-
#3480
by
AJA
on 14 Nov, 2017 20:00
-
First post back in a long time... and that too when I realised that I already knew a place where someone would have an answer for the question I'd ask.
I was catching up on Wayne Hale's posts - and then scrolled down to see the post on the PAL Ramps.
Then it struck me.
Was the possibility of spraying the protective foam on the underside of the orbiter ever mooted? It could have been manually/automatically discarded once the shuttle achieved orbit (chucked into a decay orbit), or even once it was out of a bulk of the atmosphere (perhaps at altitudes where expendables shed the payload fairing) - on the way uphill, after ET Sep.
That'd have made the stack a little more immune to foam IMPACTS on the TPS?
(It might have exacerbated some other problem - like impacts to the SSME nozzles/boosters, or may have made the aerodynamics very very untenable?)
Can someone point me in the way of the material that did the analysis of this mitigation possibility?
-
#3481
by
DaveS
on 19 Nov, 2017 22:12
-
Any Shuttle Entry FDOs left around here? If so, what was generally the de-orbit burn targets like? I'm thinking of Hp and de-orbit burn to EI angles.
-
#3482
by
Fequalsma
on 04 Dec, 2017 00:43
-
-
#3483
by
brickmack
on 04 Dec, 2017 05:22
-
All I could find was the following in the STS-1 IFA List:
DISCUSSION: The forward RCS oxidizer aft Z strut failed in Euler buckling due to the lift-off dynamic response from the SRB overpressure. The forward and
aft Z axis tank struts on both the fuel and the oxidizer tanks were replaced with struts reinforced by plies of boron/epoxy. The rod end diameter of the fuel tank struts was
increased by 1/16 in. to be the same as the diameter of the oxidizer struts.
The base heat shield left and right struts were reinforced and replaced. All other large mass support systems were reassessed for positive margins. CONCLUSION: Z axis
accelerations exceeded design limits due to SRB overpressure which resulted in deformation of the forward RCS oxidizer tank aft Z strut. CORRECTIVE_ACTION:
Forward RCS struts were modified and replaced. Base heat shield left and right struts were reinforced and replaced. All large mass structures were analyzed and found to
have positive margins of safety. CAR ANALYSIS: Descriptions of damage, causes, and corrective actions are defined in the preceding. [not included in original problem
report] EFFECTS_ON_SUBSEQUENT_MISSIONS: None
Its listed as IFA STS-1-V-58, but google turned up nothing more interesting. No other information or pictures are in the final Mission Report either.
-
#3484
by
Fequalsma
on 04 Dec, 2017 12:10
-
Thanks, the Final Mission Report showed up in my search too. I should have called this a poorly-documented incident, rather than of a little-known one. For a major structural failure that could have resulted in LOC, there is a surprising lack of documentation on what the heck happened.
F=ma
-
#3485
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 30 Dec, 2017 10:24
-
Re-posting a question I have from the Shuttle-Centaur thread:
A theoretical question: What is the maximum payload the Shuttle with Centaur (both versions) could have pushed to a standard GTO (*) or to a trans-Mars trajectory?
(*) I know that most of such missions would had smaller satellites doing direct injection to geostationary, but just let's say that we have the satellite making the circulation burns here. 
Also what is the maximum size of the volume that can be allocated to the payload in the Shuttlr Orbiter cargo bay?
The figures I have seen are only for direct geostationary insertion missions, and they don't give out the payload volume that can be used (which looked rather small).
-
#3486
by
Jim
on 30 Dec, 2017 19:48
-
Re-posting a question I have from the Shuttle-Centaur thread:
A theoretical question: What is the maximum payload the Shuttle with Centaur (both versions) could have pushed to a standard GTO (*) or to a trans-Mars trajectory?
(*) I know that most of such missions would had smaller satellites doing direct injection to geostationary, but just let's say that we have the satellite making the circulation burns here.
Also what is the maximum size of the volume that can be allocated to the payload in the Shuttlr Orbiter cargo bay?
The figures I have seen are only for direct geostationary insertion missions, and they don't give out the payload volume that can be used (which looked rather small).
40 feet for G, 34 for G'
-
#3487
by
thomasafb
on 04 Jan, 2018 12:25
-
-
#3488
by
damnyankee36
on 04 Jan, 2018 19:13
-
Sorry to hijack your post, but I am surprised at the potential FOD this tech is wearing. Watch, bracelet, pen in pocket...
Maybe in this particular image this was a retired orbiter or otherwise not space-bound.
-
#3489
by
DaveS
on 04 Jan, 2018 19:25
-
Sorry to hijack your post, but I am surprised at the potential FOD this tech is wearing. Watch, bracelet, pen in pocket...
Maybe in this particular image this was a retired orbiter or otherwise not space-bound.
This photo was taken during Endeavour's T&R processing. Otherwise there would be a mandatory bunny suit requirement for when working inside the crew module and payload bay. This requirement was dropped once the T&R processing began as the orbiter wouldn't fly again, ever.
-
#3490
by
john57sharp
on 16 Jan, 2018 19:19
-
Good evening all, we have just watched the 2 Mission Control documentaries on YouTube and we wondered whether there were always film crews in Mission Control or where they there because there was a whiff of an issue, this relates particularly to the SLS-107 disaster, which seemed to have been covered by a number of cameras in amongst the controllers at a very critical time, or is it perhaps clever editing is existing footage to provide pictures for the r3corded audio?
I hope I’m mak8ngbsome sense?
Cheers
John
-
#3491
by
cebri
on 19 Feb, 2018 19:14
-
Hello, yet another question.
In my understanding, in the original design of SRB joints, Zinc Chromate was used to seal the joint so the fuel wouldn't reach the O-Rings in the first place. Yet, O-Ring erosion was present since the second flight. Did the Zinc Chromate Putty ever worked? Or this wasn't its function at all?
Thanks¡
-
#3492
by
Jim
on 19 Feb, 2018 20:21
-
Good evening all, we have just watched the 2 Mission Control documentaries on YouTube and we wondered whether there were always film crews in Mission Control or where they there because there was a whiff of an issue, this relates particularly to the SLS-107 disaster, which seemed to have been covered by a number of cameras in amongst the controllers at a very critical time, or is it perhaps clever editing is existing footage to provide pictures for the r3corded audio?
I hope I’m mak8ngbsome sense?
Cheers
John
There are always crews in there for major events.
-
#3493
by
IanThePineapple
on 19 Feb, 2018 21:40
-
Popping in here to ask a quick question: what happened/will happen to the Apollo/Shuttle MLPs? I know SLS had its own MLP built, but what happened or will happen to the original 3 Shuttle ones?
Thanks!
-Ian
-
#3494
by
brickmack
on 20 Feb, 2018 01:20
-
OrbitalATK has one of them for NGL, if that ever flies. The other 2 are still sitting around waiting for use, been a few studies by different companies but no firm plans
-
#3495
by
thomasafb
on 23 Feb, 2018 12:37
-
unpacking after moving house, i came accross two old Shuttle manifests. Going through them, i stumbled over an Inmarsat payload manifested for the 4th quarter of 1994.
A late 1991 version of the manifest, has the Inmarsat payload removed and the secondary objective (SFU-RETR) moved to 1995. There is an empty Atlantis for STS-68 manifested for August '94 so maybe that was supposed to be the Inmarsat flight.
Obviously, there was never an Inmarsat that was deployed by Shuttle but i have not yet heared about one of their payloads being switched from Shuttle to an ELV. Was it just an experiment carried aboard (although, it appears to be a primary payload in the manifest)? Can an anyone shed light on that? Thanks!
-
#3496
by
Jim
on 23 Feb, 2018 13:22
-
unpacking after moving house, i came accross two old Shuttle manifests. Going through them, i stumbled over an Inmarsat payload manifested for the 4th quarter of 1994.
A late 1991 version of the manifest, has the Inmarsat payload removed and the secondary objective (SFU-RETR) moved to 1995. There is an empty Atlantis for STS-68 manifested for August '94 so maybe that was supposed to be the Inmarsat flight.
Obviously, there was never an Inmarsat that was deployed by Shuttle but i have not yet heared about one of their payloads being switched from Shuttle to an ELV. Was it just an experiment carried aboard (although, it appears to be a primary payload in the manifest)? Can an anyone shed light on that? Thanks!
What is the source and date of the manifest? It isn't a NASA document. It may be an error.
-
#3497
by
thomasafb
on 23 Feb, 2018 16:13
-
What is the source and date of the manifest? It isn't a NASA document. It may be an error.
i received it from NASA as a kid. Among a load of "Information Summaries" brochures.
EDIT: on second thought, i might have gotten these two documents together with the STS press kits i requested before each flight from JSC (mail code AP-4).
As for the date, i must have been in '91 - i remember having them pinned on my wall and editing them as the years unfolded.
-
#3498
by
Hog
on 06 Mar, 2018 22:11
-
Below is a picture of OV-105
Endeavour on display at the California Science Center.
If I came across an Orbiter that had just ditched in a lake and was resting in a few feet of water, "assuming" a perfect water landing(I've seen the water landing testing in the wave pool)
The Yellow arrow with the word "RESCUE" in black letters appears to point at a small red dot.
1) What is the red dot?
2) Could I open the hatch from the outside?
3) Is there any way for a rescuer to access the Orbiter without tools?
-
#3499
by
brickmack
on 06 Mar, 2018 22:53
-
The red dot is a cover over the fitting for the "External Side Hatch Opening/Closing Device". It also is compatible with a 1/2" or 5/8" drive with a 12 inch extension. The cover is designed to be punched through by the tool.
There is no way to open the orbiter without tools without crew assistance (if the crew is able to actuate the hatch themselves though, or use the hatch/Window 8 jettison, then it can be done tool-free. But all those are only controllable from inside)
