-
#3740
by
DaveS
on 10 Nov, 2020 20:39
-
Thanks DaveS. But where is the part that is in the photos that I posted?
F=ma
What part? The only photos I see is the ones in the pdf file.
-
#3741
by
Fequalsma
on 10 Nov, 2020 21:27
-
Where is this dome in/on the TAA? I can't picture it...
F=ma
-
#3742
by
DaveS
on 10 Nov, 2020 22:06
-
That photo is of the interior of the TAA looking down the longitudinal axis. The hatchway for the EVA hatch is on the top and hatchway where the engineer is for the aft hatchway. So if you're moving to from orbiter to module, then it is just a straight shot. The TAA in the photo(s) is lacking the forward conical transition segment where it would interface with the orbiter airlock.
-
#3743
by
DaveS
on 10 Nov, 2020 22:35
-
This photo of the TAA being installed into the PLB of Endeavour for STS-89 shows the interior somewhat. The External Airlock with the ODS on it can be seen to the extreme right in the photo.
-
#3744
by
Fequalsma
on 10 Nov, 2020 22:45
-
Right, that makes sense now. The top opening in my photos didn't look like the EVA hatch, so I wasn't seeing it.
F=ma
-
#3745
by
DaveS
on 12 Nov, 2020 20:52
-
Anyone know the thickness of the midbody ring frames and if it varies? I mostly interested in the X
O582 ring frame.
-
#3746
by
psloss
on 12 Nov, 2020 20:55
-
This photo of the TAA being installed into the PLB of Endeavour for STS-89 shows the interior somewhat. The External Airlock with the ODS on it can be seen to the extreme right in the photo.
Another point of view I believe for one of those units; this is in between STS-83 and STS-94.
-
#3747
by
Hog
on 26 Feb, 2021 14:17
-
Does anyone have handy any pictures or diagram of what a Shuttle stack would look like with 5 segment boosters being used instead of the typical 4 segment boosters?
-
#3748
by
Fequalsma
on 26 Feb, 2021 16:07
-
-
#3749
by
Hog
on 26 Feb, 2021 16:46
-
Figure 23 in https://www.aiaa.org/docs/default-source/uploadedfiles/about-aiaa/history-and-heritage/shuttlevariationsfinalaiaa.pdf?sfvrsn=b8875e90_0
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20020023401/downloads/20020023401.pdf
F=ma
Does anyone have handy any pictures or diagram of what a Shuttle stack would look like with 5 segment boosters being used instead of the typical 4 segment boosters?
Wow, thank you very much! There's a couple gems there that I will need to study. 96"/8 feet=2.44m is the difference in height, to the tips of the SRBs and to the tip of the External Tank. That's is closer to the same elevation than I was guessing.
There was 616" 34-1/2 feet/10.57m difference in height between the 4 segment boosters and the Shuttle External Tank.
The ARES-V 5.5 segment SRBs would have extended beyond the External Tank. Yikes?
Also leads me to realize why the road from reusable to expendable for the SLS 5 segment SRB was an easy one. To retain reusability in the 5 segment configuration would have required a new parachute system. The parachute systems designed for the 4 segment RSRM(Redesigned Solid Rocket Motor) nor the FWC(Filament Wound Case) SRB for Polar launches out of Vandenberg would not suffice. Also launch cadence of 1 per year doesn't help the economics of reusability in this particular case.
Thanks again, I really appreciate it!
-
#3750
by
PahTo
on 26 Feb, 2021 16:58
-
Also leads me to realize why the road from reusable to expendable for the SLS 5 segment SRB was an easy one. To retain reusability in the 5 segment configuration would have required a new parachute system. The parachute systems designed for the 4 segment RSRM(Redesigned Solid Rocket Motor) nor the FWC(Filament Wound Case) SRB for Polar launches out of Vandenberg would not suffice. Also launch cadence of 1 per year doesn't help the economics of reusability in this particular case.
Thanks again, I really appreciate it!
Indeed, as evidenced by the parachute "failure" on the Ares 1 test flight, it demonstrated in real terms that much more robust 'chutes would be required, adding so much mass as to eat in to the performance gained by 5-seg boosters in the first place. I put failure in quotes due to the fact the 'chutes didn't fail so much as being asked to do way more than that for which they were designed. Even empty segments are incredibly heavy...
-
#3751
by
DaveS
on 18 Apr, 2021 23:09
-
Also leads me to realize why the road from reusable to expendable for the SLS 5 segment SRB was an easy one. To retain reusability in the 5 segment configuration would have required a new parachute system. The parachute systems designed for the 4 segment RSRM(Redesigned Solid Rocket Motor) nor the FWC(Filament Wound Case) SRB for Polar launches out of Vandenberg would not suffice. Also launch cadence of 1 per year doesn't help the economics of reusability in this particular case.
Thanks again, I really appreciate it!
Indeed, as evidenced by the parachute "failure" on the Ares 1 test flight, it demonstrated in real terms that much more robust 'chutes would be required, adding so much mass as to eat in to the performance gained by 5-seg boosters in the first place. I put failure in quotes due to the fact the 'chutes didn't fail so much as being asked to do way more than that for which they were designed. Even empty segments are incredibly heavy...
Only four segments had live propellant in them. The fifth segment was inert, a mass simulator for launch just like the upper stage and Orion/LAS. So what was launched was essentially a regular STS RSRM. So the chutes had to deal with the extra mass of not only the fifth segment but also its inert propellant that was still in the case. Only the lower four segments were empty at the time. I think the splashdown would have been successful if the fifth segment had been empty and not carrying a couple of hundreds of thousands pounds of inert propellant.
Ares-1X was an ascent experiment, not a full up demonstration of the entire first stage flight from launch to splashdown.
-
#3752
by
wolfpack
on 19 Apr, 2021 19:35
-
If the Shuttle landed SLF RWY33, how did it get turned around to head back to the VAB? Or were all the landings RWY15?
-
#3753
by
DaveS
on 19 Apr, 2021 20:00
-
If the Shuttle landed SLF RWY33, how did it get turned around to head back to the VAB? Or were all the landings RWY15?
They just turned around on the runway and headed down the runway.
-
#3754
by
iskyfly
on 27 May, 2021 23:49
-
Flight deck audio of ALT-5. Haise was quite angry at himself.
-
#3755
by
AS_501
on 27 May, 2021 23:59
-
That was the only shuttle landing where I thought they would lose control.
-
#3756
by
penguin44
on 28 May, 2021 05:04
-
Indeed. He wa# sounding like he wasn't already having a good day before sep!
-
#3757
by
rlandmann
on 12 Jun, 2021 05:17
-
In every photo I've seen of Enterprise, her overhead windows appear white. I'm wondering whether actual windows were ever fitted to these frames (and the photos show them with shades in place), or whether they were just blanked off?
-
#3758
by
iskyfly
on 16 Jun, 2021 02:14
-
-
#3759
by
kidpagorn
on 17 Jun, 2021 19:29
-
In Kathy Sullivan podcast recently, during her first mission, STS 41-G (Challenger), after MECO, the commander, Bob Crippen made a routine radio call to MCC. But, it turned out it not MCC who reply, but an RAF pilot somewhere in GB (Challenger was over GB at the moment). So, they needed to change radio frequency on the Shuttle very often? or they had a fixed radio frequency for entire duration?