Author Topic: Shuttle Q&A Part 5  (Read 948331 times)

Offline wolfpack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 685
  • Wake Forest, NC
  • Liked: 98
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3500 on: 03/09/2018 03:20 PM »
Contingency abort planning only required local emergency crews to establish a minimum 2,500' perimeter around the vehicle and keep people away. There was no requirement to attempt to rescue the crew. Let them do their jobs and egress. If they can't, then it's over.

Contingency aborts were all pretty thin.

Offline Zero-G

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 192
  • Switzerland
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3501 on: 03/13/2018 03:50 PM »
What is a "sawtooth doubler"? This piece of equipment is mentioned in the book "Bringing Columbia Home", but the author gives only a rudimentary description (page 164):
This two-foot by two-foot plate -roughly in the shape of the orbiter itself- had been bonded underneath the orbiter and then covered with tiles.
What is its correct designation and its actual function and purpose? Where exactly was it mounted and what is its actual shape? Was this piece unique to Columbia or did every orbiter have it?
"I still don't understand who I am: the first human or the last dog in space." - Yuri Gagarin

Offline brickmack

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 343
  • USA
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3502 on: 03/14/2018 12:13 AM »
I've been looking through all the Shuttle manufacturing pictures I can find and can't find anything looking like this on any orbiter, though in fairness it is hard to find good shots of the underside before TPS application. A doubler is typically a repair patch though, basically a metal plate attached over a damaged section of a structure. A quick search turned up several Orbiter repairs of this type using that term, so it probably means the same here. Only thing I can guess was that the orbiter was damaged at some point prior. The terminology used ("had been bonded onto") kinda-sorta supports this.
« Last Edit: 03/14/2018 12:14 AM by brickmack »

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6180
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3503 on: 03/14/2018 12:50 AM »

What is the source and date of the manifest?  It isn't a NASA document.  It may be an error.

i received it from NASA as a kid. Among a load of "Information Summaries" brochures.

EDIT: on second thought, i might have gotten these two documents together with the STS press kits i requested before each flight from JSC (mail code AP-4).
As for the date, i must have been in '91 - i remember having them pinned on my wall and editing them as the years unfolded.

These look like manifests that were printed on the back cover of the JSC News Roundup from that period. I may still have some in my collection somewhere. Don't recall them being a standalone product, but JSC PAO works in mysterious ways.

STS-68 ended up getting the second flight of Space Radar Laboratory. I vaguely recall Inmarsat being on the manifest, but it must not have ever gotten within L-24 months, else someone from my group would have been assigned to design the deploy trajectory. (I worked IBSS deploy/retrieve on STS-39, and ORFEUS-SPAS deploy/retrieve on STS-51, re-manifested from STS-54.)