before the crossover was added to ensure both sides blew simultaneously.
I believe the crossover was just wiring and would have not appreciably affected the weight.
-
#3422
by
Hog
on 08 Jun, 2016 17:07
-
Subject: Flight Readiness Firings
1) Were the LOX and LH2 tanks filled to flight levels/pressures?
2) I found a reference that states that the FRF for Columbia STS-1 had a burn duration of about 20 seconds. Were the other 6 FRFs of approximately the same duration?
Flight Readiness Firing History
Orbiter Vehicle Flight Readiness Firing(s) Launch Date & Mission
OV-102-Columbia Feb 20, 1981 Apr 12, 1981 STS-1
OV-099-Challenger Dec 18, 1982/Jan 25, 1983 Apr 04, 1983 STS-6
OV-103-Discovery June 02, 1984/Aug 04, 1988 Aug 30, 1984 STS-41-D/STS-26 (12th&26th mission)
OV-104-Atlantis Sept 12, 1985 Oct 03, 1985 STS-51-J (21st STS mission)
OV-105-Endeavour Apr 06, 1992 May 07, 1992 STS-49
OV-101-Enterprise nil Feb 15, 1977-Oct 26, 1977 15 Approach Landing Tests
(Edit: to include the omitted STS-26 Atlantis FRF-5 spaceworthy Orbiters, each performing a single FRF with Challenger & Discovery performing 2 FRF each-big thanks to Andy!)
-
#3423
by
alk3997
on 08 Jun, 2016 17:12
-
Paul, I remember the FRFs had different duration times (matter of seconds difference) as the program matured. There were other differences such as having specially patched software on the early FRFs and using I-Load changes for the later ones.
Also, don't forget there was an STS-26 FRF. That was a good day - it felt like we were going to fly soon.
Andy
-
#3424
by
rtphokie
on 08 Jun, 2016 17:25
-
I'm wondering about the nut itself. Goes on a 28 inch long, 3.5 inch diameter bolt. I've seen them on display but not seen any details. It's the biggest frangible nut I know of.
-
#3425
by
Nerull
on 09 Jun, 2016 08:40
-
Anyone know the context for the missing tiles in this photo? Service panel access? Access behind those tiles wasn't a normal part of launch prep, was it?
-
#3426
by
AnalogMan
on 09 Jun, 2016 11:13
-
Anyone know the context for the missing tiles in this photo? Service panel access? Access behind those tiles wasn't a normal part of launch prep, was it?
Larger region is a
Purge and Drain Access Panel (monomethylhydrazine & helium)
Smaller one is a
Service Access Panel (also monomethylhydrazine & helium)
It also looks like a tank relief vent (monomethylhydrazine) has had something taped over it (the white rectangular taped area above top panel)
Not routinely removed during normal pad flow. I'm sure someone will know the reason why they were opened.
-
#3427
by
DaveS
on 09 Jun, 2016 11:24
-
Anyone know the context for the missing tiles in this photo? Service panel access? Access behind those tiles wasn't a normal part of launch prep, was it?
Larger region is a Purge and Drain Access Panel (monomethylhydrazine & helium)
Smaller one is a Service Access Panel (also monomethylhydrazine & helium)
It also looks like a tank relief vent (monomethylhydrazine) has had something taped over it (the white rectangular taped area above top panel)
Not routinely removed during normal pad flow. I'm sure someone will know the reason why they were opened.
The Purge, Drain and Servicing panels had their TPS removed in readiness for S0024, Prelaunch Propellant Loading. During rollover and VAB ops, the panels are covered with a green fabric cover. This cover is removed after arrival at the pad. The photo above was most likely taken at a time the RSS had been retracted for Payload Canister ops before S0024.
So yes, these panels are routinely removed during the pad flow for servicing of the FRCS propellant tanks (MMH and NTO).
-
#3428
by
AnalogMan
on 09 Jun, 2016 11:31
-
Anyone know the context for the missing tiles in this photo? Service panel access? Access behind those tiles wasn't a normal part of launch prep, was it?
Larger region is a Purge and Drain Access Panel (monomethylhydrazine & helium)
Smaller one is a Service Access Panel (also monomethylhydrazine & helium)
It also looks like a tank relief vent (monomethylhydrazine) has had something taped over it (the white rectangular taped area above top panel)
Not routinely removed during normal pad flow. I'm sure someone will know the reason why they were opened.
The Purge, Drain and Servicing panels had their TPS removed in readiness for S0024, Prelaunch Propellant Loading. During rollover and VAB ops, the panels are covered with a green fabric cover. This cover is removed after arrival at the pad. The photo above was most likely taken at a time the RSS had been retracted for Payload Canister ops before S0024.
So yes, these panels are routinely removed during the pad flow for servicing of the FRCS propellant tanks (MMH and NTO).
See, I knew someone would know
. Thanks for the correction Dave.
-
#3429
by
Kansan52
on 10 Jun, 2016 22:08
-
I'm wondering about the nut itself. Goes on a 28 inch long, 3.5 inch diameter bolt. I've seen them on display but not seen any details. It's the biggest frangible nut I know of.
Not lots of info but fun when they gave Colbert one:
http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum23/HTML/002702.html
-
#3430
by
AnalogMan
on 10 Jun, 2016 23:35
-
I'm wondering about the nut itself. Goes on a 28 inch long, 3.5 inch diameter bolt. I've seen them on display but not seen any details. It's the biggest frangible nut I know of.
The attached document gives detailed design dimensions of the nut, plus some other info (pre-crossover implementation). It is made of Inconel 718 whose density is around 0.30 lbs/in3 (8.2 g/cm3). So in principle the mass of the nut could be calculated from the drawing!
