-
#3540
by
Fequalsma
on 07 Sep, 2018 22:05
-
Drawings in the SLWT System Definition Handbook Vol. 2 show that the FWD attachment point is 16.285 inches above the AFT attachment points. The FWD and AFT attachment points are 843.60 inches apart, so ARCTAN(16.285/843.60) = 1.106 degrees.
F=ma
I'm in a bit of discussion about whether or not the orbiter was at an slight angle when it was mated to the ET. Based on measurements of the separation planes (FWD and aft) it seems like the orbiter would have to be at an angle to be properly mated to both the FWD and aft points (EO-1 through EO-3).
-
#3541
by
wolfpack
on 08 Sep, 2018 01:49
-
Drawings in the SLWT System Definition Handbook Vol. 2 show that the FWD attachment point is 16.285 inches above the AFT attachment points. The FWD and AFT attachment points are 843.60 inches apart, so ARCTAN(16.285/843.60) = 1.106 degrees.
F=ma
For a dry tank or a fueled tank? The ET shrank something like a foot in the vertical direction when cryo-loaded. So that would rotate the forward bipod a bit.
-
#3542
by
Fequalsma
on 08 Sep, 2018 03:51
-
See Figure III-21. The FWD attachment moved axially by 5.5 inches when the tank was fueled, and the bipod rotated by ARCTAN(5.5/56.341) = 5.576 degrees. I cannot find any loaded dimensions for the AFT attachments. Either way, the 1.1 degree angle of the Orbiter relative to the ET did not change significantly for a loaded ET.
F=ma
Drawings in the SLWT System Definition Handbook Vol. 2 show that the FWD attachment point is 16.285 inches above the AFT attachment points. The FWD and AFT attachment points are 843.60 inches apart, so ARCTAN(16.285/843.60) = 1.106 degrees.
F=ma
For a dry tank or a fueled tank? The ET shrank something like a foot in the vertical direction when cryo-loaded. So that would rotate the forward bipod a bit.
-
#3543
by
DaveS
on 08 Sep, 2018 13:10
-
The meat of the question is now what if any AoA did the orbiter have when mated to the ET?
-
#3544
by
Fequalsma
on 08 Sep, 2018 14:07
-
-
#3545
by
DaveS
on 08 Sep, 2018 14:17
-
-
#3546
by
Fequalsma
on 08 Sep, 2018 14:23
-
-
#3547
by
DaveS
on 08 Sep, 2018 14:29
-
Did the orbiter have a pitch bias (positive or negative) when mated to the ET like it when it was mated to the OTS/SCA? When it was mated to either of those two, it was always pitched up by 3°s(6°s for the ALTs). That is what I am trying find out, if it had a positive or negative pitch angle (AKA Angle of Attack) when mated to the ET like it did for everything else it could be mated to.
-
#3548
by
Fequalsma
on 08 Sep, 2018 17:15
-
https://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints/modernplanes/modern-sa-st/56557/view/space_shuttle_boeing_747/Scaling from this drawing of the Orbiter/SCA, its FWD attachment is 4.5 feet above the AFT attachments, so the attachment point plane is inclined +3.4 degrees relative to the SCA reference plane (windows/body stripe), or 2.3 degrees higher than the Orbiter/ET stack (1.1 degrees). The Orbiter reference plane (Payload Bay Door sill) is inclined +1.8 degrees relative to the SCA waterline plane, or 1.8 degrees higher than on the Orbiter/ET stack (zero).
Since this drawing is not CAD or a known scale, these angles are probably not accurate, but if you average them, the Orbiter sits 2 degrees (3 versus 1) more nose-high on the SCA than on the ET. What AOA between the Orbiter and ET are you looking for? The angle of the wings relative to the ET? If so, then at the root? At the chine?
F=ma
Did the orbiter have a pitch bias (positive or negative) when mated to the ET like it when it was mated to the OTS/SCA? When it was mated to either of those two, it was always pitched up by 3°s(6°s for the ALTs). That is what I am trying find out, if it had a positive or negative pitch angle (AKA Angle of Attack) when mated to the ET like it did for everything else it could be mated to.
