Author Topic: Shuttle Q&A Part 5  (Read 1052657 times)

Online DaveS

  • Shuttle program observer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8024
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 473
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3520 on: 07/05/2018 05:32 PM »
Anyone know the clocking of the holddown posts on the SRB Aft Skirt in relation to the Booster Z axis?
« Last Edit: 07/05/2018 06:00 PM by DaveS »
"For Sardines, space is no problem!"
-1996 Astronaut class slogan

"We're rolling in the wrong direction but for the right reasons"
-USA engineer about the rollback of Discovery prior to the STS-114 Return To Flight mission

Online brickmack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
  • USA
  • Liked: 192
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3521 on: 07/05/2018 05:45 PM »
With regards to the above, is the clocking the same for the SLS boosters?

(Working on an RSRM model right now)

Offline Fequalsma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 383
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3522 on: 07/06/2018 01:04 AM »
DaveS, is this what you're looking for?
F=ma

Offline zubenelgenubi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1729
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Commonwealth of Virginia
  • Liked: 443
  • Likes Given: 1368
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3523 on: 07/06/2018 02:38 AM »
Were there potential Shuttle crewmembers that refused to fly on proposed Shuttle-Centaur missions (Galileo, Ulysses, Magellan)?

Flights of the ĎDeath Starí
written by Chris Bergin October 26, 2005
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2005/10/flights-of-the-death-star/

Quote
In early January 1986, [STS-61F commander Fred] Hauck recalled, "we were working an issue to do with redundancy in the helium actuation system for the liquid oxygen [and] liquid hydrogen dump valves and it was clear that the [Shuttle management] was willing to compromise on the margins in the propulsive force being provided by the pressurised helium. We were very concerned about it."

(STS-61F was to launch Ulysses.)

Quote
"We had discussions about it with the technical people, but we went to a [review] board to argue why this was not a good idea to compromise on this feature. The board turned down the request. I went back to the crew office and said to my crew, in essence, 'NASA is doing business differently from the way it has in the past. Safety is being compromised and, if any of you want to take yourself off this flight, I will support you.'"

Two Shuttles, Two Launches, One PlanetÖand a Five-Day Goal
By Ben Evans, May 17, 2012
http://www.americaspace.com/2012/05/17/two-shuttles-two-launches-one-planetand-a-five-day-goal/

John Fabian was announced as a member of the STS-61G (Galileo launch) crew in May 1985, and resigned from the mission a few months later.  (He resigned from NASA, effective January 1, 1986.)

Quote
One of the reasons for Fabianís departure was his conviction that NASA prized commercial respectability above operational flight safety. He spent enough time with the 61G crew to see a technician clambering onto the Centaur with an untethered wrench in his back pocket and another smoothing out a weld, then accidentally scarring the boosterís thin skin with a tool. In Fabianís mind, it was bad enough that the Shuttle was carrying a volatile booster with limited redundancy, without adding new worries about poor quality control oversight and a lax attitude towards safety.

Considering his post-NASA career, according to his NASA bio, last updated in December 1993, Fabian proceeded to
Quote
become Director of Space, Deputy Chief of Staff, Plans and Operations, Headquarters USAF.

Colonel Fabian retired from the USAF in June 1987 and joined Analytic Services Inc (ANSER), a non-profit aerospace professional services firm in Arlington, Virginia, where he is now President and Chief Executive Officer.
https://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/fabian-jm.html
Support your local planetarium!

Offline IanThePineapple

Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3524 on: 07/10/2018 05:52 PM »
Which mobile launcher umbilical towers became the fixed service structures at 39A and 39B? I know ML-1's umbilical tower was scrapped, but I don't know which pads ML-2 and 3's umbilical towers went to.

Thanks for the help!

Online brickmack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
  • USA
  • Liked: 192
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3525 on: 07/11/2018 06:44 PM »
None? The fixed service structures have been there since the start of the Shuttle program, they're part of the pad not the MLPs

Online DaveS

  • Shuttle program observer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8024
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 473
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3526 on: 07/11/2018 07:06 PM »
None? The fixed service structures have been there since the start of the Shuttle program, they're part of the pad not the MLPs
The Fixed Service Structures were created by disassembling the old Saturn V LUTs and trucking them, segment-by-segment to the pads. Pad A's FSS was created from the LUT on ML-2 and the FSS on Pad B was the ML-1 LUT. ML-3's LUT went into the "LUT Bone Yard" in the KSC Industrial Area after it had been removed from ML-3 in order to convert ML-3 into MLP-3 for the shuttle program.

