Author Topic: Shuttle Q&A Part 5  (Read 1060842 times)

Offline Fequalsma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3540 on: 09/07/2018 10:05 PM »
Drawings in the SLWT System Definition Handbook Vol. 2 show that the FWD attachment point is 16.285 inches above the AFT attachment points.  The FWD and AFT attachment points are 843.60 inches apart, so ARCTAN(16.285/843.60) = 1.106 degrees.
F=ma


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).

Online wolfpack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 697
  • Wake Forest, NC
  • Liked: 112
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3541 on: 09/08/2018 01:49 AM »
Drawings in the SLWT System Definition Handbook Vol. 2 show that the FWD attachment point is 16.285 inches above the AFT attachment points.  The FWD and AFT attachment points are 843.60 inches apart, so ARCTAN(16.285/843.60) = 1.106 degrees.
F=ma

For a dry tank or a fueled tank? The ET shrank something like a foot in the vertical direction when cryo-loaded. So that would rotate the forward bipod a bit.

Offline Fequalsma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3542 on: 09/08/2018 03:51 AM »
See Figure III-21. The FWD attachment moved axially by 5.5 inches when the tank was fueled, and the bipod rotated by ARCTAN(5.5/56.341) = 5.576 degrees. I cannot find any loaded dimensions for the AFT attachments.  Either way, the 1.1 degree angle of the Orbiter relative to the ET did not change significantly for a loaded ET. 
F=ma


Drawings in the SLWT System Definition Handbook Vol. 2 show that the FWD attachment point is 16.285 inches above the AFT attachment points.  The FWD and AFT attachment points are 843.60 inches apart, so ARCTAN(16.285/843.60) = 1.106 degrees.
F=ma

For a dry tank or a fueled tank? The ET shrank something like a foot in the vertical direction when cryo-loaded. So that would rotate the forward bipod a bit.
« Last Edit: 09/08/2018 03:52 AM by Fequalsma »

Online DaveS

  • Shuttle program observer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8037
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 480
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3543 on: 09/08/2018 01:10 PM »
The meat of the question is now what if any AoA did the orbiter have when mated to the ET?
"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 Fequalsma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3544 on: 09/08/2018 02:07 PM »

Online DaveS

  • Shuttle program observer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8037
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 480
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3545 on: 09/08/2018 02:17 PM »
https://www.aiaa.org/uploadedFiles/About-AIAA/History_and_Heritage/Final_Space_Shuttle_Launches/Why_the_Wings_Stay_On.pdf
F=ma


The meat of the question is now what if any AoA did the orbiter have when mated to the ET?
I meant when while stationary on the MLP, not in-flight. Was the axes of the orbiter and ET/SRB stack different or were they inline with each other?
"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 Fequalsma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3546 on: 09/08/2018 02:23 PM »
As you know, there are several coordinate systems.  When stacked, the centerline of the Orbiter Payload Bay and the centerline of the ET are parallel, and separated by 336.5 inches.  (edited - 336.5, not 400)
F=ma

https://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3o5.htm
https://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3o6.htm


https://www.aiaa.org/uploadedFiles/About-AIAA/History_and_Heritage/Final_Space_Shuttle_Launches/Why_the_Wings_Stay_On.pdf
F=ma


The meat of the question is now what if any AoA did the orbiter have when mated to the ET?
I meant when while stationary on the MLP, not in-flight. Was the axes of the orbiter and ET/SRB stack different or were they inline with each other?
« Last Edit: 09/08/2018 02:25 PM by Fequalsma »

Online DaveS

  • Shuttle program observer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8037
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 480
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3547 on: 09/08/2018 02:29 PM »
Did the orbiter have a pitch bias (positive or negative) when mated to the ET like it when it was mated to the OTS/SCA? When it was mated to either of those two, it was always pitched up by 3°s(6°s for the ALTs). That is what I am trying find out, if it had a positive or negative pitch angle (AKA Angle of Attack) when mated to the ET like it did for everything else it could be mated to.
"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 Fequalsma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3548 on: 09/08/2018 05:15 PM »
https://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints/modernplanes/modern-sa-st/56557/view/space_shuttle_boeing_747/

