-
#660
by
kneecaps
on 23 Sep, 2009 22:13
-
Appears at liftoff, according to Ascent Guidance workbook. I imagine as guidance converges the prediction changes.
So thats the question really...it appears at liftoff, but does it display XX:XX...crazy values, too high values, too low values...and then once into MM103 settles down into a good value?
I imagine it has some sort of I-loaded value at liftoff, and then it doesn't change during 1st stage (because it's open loop, so there's no inputs from the system), and then during the cycles of convergence they change.
Whether that means going lower or higher would depend on the initial value, obviously.
Any insight from Jorge/Mkirk?
Guidance doesn't compute TMECO until MM103.
Okay, that much is clear. Is the TMECO field present before MM103 just with null data (like XX:XX instead of figures) or does it 'appear' once MM103 begins?
-
#661
by
mkirk
on 23 Sep, 2009 22:17
-
Appears at liftoff, according to Ascent Guidance workbook. I imagine as guidance converges the prediction changes.
So thats the question really...it appears at liftoff, but does it display XX:XX...crazy values, too high values, too low values...and then once into MM103 settles down into a good value?
I imagine it has some sort of I-loaded value at liftoff, and then it doesn't change during 1st stage (because it's open loop, so there's no inputs from the system), and then during the cycles of convergence they change.
Whether that means going lower or higher would depend on the initial value, obviously.
Any insight from Jorge/Mkirk?
Guidance doesn't compute TMECO until MM103.
Mach 25 is right!
TMECO is not even shown on the PASS or BFS ASCENT TRAJ 1 Displays (first stage, OPS 102). It appears on PASS & BFS ASCENT TRAJ 2 (second stage OPS 103) during staging. The crew will check that both the PASS and BFS independently come up with stable estimates for MECO within ~ 10 seconds of staging (guidance convergence). Both of the PASS & BFS predictions should closely agree with each other. The time will be displayed as something like 08:32.
Mark Kirkman
-
#662
by
kneecaps
on 23 Sep, 2009 22:29
-
Mach 25 is right!
TMECO is not even shown on the PASS or BFS ASCENT TRAJ 1 Displays (first stage, OPS 102). It appears on PASS & BFS ASCENT TRAJ 2 (second stage OPS 103) during staging. The crew will check that both the PASS and BFS independently come up with stable estimates for MECO within ~ 10 seconds of staging (guidance convergence). Both of the PASS & BFS predictions should closely agree with each other. The time will be displayed as something like 08:32.
Mark Kirkman
Thanks..thats narrowed it down. So although the TRAJ display layout is basically the same there is essentially a TRAJ display for MM101,102 and 103. TMECO is not present until MM103 when it appears on the display, and (hopefully!) rapidly converges to a sensible TMECO.
Of course the BFS has two vastly different TRAJ displays (1 & 2)...and TRAJ 1 doesn't have TMECO and TRAJ 2 does.
There is no way to determine whats on the different PASS TRAJ displays and when from the DPS dictionary.
I've always thought TRAJ 1 and TRAJ 2 on the BFS seem to provide a clearer look at the ascent situation than the single PASS TRAJ. The PASS TRAJ has a lot of 'screen real-estate' taken up with RTLS stuff. Presumably on a normal ascent the crew will watch the BFS TRAJ displays more than pass (or maybe they are all equally covered in the 'instrument scan').
-
#663
by
mkirk
on 23 Sep, 2009 23:03
-
Mach 25 is right!
TMECO is not even shown on the PASS or BFS ASCENT TRAJ 1 Displays (first stage, OPS 102). It appears on PASS & BFS ASCENT TRAJ 2 (second stage OPS 103) during staging. The crew will check that both the PASS and BFS independently come up with stable estimates for MECO within ~ 10 seconds of staging (guidance convergence). Both of the PASS & BFS predictions should closely agree with each other. The time will be displayed as something like 08:32.
Mark Kirkman
Thanks..thats narrowed it down. So although the TRAJ display layout is basically the same there is essentially a TRAJ display for MM101,102 and 103. TMECO is not present until MM103 when it appears on the display, and (hopefully!) rapidly converges to a sensible TMECO.
Of course the BFS has two vastly different TRAJ displays (1 & 2)...and TRAJ 1 doesn't have TMECO and TRAJ 2 does.
There is no way to determine whats on the different PASS TRAJ displays and when from the DPS dictionary.
I've always thought TRAJ 1 and TRAJ 2 on the BFS seem to provide a clearer look at the ascent situation than the single PASS TRAJ. The PASS TRAJ has a lot of 'screen real-estate' taken up with RTLS stuff. Presumably on a normal ascent the crew will watch the BFS TRAJ displays more than pass (or maybe they are all equally covered in the 'instrument scan').
Maybe this diagram from the GNC section of the SCOM will help you visualize the first and second stage shuttle trajectory displays better.
As for the second stage PASS TRAJ Display – it was originally intended for RTLS use, so it is true that the BFS does provide better fidelity for nominal second stage flight.
