-
#720
by
Oberon_Command
on 13 Oct, 2009 18:43
-
Apologies in advance if this has been asked already (in which case the forum search function has failed me), but can anyone tell us why 51-L used white instead of black rings on the upper SRB segments?
-
#721
by
Sesquipedalian
on 17 Oct, 2009 04:32
-
Following the
Wikipedia ET page to
this Lockheed Martin page I found this quote:
50 – approximate percent of the 15,000-pound shuttle performance increase necessary to fly to the International Space Station that is provided by the Super Lightweight Tank
What provides the other 50%?
-
#722
by
spaceshuttle
on 17 Oct, 2009 06:05
-
What causes the tyvek (previously AFRSI) covers to blow off of the aft RCS thrusters once the SSMEs ignite?
Also...
Following the Wikipedia ET page to this Lockheed Martin page I found this quote:
50 – approximate percent of the 15,000-pound shuttle performance increase necessary to fly to the International Space Station that is provided by the Super Lightweight Tank
What provides the other 50%?
I'd like to know this also.
-
#723
by
psloss
on 17 Oct, 2009 11:03
-
What causes the tyvek (previously AFRSI) covers to blow off of the aft RCS thrusters once the SSMEs ignite?
The covers have always been paper, never "tiles" -- they burn.
-
#724
by
Danny Dot
on 17 Oct, 2009 11:22
-
Following the Wikipedia ET page to this Lockheed Martin page I found this quote:
50 – approximate percent of the 15,000-pound shuttle performance increase necessary to fly to the International Space Station that is provided by the Super Lightweight Tank
What provides the other 50%?
I think it is simply the amount carried up is reduced. I recall going to the Russian's orbit caused a lot of mission redesign for this reason.
Danny Deger
-
#725
by
DaveS
on 17 Oct, 2009 11:22
-
What causes the tyvek (previously AFRSI) covers to blow off of the aft RCS thrusters once the SSMEs ignite?
The covers have always been paper, never "tiles" -- they burn.
Besides, AFRSI is a thermal blanket material, not a tile material.
-
#726
by
Danny Dot
on 17 Oct, 2009 11:23
-
What causes the tyvek (previously AFRSI) covers to blow off of the aft RCS thrusters once the SSMEs ignite?
The covers have always been paper, never "tiles" -- they burn.
I have heard the acoustics from SRB ignition take them off.
Danny Deger
-
#727
by
psloss
on 17 Oct, 2009 11:45
-
What causes the tyvek (previously AFRSI) covers to blow off of the aft RCS thrusters once the SSMEs ignite?
The covers have always been paper, never "tiles" -- they burn.
I have heard the acoustics from SRB ignition take them off.
Danny Deger
They come off (mostly) when the main engines start on the pad before booster ignition.
-
#728
by
Danny Dot
on 17 Oct, 2009 22:14
-
What causes the tyvek (previously AFRSI) covers to blow off of the aft RCS thrusters once the SSMEs ignite?
The covers have always been paper, never "tiles" -- they burn.
I have heard the acoustics from SRB ignition take them off.
Danny Deger
They come off (mostly) when the main engines start on the pad before booster ignition.
How about the ones on the forward pod? Do they survive the main engines starting?
Danny Deger
-
#729
by
psloss
on 17 Oct, 2009 22:49
-
They come off (mostly) when the main engines start on the pad before booster ignition.
How about the ones on the forward pod? Do they survive the main engines starting?
Yes. The ones on the forward RCS were changed after STS-107 to get them to release early (and more completely) in first stage before they can become a debris risk.
For examples of what happens to the aft butcher paper covers, reference footage of most engine starts on the pad -- with a good view of the area and when the butcher paper was installed. (Doesn't look like they were put on for some of the FRFs.)
For an example of what happens to the FRCS paper covers, reference the ET camera video footage from STS-112.
