-
#280
by
spaceshuttle
on 24 Aug, 2006 22:06
-
Jim - 24/8/2006 4:44 PM
When you "saw" the tanks, did they all have the exact same exposure to UV?
Edit:
you deleted the post that this one refers to
i know, the pix were a bit confusing. the earlier pictures in the post were from initial roll-out. the concern wasn't so much as the overall exposure to the UV rays, but to the color of the foam BEFORE any 'lengthy' exposure to the UV rays. from 84-nearly the beginning, the foam was a saddle tan at rollout; from 85-89, the foam was beige/gold at rollout (mind you, they switched to the freon-free foam on sts-87 which was right before 89); and from 90 on to today, the foam is yellow at rollout (with the exception of 114, 121, and 115 as those tanks are OLD and the foam darkens also with age)...
-
#281
by
spaceshuttle
on 24 Aug, 2006 23:27
-
spaceshuttle - 24/8/2006 4:53 PM
Jim - 24/8/2006 4:44 PM
When you "saw" the tanks, did they all have the exact same exposure to UV?
Edit:
you deleted the post that this one refers to
i know, the pix were a bit confusing. the earlier pictures in the post were from initial roll-out. the concern wasn't so much as the overall exposure to the UV rays, but to the color of the foam BEFORE any 'lengthy' exposure to the UV rays. from 84-nearly the beginning, the foam was a saddle tan at rollout; from 85-89, the foam was beige/gold at rollout (mind you, they switched to the freon-free foam on sts-87 which was right before 89); and from 90 on to today, the foam is yellow at rollout (with the exception of 114, 121, and 115 as those tanks are OLD and the foam darkens also with age)...
what i meant was--were there any more foam changes, or is the color difference (85-89 versus 90+) simply due to the change in cameras?
-
#282
by
norm103
on 25 Aug, 2006 17:58
-
can any one tell me whant this big gary thing is in the lower part of this photo. i have a hight intres in the ksc gound eqiment. thanks
-
#283
by
Jim
on 25 Aug, 2006 18:04
-
Proof load weight
-
#284
by
spaceshuttle
on 25 Aug, 2006 19:48
-
Jim - 24/8/2006 4:37 PM
Also unless the same cameras and the same film and the same paper and the same lighting conditions are used (same goes for digital cameras and software), you are going to get different tints of same color.
i see! it took a little photo editing on powerpoint to see it.
for 89, the tank was probably exposed to the sun (even before VAB assembly or shuttle rollout) and for 90, it was lighter outside and the tank possible had had lest time in the sun prior to rollout.
(see link)
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y48/jjlucash/edits1.jpgand 87, 90, AND 95 tanks ended the same color (see link)
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y48/jjlucash/edits2.jpgit's the overall sanding of the intertank that threw me off. pretty neat!
-
#285
by
spaceshuttle
on 29 Aug, 2006 18:39
-
okay, ANOTHER foam question (inquiring minds want to know...)
121 and 115's tanks didn't appear to darken very much while on the pad. does the age of the foam affect the rate at which the foam darkens?
-
#286
by
MKremer
on 29 Aug, 2006 19:23
-
It's the amount of sunlight (UV) the foam is exposed to that determines how dark the outer surface gets.
-
#287
by
TheMadCap
on 30 Aug, 2006 02:44
-
Question regarding the zinc chromate putty in the field joints of the SRBs. The putty seals cracks in the connection between two cases, so it does in fact have to come into contact with exhaust gases?
-
#288
by
shuttlefan
on 01 Sep, 2006 02:14
-
Does each orbiter have their very own processing teams or is there quite a bit of transferring of technicians from one to the other? i.e.--Might one technician remove and replace an APU on Discovery and then install an engine on Endeavour, sort of on the same day?
-
#289
by
Jim
on 01 Sep, 2006 02:23
-
The techs are assigned to "shops" defined by areas of the shuttle. Fwd, Midbody, Aft, TPS, Flight Crew systems, etc. They work on all orbiters. SSME is handled by Rocketdyne. An SSME installation would have Rocketdyne positioning the SSME and USA attaching it.