Mark Kirkman
-
#664
by
elmarko
on 24 Sep, 2009 08:41
-
Well ok, the Ascent Guidance workbook says that:
* (pages 6-18 and 6-20) ASCENT TRAJ 1 and 2 are available in the BFS only (1 comes up at MM102/SSME Ignition, 2 comes up at MM103/SRB SEP)
* (page 6-22) XXX ASCENT TRAJ is available in the PASS and that it comes up automatically at SSME start (does that mean it remains on a CRT throughout the entire ascent? And if so, kneecaps original question of what the TMECO field displays before MM103 still applies).
Hence, I'm a little confused.
It seems that certain documents conflict here. My brain hurts.
Thanks for your answers so far, though!
-
#665
by
elmarko
on 24 Sep, 2009 09:11
-
Although, re-reading, I guess it does change at MM103 to include the TMECO field that wasn't previously there during MM102. Is that right?
-
#666
by
NavySpaceFan
on 24 Sep, 2009 12:43
-
Okay, manifest question. A FAWG manifest dated April 21, 2005 had STS-119/ISS 15A delivering the S-6 truss prior to the launch of Node 2 and the international partner lab modules. We know that 119 was postponed until after those modules were delivered to the station in order to allow those labs to get up and running sooner. When was the manifest changed, and is there any memo, press release, or other documentation availalbe re this change?
-
#667
by
psloss
on 24 Sep, 2009 13:42
-
Okay, manifest question. A FAWG manifest dated April 21, 2005 had STS-119/ISS 15A delivering the S-6 truss prior to the launch of Node 2 and the international partner lab modules. We know that 119 was postponed until after those modules were delivered to the station in order to allow those labs to get up and running sooner. When was the manifest changed, and is there any memo, press release, or other documentation availalbe re this change?
Have you tried searching NSF? I found a story on the timing by just plugging "15A site:nasaspaceflight.com" into Google.
Actually, this probably ends up being at least as much an ISS question as a shuttle question...15A was in front of 10A in the assembly sequence going back to before STS-107.
Edit: actually, it also involves RTF and VSE and probably ESAS, too.
-
#668
by
mkirk
on 24 Sep, 2009 16:02
-
Well ok, the Ascent Guidance workbook says that:
* (pages 6-18 and 6-20) ASCENT TRAJ 1 and 2 are available in the BFS only (1 comes up at MM102/SSME Ignition, 2 comes up at MM103/SRB SEP)
* (page 6-22) XXX ASCENT TRAJ is available in the PASS and that it comes up automatically at SSME start (does that mean it remains on a CRT throughout the entire ascent? And if so, kneecaps original question of what the TMECO field displays before MM103 still applies).
Hence, I'm a little confused.
It seems that certain documents conflict here. My brain hurts.
Thanks for your answers so far, though!
I think part of the reason you might be getting confused is because the PASS TRAJ displays were recently modified (in OI-32, STS-120 I believe) – the picture I posted reflects my understanding of what the current displays look like for nominal ascent. Originally the BFS TRAJ 1 display was primary for first stage flight because the original PASS ASCENT TRAJ was really intended for use as an abort display and wasn’t much use for Nominal Ascent (particularly first stage). On the old PASS display the little triangle and predictors would stay all bunched up early in ascent because of the relative scaling so you relied on the BFS ASCENT TRAJ 1 predictors.
I am not very familiar with the current (new) displays – other than what I have read in training materials – and I have forgotten much of what I thought I knew about the older stuff. Jorge or someone else who actually works in Mission Ops now is better equipped to explain all this if I have confused you.
Mark Kirkman
-
#669
by
NavySpaceFan
on 24 Sep, 2009 19:02
-
Okay, manifest question. A FAWG manifest dated April 21, 2005 had STS-119/ISS 15A delivering the S-6 truss prior to the launch of Node 2 and the international partner lab modules. We know that 119 was postponed until after those modules were delivered to the station in order to allow those labs to get up and running sooner. When was the manifest changed, and is there any memo, press release, or other documentation availalbe re this change?
Have you tried searching NSF? I found a story on the timing by just plugging "15A site:nasaspaceflight.com" into Google.
Actually, this probably ends up being at least as much an ISS question as a shuttle question...15A was in front of 10A in the assembly sequence going back to before STS-107.
Edit: actually, it also involves RTF and VSE and probably ESAS, too.
Thanks Phil!!! I guess I was plugging the wrong phraseology into Google. So, based on the article I found, it looks like the decision was made in 2006 to move 119 to after 126.
-
#670
by
anik
on 24 Sep, 2009 19:51
-
Okay, manifest question. A FAWG manifest dated April 21, 2005 had STS-119/ISS 15A delivering the S-6 truss prior to the launch of Node 2 and the international partner lab modules. We know that 119 was postponed until after those modules were delivered to the station in order to allow those labs to get up and running sooner. When was the manifest changed, and is there any memo, press release, or other documentation available re this change?
According to FAWG Planning Manifests, STS-119 mission was postponed from "after STS-118" to "after STS-124" in February 2006.