-
#3431
by
rtphokie
on 11 Jun, 2016 04:53
-
I'm wondering about the nut itself. Goes on a 28 inch long, 3.5 inch diameter bolt. I've seen them on display but not seen any details. It's the biggest frangible nut I know of.
The attached document gives detailed design dimensions of the nut, plus some other info (pre-crossover implementation). It is made of Inconel 718 whose density is around 0.30 lbs/in3 (8.2 g/cm3). So in principle the mass of the nut could be calculated from the drawing!
Awesome thanks!
-
#3432
by
Torten
on 14 Jun, 2016 16:39
-
I wouldn't be suprised to find out that this question has been asked in the past, but as this website doesn't seem to have a search function, I shall ask it here.
STS-107 seems to have flown about 1.5 years later than STS-108. While shuttle launches would often have completely out of synch numbers, that was because the numbers were allocated when the missions were funded? So what happened for the mission to take so long between funding and launch? I would also guess that STS-107 was the last non station/hubble launch planned?
-
#3433
by
rtphokie
on 14 Jun, 2016 16:56
-
I wouldn't be suprised to find out that this question has been asked in the past, but as this website doesn't seem to have a search function, I shall ask it here.
STS-107 seems to have flown about 1.5 years later than STS-108. While shuttle launches would often have completely out of synch numbers, that was because the numbers were allocated when the missions were funded? So what happened for the mission to take so long between funding and launch? I would also guess that STS-107 was the last non station/hubble launch planned?
numbering was as manifested, not as flown. Missions flew out of sequence sometimes according to payload needs/constraints.
-
#3434
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 16 Jun, 2016 16:46
-
I wouldn't be suprised to find out that this question has been asked in the past, but as this website doesn't seem to have a search function, I shall ask it here.
STS-107 seems to have flown about 1.5 years later than STS-108. While shuttle launches would often have completely out of synch numbers, that was because the numbers were allocated when the missions were funded? So what happened for the mission to take so long between funding and launch? I would also guess that STS-107 was the last non station/hubble launch planned?
I wouldn't be suprised to find out that this question has been asked in the past, but as this website doesn't seem to have a search function, I shall ask it here.
STS-107 seems to have flown about 1.5 years later than STS-108. While shuttle launches would often have completely out of synch numbers, that was because the numbers were allocated when the missions were funded? So what happened for the mission to take so long between funding and launch? I would also guess that STS-107 was the last non station/hubble launch planned?
numbering was as manifested, not as flown. Missions flew out of sequence sometimes according to payload needs/constraints.
Exactly. Mission numbers represented the manifest order -- which changed greatly sometimes with flown order. STS-107 was not a high priority mission given the ISS assembly schedule. When schedule slips happened, STS-107 got pushed.
Also, we does have a "search function." On the top navigation bar (see attached screencap for reference).
-
#3435
by
Becker67
on 29 Jun, 2016 19:38
-
1. I was reading STS-115 Orbit Operations checklist and on page 12-89 is DEORBIT Manager Initialization . I see from the checklist it's a software application which I imagine is run on a laptop. I was wondering if the software is the same or the parent to this?
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/techtransfer/technology/MSC-24639-1-tsa-dops.html#.V3QgpvkrJqM2. I know mission control sorts out the data for deorbit but would the crew use this software routinely or was it simply a back-up?
3. Lastly if there is any other information/screenshots of this software, other than what is on the checklist, could anyone point me in the right direction?
-
#3436
by
alk3997
on 29 Jun, 2016 19:58
-
1. I was reading STS-115 Orbit Operations checklist and on page 12-89 is DEORBIT Manager Initialization . I see from the checklist it's a software application which I imagine is run on a laptop. I was wondering if the software is the same or the parent to this? https://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/techtransfer/technology/MSC-24639-1-tsa-dops.html#.V3QgpvkrJqM
2. I know mission control sorts out the data for deorbit but would the crew use this software routinely or was it simply a back-up?
3. Lastly if there is any other information/screenshots of this software, other than what is on the checklist, could anyone point me in the right direction?
MCC was prime for deorbit calculations. The results were the burn targets which were uplinked to the flight computers directly. The crew then read-back the parameters to the ground to verify the uplink.
In the event of a loss of comm or an emergency the deorbit manager could be used. The crew would have to type the parameters into the GPCs from deorbit manager screen (the PGSC laptops).
Andy
-
#3437
by
TJL
on 02 Jul, 2016 13:02
-
Not sure where I can find this information, so I'll post it for the "experts" here...during the time that MIR was permanently manned by U.S. astronauts (from STS-76 through STS-91) there were 9 other shuttle flights that flew independent missions.
Did each of those (independent) flights (albeit briefly) communicate with the U.S. MIR crew member?
Thank you.
-
#3438
by
Jim
on 02 Jul, 2016 13:37
-
Not sure where I can find this information, so I'll post it for the "experts" here...during the time that MIR was permanently manned by U.S. astronauts (from STS-76 through STS-91) there were 9 other shuttle flights that flew independent missions.
Did each of those (independent) flights (albeit briefly) communicate with the U.S. MIR crew member?
Thank you.
not each one.
-
#3439
by
TJL
on 03 Jul, 2016 14:51
-
Not sure where I can find this information, so I'll post it for the "experts" here...during the time that MIR was permanently manned by U.S. astronauts (from STS-76 through STS-91) there were 9 other shuttle flights that flew independent missions.
Did each of those (independent) flights (albeit briefly) communicate with the U.S. MIR crew member?
Thank you.
not each one.
As always, thanks, Jim...are there links available for those flights that did communicate?
Tom
. Thanks for the correction Dave.