-
#860
by
Ray125
on 27 Dec, 2009 19:11
-
I heard that Shuttle Columbia STS-107 had some delays in 2000, 2001, and 2002, what was the problems?
-
#861
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 27 Dec, 2009 19:15
-
I heard that Shuttle Columbia STS-107 had some delays in 2000, 2001, and 2002, what was the problems?
Many, many things -- cracks in fuel lines, suspect wiring that had to be inspected, simply finding the most optimal spot on the manifest for STS-107 so that it wouldn't interfere with the ongoing construction of the ISS and Columbia's STS-109 mission to the HST.
-
#862
by
Ray125
on 27 Dec, 2009 19:26
-
On the first space shuttle Columbia there was some problems like falling tiles which delay launch but i have heard that there some other delays. i don't know what were the other delays.
-
#863
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 27 Dec, 2009 19:37
-
On the first space shuttle Columbia there was some problems like falling tiles which delay launch but i have heard that there some other delays. i don't know what were the other delays.
Aside from the usual delays associated with integrating and launching a rocket for the first time, the only other major delay to STS-1 came from the scrubbed launch attempt on April 10.
Please refer to this list for the major launch delays.
http://www.cbsnews.com/network/news/space/launchland.htmlAlso, keep in mind that a lot of little things crop up that can push back a launch before NASA sets an official date. For example, the above links states that STS-123 launched "on time on first attempt." STS-123 on March 11, 2008 was originally set for February 14, 2008 but was pushed back to March 11 due to delays in the previous program flight. Yet, despite the fact that STS-123 launched one month after its target, we still consider the launch to have occurred "on time on the first attempt."
Also, this site has a "search" function located on the tool bar at the top of the page. There are 4 Question and Answer threads that will help you as well.
-
#864
by
smh
on 28 Dec, 2009 12:42
-
I read that the engines are throttled back to remain a 3G acceleration mostly for crew comfort. Would a higher slightly higher acceleration limit allow for a higher payload mass? If so, how much?
What is the structural limit of acceleration for a shuttle?
-
#865
by
Jim
on 28 Dec, 2009 13:12
-
I read that the engines are throttled back to remain a 3G acceleration mostly for crew comfort. Would a higher slightly higher acceleration limit allow for a higher payload mass? If so, how much?
What is the structural limit of acceleration for a shuttle?
3 g's for the structural limit.
-
#866
by
Aobrien
on 28 Dec, 2009 14:38
-
Why did Columbia never visit the ISS?
Was it just how it happened on the manifest?
Would she have been the orbiter picked to visit Hubble?
-
#867
by
DaveS
on 28 Dec, 2009 14:52
-
Why did Columbia never visit the ISS?
Was it just how it happened on the manifest?
Would she have been the orbiter picked to visit Hubble?
1: Mostly because of her higher empty mass.
2: See 1.
3: She did get to visit HST, in March 2002 on STS-109/HST SM3B. And she was scheduled for HST SM4.
-
#868
by
Jorge
on 28 Dec, 2009 18:23
-
Why did Columbia never visit the ISS?
Was it just how it happened on the manifest?
Would she have been the orbiter picked to visit Hubble?
1: Mostly because of her higher empty mass.
2: See 1.
3: She did get to visit HST, in March 2002 on STS-109/HST SM3B. And she was scheduled for HST SM4.
Columbia was scheduled to perform STS-118/ISS-13A.1 at the time of the accident. This mission was lighter than most other ISS assembly missions.
After the accident 118 was reassigned to another orbiter and the Spacehab module could be packed more heavily.
-
#869
by
Ray125
on 28 Dec, 2009 18:30
-
if columbia wasn't destoryed it would have flown to bring hubble back to earth for the STS-144 Mission.
-
#870
by
nathan.moeller
on 28 Dec, 2009 22:36
-
if columbia wasn't destoryed it would have flown to bring hubble back to earth for the STS-144 Mission.
I'm not sure STS-144 was ever officially instated as a flight that would return HST. I know it was proposed, but perhaps someone can confirm the status of this flight at the time of the STS-107 accident.
-
#871
by
Jorge
on 28 Dec, 2009 23:17
-
if columbia wasn't destoryed it would have flown to bring hubble back to earth for the STS-144 Mission.