Scaling from this drawing of the Orbiter/SCA, its FWD attachment is 4.5 feet above the AFT attachments, so the attachment point plane is inclined +3.4 degrees relative to the SCA reference plane (windows/body stripe), or 2.3 degrees higher than the Orbiter/ET stack (1.1 degrees). The Orbiter reference plane (Payload Bay Door sill) is inclined +1.8 degrees relative to the SCA waterline plane, or 1.8 degrees higher than on the Orbiter/ET stack (zero). 

Since this drawing is not CAD or a known scale, these angles are probably not accurate, but if you average them, the Orbiter sits 2 degrees (3 versus 1) more nose-high on the SCA than on the ET. What AOA between the Orbiter and ET are you looking for? The angle of the wings relative to the ET?  If so, then at the root?  At the chine? 
F=ma


Did the orbiter have a pitch bias (positive or negative) when mated to the ET like it when it was mated to the OTS/SCA? When it was mated to either of those two, it was always pitched up by 3°s(6°s for the ALTs). That is what I am trying find out, if it had a positive or negative pitch angle (AKA Angle of Attack) when mated to the ET like it did for everything else it could be mated to.

Online DaveS

  • Shuttle program observer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8037
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 480
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3549 on: 09/08/2018 05:22 PM »
https://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints/modernplanes/modern-sa-st/56557/view/space_shuttle_boeing_747/

Scaling from this drawing of the Orbiter/SCA, its FWD attachment is 4.5 feet above the AFT attachments, so the attachment point plane is inclined +3.4 degrees relative to the SCA reference plane (windows/body stripe), or 2.3 degrees higher than the Orbiter/ET stack (1.1 degrees). The Orbiter reference plane (Payload Bay Door sill) is inclined +1.8 degrees relative to the SCA waterline plane, or 1.8 degrees higher than on the Orbiter/ET stack (zero). 

Since this drawing is not CAD or a known scale, these angles are probably not accurate, but if you average them, the Orbiter sits 2 degrees (3 versus 1) more nose-high on the SCA than on the ET. What AOA between the Orbiter and ET are you looking for? The angle of the wings relative to the ET?  If so, then at the root?  At the chine?
The orbiter X-axis which goes through the nose. I have attached a schematic of Discovery at a level attitude. Is that how the how the orbiter would sit on the ET or would it be at an angle relative to the X axis?
« Last Edit: 09/08/2018 05:28 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 Fequalsma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3550 on: 09/08/2018 05:50 PM »
My assessment is yes. The Orbiter X-axis in your image runs through the centerline of the Orbiter Payload Bay, and is parallel to the centerline of the ET, separated by 336.5 inches (see Reply #3546).
F=ma

https://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3o5.htm



https://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints/modernplanes/modern-sa-st/56557/view/space_shuttle_boeing_747/

Scaling from this drawing of the Orbiter/SCA, its FWD attachment is 4.5 feet above the AFT attachments, so the attachment point plane is inclined +3.4 degrees relative to the SCA reference plane (windows/body stripe), or 2.3 degrees higher than the Orbiter/ET stack (1.1 degrees). The Orbiter reference plane (Payload Bay Door sill) is inclined +1.8 degrees relative to the SCA waterline plane, or 1.8 degrees higher than on the Orbiter/ET stack (zero). 

Since this drawing is not CAD or a known scale, these angles are probably not accurate, but if you average them, the Orbiter sits 2 degrees (3 versus 1) more nose-high on the SCA than on the ET. What AOA between the Orbiter and ET are you looking for? The angle of the wings relative to the ET?  If so, then at the root?  At the chine?
The orbiter X-axis which goes through the nose. I have attached a schematic of Discovery at a level attitude. Is that how the how the orbiter would sit on the ET or would it be at an angle relative to the X axis?