-
#671
by
MKremer
on 24 Sep, 2009 21:26
-
This ought to be fairly well known but I cant seem to find any info anywhere:
How much do the expendables cost on the shuttle per launch, im talking about the cryo's, ET, srb propellant, tyres etc.
Come to think of it, is there a document covering these somewhere (a budget breakdown or such)?
The only costs I've encountered is the ET LOX/LH2 cryo costs per launch (~$230,000 or so), but have never read anywhere of a complete breakdown of all the costs of gasses/fluids/propellants/expendables used for a launch.
(ref for cryo costs:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=11374.msg233148#msg233148 )
-
#672
by
mdo
on 26 Sep, 2009 11:19
-
Has anyone kept a log of how much on-orbit time was spent waiting for a landing opportunity?
If not my guess is: 1000 orbits or 10.000 Astronaut hours.
That's assuming 1/3 day/mission for a crew of 7 throughout the Shuttle flight history.
Has anyone statistics or some educated guess to share?
-
#673
by
Aobrien
on 26 Sep, 2009 21:33
-
Why was MPLM Donatello never flight certified and what made Raffaello get chosen for PLM?
One more MPLM question. Why has Leonardo been flying so much recently rather than Raffaello?
Thanks
-
#674
by
The-Hammer
on 26 Sep, 2009 23:43
-
1) Why was MPLM Donatello never flight certified
2) and what made Raffaello get chosen for PLM?
3) One more MPLM question. Why has Leonardo been flying so much recently rather than Raffaello?
Thanks
Your third question is answered by your second question. They need time to refit the MMOD panels on Raffaello and do whatever else needs to be done to convert the MPLM into the PLM.
The answer to the first question is: $$$. By forgoing flight certification for Donatello, they save money that can then be spent elsewhere. Donatello was only going to have one flight anyway (was going to be 128 I believe).
-
#675
by
anik
on 27 Sep, 2009 10:40
-
what made Raffaello get chosen for PLM?
It appears that PLM will be Leonardo, not Raffaello.
http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum30/HTML/000371.html (September 4, 2009)
"According to ISS Program Manager Mike Suffredini just two days ago, the MPLM to be adapted as the PLM is Leonardo (currently on-orbit with STS-128), not Raffaello. Suffredini did say the plan could change, but currently, Leonardo is it."
-
#676
by
psloss
on 27 Sep, 2009 12:37
-
what made Raffaello get chosen for PLM?
It appears that PLM will be Leonardo, not Raffaello.
http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum30/HTML/000371.html (September 4, 2009)
"According to ISS Program Manager Mike Suffredini just two days ago, the MPLM to be adapted as the PLM is Leonardo (currently on-orbit with STS-128), not Raffaello. Suffredini did say the plan could change, but currently, Leonardo is it."
Interesting post.
It was Suffredini that publicly identified Raffaello (FM-2) as the flight module to become the PLM earlier this year. (Edit: corrected by anik).
-
#677
by
arkaska
on 27 Sep, 2009 12:53
-
1) Why was MPLM Donatello never flight certified
2) and what made Raffaello get chosen for PLM?
3) One more MPLM question. Why has Leonardo been flying so much recently rather than Raffaello?
Thanks
Your third question is answered by your second question. They need time to refit the MMOD panels on Raffaello and do whatever else needs to be done to convert the MPLM into the PLM.
The answer to the first question is: $$$. By forgoing flight certification for Donatello, they save money that can then be spent elsewhere. Donatello was only going to have one flight anyway (was going to be 128 I believe).
Donatello was planned to be used to transport "active" payloads to and from orbit. A good example of this is the MELFI freezer, they have 3 freezers that originally was planned to rotated on orbit. Since the Colombia disaster changed that they didn't have the need for Donatellos extra capability to keep continuous power.
-
#678
by
anik
on 27 Sep, 2009 14:20
-
Interesting post. It was Suffredini that publicly identified Raffaello (FM-2) as the flight module to become the PLM earlier this year
I doubt it was Michael Suffredini. It was Daniel Hartman, manager of Integration and Operations in ISS Program.
http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum30/HTML/000371.html"Dan Hartman, NASA's manager for the integration and operations of the International Space Station, addressed this topic today (May 6) during a press conference: "The study is back on the table so we're looking at adding what we call a 'PLM', a permanent logistics module to the International Space Station. And I believe it is 'Unit 2' and I'm not quite sure what that one [MPLM] is specifically called"
-
#679
by
psloss
on 27 Sep, 2009 14:39
-
Interesting post. It was Suffredini that publicly identified Raffaello (FM-2) as the flight module to become the PLM earlier this year
I doubt it was Michael Suffredini. It was Daniel Hartman, manager of Integration and Operations in ISS Program.
http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum30/HTML/000371.html
"Dan Hartman, NASA's manager for the integration and operations of the International Space Station, addressed this topic today (May 6) during a press conference: "The study is back on the table so we're looking at adding what we call a 'PLM', a permanent logistics module to the International Space Station. And I believe it is 'Unit 2' and I'm not quite sure what that one [MPLM] is specifically called"
You're right -- my mistake.