I'm not sure STS-144 was ever officially instated as a flight that would return HST. I know it was proposed, but perhaps someone can confirm the status of this flight at the time of the STS-107 accident.
It was on the FAWG manifest for 1/29/03, launch date 11/19/09 (on L2). But it was definitely too far in the future to be baselined. Can't be said that it definitely would have happened had the 107 accident not occurred, but its presence on the FAWG means it was being planned.
-
#872
by
smh
on 29 Dec, 2009 19:51
-
I read that the engines are throttled back to remain a 3G acceleration mostly for crew comfort. Would a higher slightly higher acceleration limit allow for a higher payload mass? If so, how much?
What is the structural limit of acceleration for a shuttle?
3 g's for the structural limit.
Thanks. Many websites suggest it's just for crew comfort.
How much extra payload would a limit of 3.2 or 3.5 G have allowed?
-
#873
by
Jorge
on 29 Dec, 2009 19:55
-
I read that the engines are throttled back to remain a 3G acceleration mostly for crew comfort. Would a higher slightly higher acceleration limit allow for a higher payload mass? If so, how much?
What is the structural limit of acceleration for a shuttle?
3 g's for the structural limit.
Thanks. Many websites suggest it's just for crew comfort.
How much extra payload would a limit of 3.2 or 3.5 G have allowed?
Negative, once you account for the structural strengthening needed for the stack to withstand the higher g.
-
#874
by
ugordan
on 29 Dec, 2009 22:31
-
How much extra payload would a limit of 3.2 or 3.5 G have allowed?
Negative, once you account for the structural strengthening needed for the stack to withstand the higher g.
But neglecting structural limits and assuming the stack
can withstand it, what would the ballpark increase be? I imagine not much as the throttling comes near MECO anyway with low gravity losses.
-
#875
by
steve_slitheen
on 29 Dec, 2009 23:19
-
But neglecting structural limits and assuming the stack can withstand it, what would the ballpark increase be? I imagine not much as the throttling comes near MECO anyway with low gravity losses.
Yeah, surely the stack is designed to withstand much greater than the load it will actually achieve during a mission. Other engineered structures are designed to take multiples of the actual expected load before failure.
-
#876
by
Jim
on 30 Dec, 2009 00:07
-
Yeah, surely the stack is designed to withstand much greater than the load it will actually achieve during a mission. Other engineered structures are designed to take multiples of the actual expected load before failure.
not the same as civil engineering. Aerospace factors are 1.25/1.4 times max loads and 2.0 times max expected loads for untested structures.
Not every piece of structure has the same margins of safety.
-
#877
by
Jorge
on 30 Dec, 2009 01:23
-
But neglecting structural limits and assuming the stack can withstand it, what would the ballpark increase be? I imagine not much as the throttling comes near MECO anyway with low gravity losses.
Yeah, surely the stack is designed to withstand much greater than the load it will actually achieve during a mission.
Not that much greater. See Jim's post. You don't give up margin unless you need to. If the g load increases, the structural strength must be increased to maintain the same factor of safety.
Other engineered structures are designed to take multiples of the actual expected load before failure.
Other engineered structures have higher factors of safety because variance in material strength is much wider. They have to account for the concrete being mixed on-site by construction workers who may not speak English, for example.
-
#878
by
Antares
on 30 Dec, 2009 14:53
-
I read that the engines are throttled back to remain a 3G acceleration mostly for crew comfort. Would a higher slightly higher acceleration limit allow for a higher payload mass? If so, how much?
What is the structural limit of acceleration for a shuttle?
3 g's for the structural limit.
Thanks. Many websites suggest it's just for crew comfort.
Well, now that the STS is designed and built, it's really both. The original rationale for the 3G requirement was crew comfort, so that (plus appropriate FS) was what the structure was designed to. No point in designing to higher structural limit if another requirement is dictating lower.
-
#879
by
SiameseCat
on 02 Jan, 2010 18:59
-
What do the two triangles on the shuttle's HUD (see picture) represent? In the landing videos I've seen, they appear to be fixed at about 20 degrees glideslope; do the triangles indicate the ideal approach glideslope, or are they used for something else?