Online DaveS

  • Shuttle program observer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8037
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 480
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3551 on: 09/08/2018 05:58 PM »
My assessment is yes. The Orbiter X-axis in your image runs through the centerline of the Orbiter Payload Bay, and is parallel to the centerline of the ET, separated by 336.5 inches (see Reply #3546).
F=ma

https://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3o5.htm



https://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints/modernplanes/modern-sa-st/56557/view/space_shuttle_boeing_747/

Scaling from this drawing of the Orbiter/SCA, its FWD attachment is 4.5 feet above the AFT attachments, so the attachment point plane is inclined +3.4 degrees relative to the SCA reference plane (windows/body stripe), or 2.3 degrees higher than the Orbiter/ET stack (1.1 degrees). The Orbiter reference plane (Payload Bay Door sill) is inclined +1.8 degrees relative to the SCA waterline plane, or 1.8 degrees higher than on the Orbiter/ET stack (zero). 

Since this drawing is not CAD or a known scale, these angles are probably not accurate, but if you average them, the Orbiter sits 2 degrees (3 versus 1) more nose-high on the SCA than on the ET. What AOA between the Orbiter and ET are you looking for? The angle of the wings relative to the ET?  If so, then at the root?  At the chine?
The orbiter X-axis which goes through the nose. I have attached a schematic of Discovery at a level attitude. Is that how the how the orbiter would sit on the ET or would it be at an angle relative to the X axis?
So the difference in heights of the attachment points (FWD vs aft) doesn't make the orbiter X-axis have an angle?
"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 Fequalsma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3552 on: 09/08/2018 06:06 PM »
I'd bet you a krona that they designed it that way.
F=ma


My assessment is yes. The Orbiter X-axis in your image runs through the centerline of the Orbiter Payload Bay, and is parallel to the centerline of the ET, separated by 336.5 inches (see Reply #3546).
F=ma

https://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3o5.htm



https://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints/modernplanes/modern-sa-st/56557/view/space_shuttle_boeing_747/

Scaling from this drawing of the Orbiter/SCA, its FWD attachment is 4.5 feet above the AFT attachments, so the attachment point plane is inclined +3.4 degrees relative to the SCA reference plane (windows/body stripe), or 2.3 degrees higher than the Orbiter/ET stack (1.1 degrees). The Orbiter reference plane (Payload Bay Door sill) is inclined +1.8 degrees relative to the SCA waterline plane, or 1.8 degrees higher than on the Orbiter/ET stack (zero). 

Since this drawing is not CAD or a known scale, these angles are probably not accurate, but if you average them, the Orbiter sits 2 degrees (3 versus 1) more nose-high on the SCA than on the ET. What AOA between the Orbiter and ET are you looking for? The angle of the wings relative to the ET?  If so, then at the root?  At the chine?
The orbiter X-axis which goes through the nose. I have attached a schematic of Discovery at a level attitude. Is that how the how the orbiter would sit on the ET or would it be at an angle relative to the X axis?
So the difference in heights of the attachment points (FWD vs aft) doesn't make the orbiter X-axis have an angle?

Offline iskyfly

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 125
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3553 on: 09/13/2018 12:19 AM »
Thank you Wolfpack, Jim and Mark!

Offline Hog

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1273
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 335
  • Likes Given: 1041
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3554 on: 09/14/2018 02:10 AM »
Did the orbiter have a pitch bias (positive or negative) when mated to the ET like it when it was mated to the OTS/SCA? When it was mated to either of those two, it was always pitched up by 3°s(6°s for the ALTs). That is what I am trying find out, if it had a positive or negative pitch angle (AKA Angle of Attack) when mated to the ET like it did for everything else it could be mated to.
I recall that the attachment angle used for actual transport flights was different than the angle used for the Approach and Landing Test.  For ferry flights, the Orbiter was mounted at 3º

"The forward support assembly consisted of two 8’-6” long tubes, which allowed the
orbiter to be mounted at a three-degree angle-of-attack to reduce drag during ferry flights."