Only the Rotating Service Structures were new builds.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2018 07:06 PM by DaveS »
"For Sardines, space is no problem!"
-1996 Astronaut class slogan

"We're rolling in the wrong direction but for the right reasons"
-USA engineer about the rollback of Discovery prior to the STS-114 Return To Flight mission

Offline IanThePineapple

Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3527 on: 07/11/2018 07:52 PM »
None? The fixed service structures have been there since the start of the Shuttle program, they're part of the pad not the MLPs
The Fixed Service Structures were created by disassembling the old Saturn V LUTs and trucking them, segment-by-segment to the pads. Pad A's FSS was created from the LUT on ML-2 and the FSS on Pad B was the ML-1 LUT. ML-3's LUT went into the "LUT Bone Yard" in the KSC Industrial Area after it had been removed from ML-3 in order to convert ML-3 into MLP-3 for the shuttle program.

Only the Rotating Service Structures were new builds.

Wasn't ML-1 renamed MLP-3 since it was the last to be reconfigured for Shuttle? I thought I read ML-1 became MLP-3 and ML-3 became MLP-1, with ML-2 becoming MLP-2.

So, would it be:

ML-1 (MLP-3): LUT disassembled, scrapped in 2004
ML-2 (MLP-2): LUT became 39A FSS
ML-3 (MLP-1): LUT became 39B FSS

Is that right?
Thanks for the help!

Offline whitelancer64

Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3528 on: 07/12/2018 04:36 PM »
None? The fixed service structures have been there since the start of the Shuttle program, they're part of the pad not the MLPs
The Fixed Service Structures were created by disassembling the old Saturn V LUTs and trucking them, segment-by-segment to the pads. Pad A's FSS was created from the LUT on ML-2 and the FSS on Pad B was the ML-1 LUT. ML-3's LUT went into the "LUT Bone Yard" in the KSC Industrial Area after it had been removed from ML-3 in order to convert ML-3 into MLP-3 for the shuttle program.

Only the Rotating Service Structures were new builds.

Wasn't ML-1 renamed MLP-3 since it was the last to be reconfigured for Shuttle? I thought I read ML-1 became MLP-3 and ML-3 became MLP-1, with ML-2 becoming MLP-2.

So, would it be:

ML-1 (MLP-3): LUT disassembled, scrapped in 2004
ML-2 (MLP-2): LUT became 39A FSS
ML-3 (MLP-1): LUT became 39B FSS

Is that right?
Thanks for the help!

Yes, that is correct.

Shuttle MLP-1 was formerly Apollo ML-3, and Shuttle MLP-3 was Apollo ML-1. ML-1 was the last ML converted for the Shuttles because it was used for Skylab crew launches, and the ASTP. In fact, MLP-3 wasn't used for Shuttle launches until 1990.
« Last Edit: 07/12/2018 04:36 PM by whitelancer64 »
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Online DaveS

  • Shuttle program observer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8024
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 473
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3529 on: 08/04/2018 10:47 PM »
Anyone know the depth of the ET umbilical wells on the orbiter? I'm thinking of the full depth of them from the edges to the very top of the keel beams from which the ET Door Drive Mechanism (DDM) linkages protrude from.

Any schematics that show the various elements of the umbilical wells are appreciated!
"For Sardines, space is no problem!"
-1996 Astronaut class slogan

"We're rolling in the wrong direction but for the right reasons"
-USA engineer about the rollback of Discovery prior to the STS-114 Return To Flight mission

Offline iskyfly

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 123
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3530 on: 08/09/2018 05:36 PM »



In this 17 second clip of what appears to be a pre launch Q&A of STS-1 John Young says in response to a question about ejecting when on the solids, "You just pull the little handle". Does anyone know if the entire Q&A available to watch?

Thank you

Offline penguin44

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 96
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3531 on: 08/10/2018 05:46 AM »
Two questions here. On sts-1 there was apparently damage to one of the landing gear doors and some damage to the underside of that door. Any pictures and how that happened?

On sts-3 or 4 I can't remember now, there was damage to the tiles on the front top of the nose area and was seen via the canadarm. That caused this damage?

Thank you

Offline Fequalsma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 383
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3532 on: 08/10/2018 10:57 AM »
Penguin have you seen the STS-1 post flight report?

https://www.jsc.nasa.gov/news/columbia/anomaly/STS1.pdf

Itís STS-1-V-49 on page 33, but unfortunately no photos. 
F=ma

Offline penguin44

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 96
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3533 on: 08/11/2018 04:54 AM »
No I haven't. Thank for the reading material for tonight!

Offline penguin44

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 96
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3534 on: 08/24/2018 05:19 AM »
OK that was a great read. Thank you.

Now, as I said before sts 3 or 4 had tile damage to the upper nose area above the frcs and below the cabin window. Any idea on what was going on there?