-
#3549
by
DaveS
on 08 Sep, 2018 17:22
-
https://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints/modernplanes/modern-sa-st/56557/view/space_shuttle_boeing_747/
Scaling from this drawing of the Orbiter/SCA, its FWD attachment is 4.5 feet above the AFT attachments, so the attachment point plane is inclined +3.4 degrees relative to the SCA reference plane (windows/body stripe), or 2.3 degrees higher than the Orbiter/ET stack (1.1 degrees). The Orbiter reference plane (Payload Bay Door sill) is inclined +1.8 degrees relative to the SCA waterline plane, or 1.8 degrees higher than on the Orbiter/ET stack (zero).
Since this drawing is not CAD or a known scale, these angles are probably not accurate, but if you average them, the Orbiter sits 2 degrees (3 versus 1) more nose-high on the SCA than on the ET. What AOA between the Orbiter and ET are you looking for? The angle of the wings relative to the ET? If so, then at the root? At the chine?
The orbiter X-axis which goes through the nose. I have attached a schematic of Discovery at a level attitude. Is that how the how the orbiter would sit on the ET or would it be at an angle relative to the X axis?
-
#3550
by
Fequalsma
on 08 Sep, 2018 17:50
-
My assessment is yes. The Orbiter X-axis in your image runs through the centerline of the Orbiter Payload Bay, and is parallel to the centerline of the ET, separated by 336.5 inches (see Reply #3546).
F=ma
https://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3o5.htmhttps://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints/modernplanes/modern-sa-st/56557/view/space_shuttle_boeing_747/
Scaling from this drawing of the Orbiter/SCA, its FWD attachment is 4.5 feet above the AFT attachments, so the attachment point plane is inclined +3.4 degrees relative to the SCA reference plane (windows/body stripe), or 2.3 degrees higher than the Orbiter/ET stack (1.1 degrees). The Orbiter reference plane (Payload Bay Door sill) is inclined +1.8 degrees relative to the SCA waterline plane, or 1.8 degrees higher than on the Orbiter/ET stack (zero).
Since this drawing is not CAD or a known scale, these angles are probably not accurate, but if you average them, the Orbiter sits 2 degrees (3 versus 1) more nose-high on the SCA than on the ET. What AOA between the Orbiter and ET are you looking for? The angle of the wings relative to the ET? If so, then at the root? At the chine?
The orbiter X-axis which goes through the nose. I have attached a schematic of Discovery at a level attitude. Is that how the how the orbiter would sit on the ET or would it be at an angle relative to the X axis?
-
#3551
by
DaveS
on 08 Sep, 2018 17:58
-
My assessment is yes. The Orbiter X-axis in your image runs through the centerline of the Orbiter Payload Bay, and is parallel to the centerline of the ET, separated by 336.5 inches (see Reply #3546).
F=ma
https://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3o5.htm
https://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints/modernplanes/modern-sa-st/56557/view/space_shuttle_boeing_747/
Scaling from this drawing of the Orbiter/SCA, its FWD attachment is 4.5 feet above the AFT attachments, so the attachment point plane is inclined +3.4 degrees relative to the SCA reference plane (windows/body stripe), or 2.3 degrees higher than the Orbiter/ET stack (1.1 degrees). The Orbiter reference plane (Payload Bay Door sill) is inclined +1.8 degrees relative to the SCA waterline plane, or 1.8 degrees higher than on the Orbiter/ET stack (zero).
Since this drawing is not CAD or a known scale, these angles are probably not accurate, but if you average them, the Orbiter sits 2 degrees (3 versus 1) more nose-high on the SCA than on the ET. What AOA between the Orbiter and ET are you looking for? The angle of the wings relative to the ET? If so, then at the root? At the chine?
The orbiter X-axis which goes through the nose. I have attached a schematic of Discovery at a level attitude. Is that how the how the orbiter would sit on the ET or would it be at an angle relative to the X axis?
So the difference in heights of the attachment points (FWD vs aft) doesn't make the orbiter X-axis have an angle?
-
#3552
by
Fequalsma
on 08 Sep, 2018 18:06
-
I'd bet you a krona that they designed it that way.
F=ma
My assessment is yes. The Orbiter X-axis in your image runs through the centerline of the Orbiter Payload Bay, and is parallel to the centerline of the ET, separated by 336.5 inches (see Reply #3546).
F=ma
https://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3o5.htm
https://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints/modernplanes/modern-sa-st/56557/view/space_shuttle_boeing_747/
Scaling from this drawing of the Orbiter/SCA, its FWD attachment is 4.5 feet above the AFT attachments, so the attachment point plane is inclined +3.4 degrees relative to the SCA reference plane (windows/body stripe), or 2.3 degrees higher than the Orbiter/ET stack (1.1 degrees). The Orbiter reference plane (Payload Bay Door sill) is inclined +1.8 degrees relative to the SCA waterline plane, or 1.8 degrees higher than on the Orbiter/ET stack (zero).