-
#290
by
Chris Bergin
on 01 Sep, 2006 12:07
-
Copied into here.
Coca Cola Cowboy - 1/9/2006 8:45 AM
Hi
I had this dream/nightmare last night about Atlantis. At liftoff of STS-115 one of her main engines didn't start (or malfunctioned directly after liftoff). In the dream, Atlantis wasn't able to make a controlled flight anymore and came dangerously off course. Eventually she smashed into the ground with the SRB's and ET still attached to the vehicle.
A horrible dream of course and my question is, what would really happen if one of the main engines failed during lift-off? Is there a possible escape sequence to be followed so that the Shuttle can make an emergency landing? Or, can the Shuttle in fact still reach orbit with only two of her three engines?
/CCC
-
#291
by
Jim
on 01 Sep, 2006 12:13
-
Engine out scenarios are covered by the abort sequences: RTLS, TAL, AOA, ATO and Press to MECO. This is basic shuttle info. Read some of the many books on the shuttle
-
#292
by
astrobrian
on 01 Sep, 2006 13:42
-
Or spend a day in the Shuttle Q&A threads that are on here, tons of very cool info there as well
-
#293
by
shuttlefan
on 01 Sep, 2006 14:01
-
Jim - 31/8/2006 9:10 PM
The techs are assigned to "shops" defined by areas of the shuttle. Fwd, Midbody, Aft, TPS, Flight Crew systems, etc. They work on all orbiters. SSME is handled by Rocketdyne. An SSME installation would have Rocketdyne positioning the SSME and USA attaching it.
Thanks for the great answer, as always, Jim!!
-
#294
by
shuttlefan
on 01 Sep, 2006 14:06
-
Chris Bergin - 1/9/2006 6:54 AM
Copied into here.
Coca Cola Cowboy - 1/9/2006 8:45 AM
Hi
I had this dream/nightmare last night about Atlantis. At liftoff of STS-115 one of her main engines didn't start (or malfunctioned directly after liftoff). In the dream, Atlantis wasn't able to make a controlled flight anymore and came dangerously off course. Eventually she smashed into the ground with the SRB's and ET still attached to the vehicle.
A horrible dream of course and my question is, what would really happen if one of the main engines failed during lift-off? Is there a possible escape sequence to be followed so that the Shuttle can make an emergency landing? Or, can the Shuttle in fact still reach orbit with only two of her three engines?
/CCC
That IS a terrible dream!! The loss of just one engine just after liftoff or during the rest of SRB burn would result in an RTLS. I believe one engine out on launch does NOT necessarily mean loss of crew and vehicle.
I think I read one time, many years ago, that there is a very slim chance of all three engines flaming out at SRB ignition. Does anyone know, could this be a direct result of SRB ignition- have any engineering studies revealed this concern?
-
#295
by
dutch courage
on 01 Sep, 2006 15:47
-
shuttlefan - 1/9/2006 3:53 PM
I think I read one time, many years ago, that there is a very slim chance of all three engines flaming out at SRB ignition. Does anyone know, could this be a direct result of SRB ignition- have any engineering studies revealed this concern?
The exhaust from the solids is very much shielded from the orbiter's main engines also the flame-trench is divided, one side for the orbiter's main engines and one side for the solids.
So the chance of a flame-out to me is very remote.
-
#296
by
astrobrian
on 01 Sep, 2006 16:11
-
If I remember seeing it rught each of the SSMEs have thier own seperate hole to blow through into the trench
-
#297
by
spaceshuttle
on 01 Sep, 2006 17:32
-
astrobrian - 1/9/2006 10:58 AM
If I remember seeing it rught each of the SSMEs have thier own seperate hole to blow through into the trench
uh-uh. the BOOSTERS each have their own, but the SSMEs share a 31'x34' hole.
-
#298
by
astrobrian
on 01 Sep, 2006 18:33
-
ok , then what am I seeing here? Looks like ports for the SSMEs
-
#299
by
DaveS
on 01 Sep, 2006 18:45
-
Nope. Those two in the foreground is for the SRBs. The one behind those two are the exhaust hole for the SSMEs.