Also I read sts83 had the record for heaviest landing weight but Columbia was not given upgrades to the 6.0 loads. Was there any post landing issues?

Offline iskyfly

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 123
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3535 on: 09/07/2018 01:51 PM »

"Roll Program" - What is the crew looking for to cue them to say "Roll Program" and "Roll Program Complete"?
What "triggers" the Roll Program? MET? Velocity? Altitude?

STS-1

-Pre launch I thought I heard the phrase, "up arrow, down arrow"?
-Did the SRB's ignite at T + 3 seconds? I can hear a voice in the nasa feed counting up, "T+1, T+2, T+3".
-What is being called down by the crew at approx. 1:04:00 in the video feed. It is shortly after, "Go at 40". Sounded to me like, "434 max q 48" ???

-Final approach. Chase goes underneath to look at the tiles at approx. 11,000 feet and radios, "Looks real good underneath". I guess that is good to know, a warm and fuzzy? I mean, if it doesn't look good and they are this far already are they going to think about it and decide whether to eject or not?

-When chase is counting down the number of feet to TD where is that altitude coming from? Radar on the chase? Same thing for airspeed?





Offline wolfpack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 696
  • Wake Forest, NC
  • Liked: 112
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3536 on: 09/07/2018 02:36 PM »

What "triggers" the Roll Program? MET? Velocity? Altitude?


Velocity


-Did the SRB's ignite at T + 3 seconds? I can hear a voice in the nasa feed counting up, "T+1, T+2, T+3".


For STS-1, yes. The T-0 time was not adjusted for the "twang" to settle out, as that was characterized late in the program by ground vibrational testing at Stennis using Enterprise, inert boosters, and an ET filled with water. The T-0 time was fixed for STS-2 and all later flights.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32428
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11169
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3537 on: 09/07/2018 02:41 PM »

-When chase is counting down the number of feet to TD where is that altitude coming from? Radar on the chase?


Visual

Online DaveS

  • Shuttle program observer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8024
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 473
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3538 on: 09/07/2018 03:34 PM »
I'm in a bit of discussion about whether or not the orbiter was at an slight angle when it was mated to the ET. Based on measurements of the separation planes (FWD and aft) it seems like the orbiter would have to be at an angle to be properly mated to both the FWD and aft points (EO-1 through EO-3).
"For Sardines, space is no problem!"
-1996 Astronaut class slogan

"We're rolling in the wrong direction but for the right reasons"
-USA engineer about the rollback of Discovery prior to the STS-114 Return To Flight mission

Offline mkirk

  • International Man Of Mystery
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1730
  • Florida/Texas
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3539 on: 09/07/2018 07:13 PM »

"Roll Program" - What is the crew looking for to cue them to say "Roll Program" and "Roll Program Complete"?
What "triggers" the Roll Program? MET? Velocity? Altitude?

STS-1

-Pre launch I thought I heard the phrase, "up arrow, down arrow"?
-Did the SRB's ignite at T + 3 seconds? I can hear a voice in the nasa feed counting up, "T+1, T+2, T+3".
-What is being called down by the crew at approx. 1:04:00 in the video feed. It is shortly after, "Go at 40". Sounded to me like, "434 max q 48" ???


The roll program was initiated by the flight software at a relative velocity of 127 feet per second.  Up to this point the vehicle was in the "vertical rise" phase.  As the roll program began, the crew would have observed this on the ADI (attitude direction indicator) as well as on the digital readouts of Roll Pitch and Yaw on the BFS version of the Ascent Trajectory Display.  For STS-1, if the crew did not see this taking place as expected, the crew would have taken over manually with the throttle and control stick.  For later shuttle missions, if the roll didn't occur as planned, the first action was to engage the BFS (backup flight software).

You will have to be specific about where/when you heard the reference to "up and down arrows".   Generally, these were depicted on the various GPC CRT Displays to reflect an out of limit condition for a specific parameter.

Yes, for STS-1, lift off was not at T-0 in the countdown.  The auto sequence began at T-28 seconds (versus T-31 for all later flights) and the main engine start sequence began at T-3.4 (iirc) seconds (versus 6.6 for all later launches) and resulted in SRB Ignition after T-0 in the countdown.  MET was set to zero at SRB Ignition.

John called out 434 referencing the airspeed in KEAS (knots equivalent airspeed - pronounced "keys").  This was a surrogate for max dynamic pressure.  On STS-1, it was supposed to be 435 EAS at T+53 seconds.

Mark Kirkman
« Last Edit: 09/07/2018 07:17 PM by mkirk »
Mark Kirkman

Tags: