-
#780
by
Jones36
on 18 Nov, 2009 14:19
-
I noticed that on my tracker I follow on Google. Thanks for the info Danny!
-
#781
by
elmarko
on 18 Nov, 2009 14:31
-
Thanks Danny!
-
#782
by
Aeroman
on 18 Nov, 2009 19:39
-
I have a question about Shuttle docking with the ISS.
In a number of movies with the shuttle in them (mainly James Bond 007, Moonraker) it shows the shuttle docking using the side hatch. Why isn't that used? Is it becuase of the docking configuration of the docking ports?
-
#783
by
rdale
on 18 Nov, 2009 19:42
-
The side hatch isn't a docking hatch.
-
#784
by
MKremer
on 18 Nov, 2009 23:08
-
I have a question about Shuttle docking with the ISS.
In a number of movies with the shuttle in them (mainly James Bond 007, Moonraker) it shows the shuttle docking using the side hatch. Why isn't that used? Is it becuase of the docking configuration of the docking ports?
'Cause Hollywood is usually stupid when it comes to spaceflight and actual space hardware. (Talking about the non-fantasy/sci-fi kind; in those almost anything is considered probable.)
There's very few that actually pay attention to facts and reality for a script, to sets, to special effects and CGI, to end up with realistic images and activities in the final film. (There's too many producers and directors of mainstream films that seem to consider reality too boring for enough action and drama to keep an audience interested. You want reality? Film a documentary.)
-
#785
by
elmarko
on 19 Nov, 2009 08:50
-
Realism is not always entertaining, you have to allow for a certain amount of artistic licence or you get something boring.
Edit: Don't get me wrong, I love things to be accurate but sometimes it's not appropriate or doesn't work.
-
#786
by
elmarko
on 21 Nov, 2009 11:55
-
Odd question, this, but here goes.
Why are the engines started 6 and a bit seconds before SRB ignition. Obviously, you have to:
1) Give them time to start one at a time
2) Give them time to ramp up to full thrust
But does this take all that time? Or is this time the time it takes for the GLS to go through all the right parameters before ignition? It seems like it's wasting fuel taking that long. Is there any way the sequence could be shortened, to provide extra upmass at all? Or is this just a limitation of the system how it is now?
Hypothetical, really, I'd be interested in any comments about it.
-
#787
by
psloss
on 21 Nov, 2009 11:56
-
Odd question, this, but here goes.
Why are the engines started 6 and a bit seconds before SRB ignition.
The twang effect.
-
#788
by
MKremer
on 21 Nov, 2009 12:08
-
Odd question, this, but here goes.
Why are the engines started 6 and a bit seconds before SRB ignition.
The twang effect.
More staggered ignition plus ramp up to full throttle with checks, including twang.
-
#789
by
Jim
on 21 Nov, 2009 13:00
-
3 seconds for start up and 3 seconds for the twang to come back to the starting point.
-
#790
by
elmarko
on 21 Nov, 2009 13:24
-
Wow, as simple as that. Thanks!
-
#791
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 21 Nov, 2009 20:30
-
(Sorry, doing this as bottom post)
Plus it depends on your definition of "attempt"
attempt: /əˈtɛmpt/,
Noun
The action of trying at something.
I think what Rob is getting at is, for example, was there an "attempt" to launch STS-51E? And was that counted in the AP story?
Very true. At what point do you consider an attempt made? Obviously, in order to launch you have to fill the ET. So does the official attempt only begin when propellants start flowing into the ET? Does the attempt start when the Countdown begins? Does the attempt start once the SOMD FRR sets the official target launch date? Does the attempt start when the Shuttle vehicle reaches the pad? What is NASA official definition of an "attempt?"
-
#792
by
elmarko
on 21 Nov, 2009 20:48
-
I reckon that whenever you enter S0007, that's an attempt. You've got that far, you've started the terminal count, but something stopped it part-way through.
-
#793
by
Jim
on 21 Nov, 2009 22:31
-
When the FRR sets a date.
-
#794
by
gordon
on 22 Nov, 2009 19:42
-
Guys, I have a question,
I went to the STS-129 Atlantis launch and weather permitting I want to go back to KSC for it's landing. I have been doing some research on landings and trying to understand the ground tracks to KSC when coming back from ISS. I looked at STS 118, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124 and 127 and they all follow a similar pattern. Generally, the approach is from the South on the first orbit try and then it shifts a little to the West for the next orbit. Same pattern if landing 15 or 33.
But STS-120 landing on 33 is WAY different. It approached form the Northwest!
Does anyone know why that was.
Thanks
-
#795
by
kneecaps
on 22 Nov, 2009 22:48
-
Guys, I have a question,
I went to the STS-129 Atlantis launch and weather permitting I want to go back to KSC for it's landing. I have been doing some research on landings and trying to understand the ground tracks to KSC when coming back from ISS. I looked at STS 118, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124 and 127 and they all follow a similar pattern. Generally, the approach is from the South on the first orbit try and then it shifts a little to the West for the next orbit. Same pattern if landing 15 or 33.
But STS-120 landing on 33 is WAY different. It approached form the Northwest!
Does anyone know why that was.
Thanks
The missions you mention, STS-120 entered on the descending node of the orbit, the others on the ascending node.
I believe that that descending node entries are only available during certain times of the year due to noctilucent clouds at high latitudes.
The longitude of nodes of the orbit (where the ground track passes relative to the surface of the) regresses so the option is always open to enter on an ascending or descending node. However various operational reasons (eg the above mentioned clouds).
Hope this is clear enough. I'm sure others can add some more info too.
Pete
-
#796
by
gordon
on 22 Nov, 2009 23:26
-
Pete,
Thank you very much for your quick response. You are absolutely correct and with your information I did some quick additional research and realized that NASA also doesn't like to use the descending node entry because the ground track is over so much land. That became a concern after the Coumbia accident. I remember the discussion about that now. Thanks again.
I am hoping that they decide to land Atlantis on Friday. I can go to KSC on that day and right now the weather looks promising.
-
#797
by
Antares
on 23 Nov, 2009 16:28
-
Has a wind shear for the ascent trajectory ever delayed a Shuttle launch? No need to address RTLS aspects of this question or 51L.
-
#798
by
psloss
on 23 Nov, 2009 19:00
-
Has a wind shear for the ascent trajectory ever delayed a Shuttle launch? No need to address RTLS aspects of this question or 51L.
There were a few launches in the 80s that were delayed due to upper level winds, though not sure if shear was a specific problem for all of them...for example, 51-A:
http://web.archive.org/web/19990922122353/http://members.aol.com/WSNTWOYOU/STS14MR.HTMThe STS 51-A mission was scheduled for launch on November 7, 1984, but the launch was scrubbed during the planned hold at T-20 minutes because the data indicated that the predicted winds-aloft would apply shear loads in excess of the design limits of the vehicle.
-
#799
by
Danny Dot
on 23 Nov, 2009 19:01
-
Has a wind shear for the ascent trajectory ever delayed a Shuttle launch? No need to address RTLS aspects of this question or 51L.
I think NASA used to scrub "all the time" before the first stage flight profile data could be uplinked to the shuttle while it was sitting on the pad (DOLILU).
What happens today is a balloon is launched, the flight profile data is calculated in the Mission Control Center, then uplinked to the shuttle. With this capability, I don't think a mission has had to scrub for upper atmospheric winds.
Danny Deger