Since this drawing is not CAD or a known scale, these angles are probably not accurate, but if you average them, the Orbiter sits 2 degrees (3 versus 1) more nose-high on the SCA than on the ET. What AOA between the Orbiter and ET are you looking for? The angle of the wings relative to the ET? If so, then at the root? At the chine?
The orbiter X-axis which goes through the nose. I have attached a schematic of Discovery at a level attitude. Is that how the how the orbiter would sit on the ET or would it be at an angle relative to the X axis?
So the difference in heights of the attachment points (FWD vs aft) doesn't make the orbiter X-axis have an angle?
-
#3553
by
iskyfly
on 13 Sep, 2018 00:19
-
Thank you Wolfpack, Jim and Mark!
-
#3554
by
Hog
on 14 Sep, 2018 02:10
-
Did the orbiter have a pitch bias (positive or negative) when mated to the ET like it when it was mated to the OTS/SCA? When it was mated to either of those two, it was always pitched up by 3°s(6°s for the ALTs). That is what I am trying find out, if it had a positive or negative pitch angle (AKA Angle of Attack) when mated to the ET like it did for everything else it could be mated to.
I recall that the attachment angle used for actual transport flights was different than the angle used for the Approach and Landing Test. For ferry flights, the Orbiter was mounted at 3º
"The forward support assembly consisted of two 8’-6” long tubes, which allowed the
orbiter to be mounted at a three-degree angle-of-attack to reduce drag during ferry flights."
Note that these tubes were 13 feet long during the ALT program, giving the Orbiter(Enterprise) a higher Angle of Attack of 7º.
Attachments
#1 Copy of SCA Report
2) Pic Orbiter Vehicle ferry flight front attachment(8-1/2 feet long-3º)
3) OV Approach and Landing Test front attach (13' long 7º)
4) OV-101 Enterprise stacked atop 905 prior to ALT-14(Freefligh#4) test Oct 12, 1977-Test #4 with Joe Engle and Richard Truly
5) Great view of attach struts during ALT-14(free flight#4)
6) OV-101 Enterprise in ferry flight configuration with shorter 8-1/2 foot long attach struts 3 weeks later November 13, 1977
-
#3555
by
Archibald
on 29 Oct, 2018 17:20
-
Currently trying to wrap my mind around the orbiter weight breakdown.
First, did I got the basic numbers right
- Orbiter weight without the SSME and no payload: 151 000 pounds.
- With the SSME added: 171 000 pounds.
- Maximum landing weight: 240 000 pounds (does that includes a 60 000 pounds full payload bay ?)
Well, is there, somewhere, a detailed breakdown of those 151 000 pounds of empty weight ? The two OMS pods weight 30 000 pounds by themselves, TPs was also pretty heavy - 20 000 pounds. What else ?
-
#3556
by
Fequalsma
on 30 Oct, 2018 00:26
-
Archibald, check out the Orbiter weights starting on page D-81 of:
W. Heineman Jr..: “Design Mass Properties II: Mass Estimating and Forecasting for Aerospace Vehicles Based on Historical Data,” Report No. JSC-26098, NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, November 1994.
http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Space/JSC-26098_Design_Mass_Properties_II.pdfF=ma
Edit - I uploaded the report, because I can never find the darn thing...
-
#3557
by
DaveS
on 30 Oct, 2018 07:23
-
Does anyone know the Xo locations of the 16 PLBD C/L latches? I have the locations of latches 3 through 16 but I'm lacking the locations of the two forward-most latches.
-
#3558
by
Archibald
on 30 Oct, 2018 09:22
-
-
#3559
by
Jim
on 30 Oct, 2018 15:46
-
Currently trying to wrap my mind around the orbiter weight breakdown.
First, did I got the basic numbers right
- Orbiter weight without the SSME and no payload: 151 000 pounds.
- With the SSME added: 171 000 pounds.
- Maximum landing weight: 240 000 pounds (does that includes a 60 000 pounds full payload bay ?)
Well, is there, somewhere, a detailed breakdown of those 151 000 pounds of empty weight ? The two OMS pods weight 30 000 pounds by themselves, TPs was also pretty heavy - 20 000 pounds. What else ?
27klb of OMS/RCS propellants