-
#3500
by
wolfpack
on 09 Mar, 2018 15:20
-
Contingency abort planning only required local emergency crews to establish a minimum 2,500' perimeter around the vehicle and keep people away. There was no requirement to attempt to rescue the crew. Let them do their jobs and egress. If they can't, then it's over.
Contingency aborts were all pretty thin.
-
#3501
by
Zero-G
on 13 Mar, 2018 15:50
-
What is a "sawtooth doubler"? This piece of equipment is mentioned in the book "Bringing Columbia Home", but the author gives only a rudimentary description (page 164):
This two-foot by two-foot plate -roughly in the shape of the orbiter itself- had been bonded underneath the orbiter and then covered with tiles.
What is its correct designation and its actual function and purpose? Where exactly was it mounted and what is its actual shape? Was this piece unique to Columbia or did every orbiter have it?
-
#3502
by
brickmack
on 14 Mar, 2018 00:13
-
I've been looking through all the Shuttle manufacturing pictures I can find and can't find anything looking like this on any orbiter, though in fairness it is hard to find good shots of the underside before TPS application. A doubler is typically a repair patch though, basically a metal plate attached over a damaged section of a structure. A quick search turned up several Orbiter repairs of this type using that term, so it probably means the same here. Only thing I can guess was that the orbiter was damaged at some point prior. The terminology used ("had been bonded onto") kinda-sorta supports this.
-
#3503
by
Jorge
on 14 Mar, 2018 00:50
-
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.
These look like manifests that were printed on the back cover of the JSC News Roundup from that period. I may still have some in my collection somewhere. Don't recall them being a standalone product, but JSC PAO works in mysterious ways.
STS-68 ended up getting the second flight of Space Radar Laboratory. I vaguely recall Inmarsat being on the manifest, but it must not have ever gotten within L-24 months, else someone from my group would have been assigned to design the deploy trajectory. (I worked IBSS deploy/retrieve on STS-39, and ORFEUS-SPAS deploy/retrieve on STS-51, re-manifested from STS-54.)
-
#3504
by
wally
on 23 Mar, 2018 07:32
-
Can someone help me with the SSMEs serial numbers for STS-134 and STS-135? All I have is
this chart, but it's not updated for the last two missions. Thank you.
Also, as a follow-up question, why does some engines have two or three numbers? Like 2012 | 2107 or 2036 | 2045?
Edit: I've found the answer to my first question: 2059, 2061 and 2057 for STS-134 and 2047, 2060, 2045 for STS-135.
-
#3505
by
AnalogMan
on 23 Mar, 2018 10:59
-
Also, as a follow-up question, why does some engines have two or three numbers? Like 2012 | 2107 or 2036 | 2045?
SSMEs were given a new serial number whenever there was a major upgrade to a new Phase or Block.
For the examples you gave:
2012 / 2107 Phase I / Phase II
2036 / 2045 Block I / Blocks IIA & II
-
#3506
by
Hog
on 23 Mar, 2018 14:45
-
Can someone help me with the SSMEs serial numbers for STS-134 and STS-135? All I have is this chart, but it's not updated for the last two missions. Thank you.
Also, as a follow-up question, why does some engines have two or three numbers? Like 2012 | 2107 or 2036 | 2045?
Edit: I've found the answer to my first question: 2059, 2061 and 2057 for STS-134 and 2047, 2060, 2045 for STS-135.
Don't forget the 2010 build E-2062 and the 2014 build E-2063.
ME-2063 was first hotfired on October 19, 2017. 3 month build condensed into 2 minutes.
Both are scheduled to support SLS-2.
-
#3507
by
penguin44
on 24 Mar, 2018 04:52
-
One question that popped into my mind last night was, what was the payload weight penalty for having the obss installed? Was the ability to throttle to 104.5% able to claw some of the weight back?
-
#3508
by
penguin44
on 16 Apr, 2018 05:56
-
Wow, I expected someone would have an answer since you are all super fast! Usually it's answered as I hit post lol
-
#3509
by
MKremer
on 16 Apr, 2018 15:05
-
One question that popped into my mind last night was, what was the payload weight penalty for having the obss installed? Was the ability to throttle to 104.5% able to claw some of the weight back?
Found this reference:
"OBSS boom mass is listed as 536 lbs (243.1255 Kg) for STS-124 on "SPACE SHUTTLE MISSIONS SUMMARY" (NASA/TM–2011–216142)."
here:
https://sourceforge.net/p/shuttleultra/tickets/49/
-
#3510
by
AnalogMan
on 16 Apr, 2018 16:25
-
One question that popped into my mind last night was, what was the payload weight penalty for having the obss installed? Was the ability to throttle to 104.5% able to claw some of the weight back?
The OBSS flight kit (MV0092A) is listed as 842 lb in Shuttle Payload Integration Cargo Evaluation (SPICE) documents. These are available in L2 for STS-130 thru STS-133.
See also:
http://www.wiki-zero.com/index.php?q=aHR0cHM6Ly9lbi53aWtpcGVkaWEub3JnL3dpa2kvU1RTLTExOQwhich also gives this mass (this is for the whole system, not just the boom)
-
#3511
by
penguin44
on 17 Apr, 2018 05:34
-
Awesome information thanks!
-
#3512
by
capcomespace
on 19 Apr, 2018 17:00
-
I don't know if this question was in previous thread:
What is first mission STS tobe used the new RPSF at KSC for checkout the SRM motor ?
-
#3513
by
penguin44
on 20 Apr, 2018 06:08
-
My memory is a little wacky but I believe it was sts-26, but don't quote me on it.
-
#3514
by
capcomespace
on 22 Apr, 2018 05:05
-
Think you, SRM of STS 26 was checked in RPSF, It's sure. I thinked any mission before in 1985.
-
#3515
by
rayleighscatter
on 13 May, 2018 15:19
-
Shortly before launch there was always the step of clearing the caution/warning memory. Does this mean that during the pre-launch phase caution/warning messages were routine? And does anyone know what sorts of warnings would show up that needed to be cleared before launch?
-
#3516
by
HelixSpiral
on 15 May, 2018 19:40
-
Cabin pressure for one. It was tested every time. There may have been nuisance alarms, or even real alarms that were then resolved by the crew and/or LCC. The memory was cleared to remove any "is that a new fault or that one from before liftoff?" moments. I recall from some in-cabin videos crews noting that there was nothing to clear during that step (they still performed the step anyway).
-
#3517
by
Hog
on 26 Jun, 2018 18:54
-
Were there potential Shuttle crewmembers that refused to fly on proposed Shuttle-Centaur missions(Galileo, Ulysses, Magellan)?
-
#3518
by
penguin44
on 27 Jun, 2018 04:50
-
I don't think any of the astronauts would refuse an assignment. To do so, especially under George Abbey, would be career suicide.
-
#3519
by
Hog
on 28 Jun, 2018 11:51
-
I don't think any of the astronauts would refuse an assignment. To do so, especially under George Abbey, would be career suicide.
So long as it wasn't a Return To Launch Site trial for STS-1.