-
#730
by
Jorge
on 18 Oct, 2009 02:38
-
Following the Wikipedia ET page to this Lockheed Martin page I found this quote:
50 – approximate percent of the 15,000-pound shuttle performance increase necessary to fly to the International Space Station that is provided by the Super Lightweight Tank
What provides the other 50%?
Most of it was provided by various shuttle flight software upgrades implemented in OI-26, 26B, and 27 in the late 1990s. OMS assist provides up to ~400 lbm performance increase, for example. There were a lot of little upgrades and they all provided a little performance, which added up.
-
#731
by
kraisee
on 24 Oct, 2009 21:18
-
Can anyone describe (or point me to an existing description) of the process involved in ET foam removal and replacement?
I can only imagine that it is a fairly complex process, especially removing all traces of the previous foam from the underlying materials before applying the new layers, but I'm really curious whether the stripping and preparing is done by mechanical or chemical means -- or a combination of the two?
TIA,
Ross.
-
#732
by
mmeijeri
on 25 Oct, 2009 22:58
-
In the unlikely event that the Shuttle lost both OMS thrusters could the Shuttle reenter simply by letting its orbit decay? I imagine this depends very strongly on its altitude and orientation. How soon would the Shuttle's orbit decay if it presented the maximum possible area normal to its velocity vector? Could it survive such a reentry, provided it reoriented itself in time? Could it keep the crew alive for long enough to do this?
-
#733
by
Jim
on 25 Oct, 2009 23:18
-
In the unlikely event that the Shuttle lost both OMS thrusters could the Shuttle reenter simply by letting its orbit decay? I imagine this depends very strongly on its altitude and orientation. How soon would the Shuttle's orbit decay if it presented the maximum possible area normal to its velocity vector? Could it survive such a reentry, provided it reoriented itself in time? Could it keep the crew alive for long enough to do this?
No but it could use its RCS thrusters
-
#734
by
DaveS
on 25 Oct, 2009 23:26
-
In the unlikely event that the Shuttle lost both OMS thrusters could the Shuttle reenter simply by letting its orbit decay? I imagine this depends very strongly on its altitude and orientation. How soon would the Shuttle's orbit decay if it presented the maximum possible area normal to its velocity vector? Could it survive such a reentry, provided it reoriented itself in time? Could it keep the crew alive for long enough to do this?
No but it could use its RCS thrusters
Yep. The +X RCS jets.
-
#735
by
mkirk
on 26 Oct, 2009 00:38
-
In the unlikely event that the Shuttle lost both OMS thrusters could the Shuttle reenter simply by letting its orbit decay? I imagine this depends very strongly on its altitude and orientation. How soon would the Shuttle's orbit decay if it presented the maximum possible area normal to its velocity vector? Could it survive such a reentry, provided it reoriented itself in time? Could it keep the crew alive for long enough to do this?
No but it could use its RCS thrusters
Yep. The +X RCS jets.
Doesn't have to be just the +X jets, fast flip and prebank can also contribute to getting the needed delta V. This topic has been covered a lot here so a search might find you some more detailed answers.
Mark Kirkman
-
#736
by
mmeijeri
on 26 Oct, 2009 01:02
-
No but it could use its RCS thrusters
Where would things go wrong if you tried the orbital decay route? Not trying to say it would be a good idea, just trying to understand.
-
#737
by
Jorge
on 26 Oct, 2009 03:06
-
No but it could use its RCS thrusters
Where would things go wrong if you tried the orbital decay route? Not trying to say it would be a good idea, just trying to understand.
Decay lifetime >> crew lifetime. Sometimes >>>
Simple as that.
-
#738
by
Jim
on 26 Oct, 2009 12:23
-
No but it could use its RCS thrusters
Where would things go wrong if you tried the orbital decay route? Not trying to say it would be a good idea, just trying to understand.
wrong entry angle. Too shallow
-
#739
by
mmeijeri
on 26 Oct, 2009 12:25
-
wrong entry angle. Too shallow
What happens if you enter at too shallow an angle? Do you then descend too fast and burn up? I remember from playing with Orbiter that counterintuitively, if you are descending too fast you have to dive.