Note that these tubes were 13 feet long during the ALT program, giving the Orbiter(Enterprise) a higher Angle of Attack of 7º.

Attachments
#1 Copy of SCA Report
2) Pic Orbiter Vehicle ferry flight front attachment(8-1/2 feet  long-3º)
3) OV Approach and Landing Test front attach (13' long 7º)
4) OV-101 Enterprise stacked atop 905 prior to ALT-14(Freefligh#4) test Oct 12, 1977-Test #4 with Joe Engle and Richard Truly
5) Great view of attach struts during ALT-14(free flight#4)
6) OV-101 Enterprise in ferry flight configuration with shorter 8-1/2  foot long attach struts 3 weeks later November 13, 1977
Paul

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2595
  • Liked: 471
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3555 on: 10/29/2018 05:20 PM »
Currently trying to wrap my mind around the orbiter weight breakdown.

First, did I got the basic numbers right

- Orbiter weight without the SSME and no payload: 151 000 pounds.

- With the SSME added: 171 000 pounds.

- Maximum landing weight: 240 000 pounds (does that includes a 60 000 pounds full payload bay ?)

Well, is there, somewhere, a detailed breakdown of those 151 000 pounds of empty weight ? The two OMS pods weight 30 000 pounds by themselves, TPs was also pretty heavy - 20 000 pounds. What else ?
« Last Edit: 10/29/2018 05:22 PM by Archibald »
...you have been found guilty by the elders of the forum of a (imaginary) vendetta against Saint Elon - BLAAASPHEMER !

Offline Fequalsma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3556 on: 10/30/2018 12:26 AM »
Archibald, check out the Orbiter weights starting on page D-81 of:

W. Heineman Jr..: “Design Mass Properties II: Mass Estimating and Forecasting for Aerospace Vehicles Based on Historical Data,” Report No. JSC-26098, NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, November 1994.

http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Space/JSC-26098_Design_Mass_Properties_II.pdf

F=ma

Edit - I uploaded the report, because I can never find the darn thing...
« Last Edit: 10/30/2018 11:27 PM by Fequalsma »

Online DaveS

  • Shuttle program observer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8037
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 480
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3557 on: 10/30/2018 07:23 AM »
Does anyone know the Xo locations of the 16 PLBD C/L latches? I have the locations of latches 3 through 16 but I'm lacking the locations of the two forward-most latches.
"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 Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2595
  • Liked: 471
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3558 on: 10/30/2018 09:22 AM »
Archibald, check out the Orbiter weights starting on page D-81 of:

W. Heineman Jr..: “Design Mass Properties II: Mass Estimating and Forecasting for Aerospace Vehicles Based on Historical Data,” Report No. JSC-26098, NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, November 1994.

http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Space/JSC-26098_Design_Mass_Properties_II.pdf

F=ma
thank you !!
« Last Edit: 10/30/2018 04:02 PM by Archibald »
...you have been found guilty by the elders of the forum of a (imaginary) vendetta against Saint Elon - BLAAASPHEMER !

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11186
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3559 on: 10/30/2018 03:46 PM »
Currently trying to wrap my mind around the orbiter weight breakdown.

First, did I got the basic numbers right

- Orbiter weight without the SSME and no payload: 151 000 pounds.

- With the SSME added: 171 000 pounds.

- Maximum landing weight: 240 000 pounds (does that includes a 60 000 pounds full payload bay ?)

Well, is there, somewhere, a detailed breakdown of those 151 000 pounds of empty weight ? The two OMS pods weight 30 000 pounds by themselves, TPs was also pretty heavy - 20 000 pounds. What else ?

27klb of OMS/RCS propellants

Tags: