-
#400
by
shuttlefan
on 03 Oct, 2006 13:49
-
Is there any photos available on the 'net, of when the CDRs and PLTs boarded Columbia in the VAB for simulations, prior to the first several flights, and were those simulations deleted after STS-5?
-
#401
by
Jim
on 03 Oct, 2006 13:53
-
The test was the Shuttle interface Test. The crew just participated in it. The test is still run
-
#402
by
norm103
on 03 Oct, 2006 17:16
-
im sry i for got to put this in my first post. i was talking about the VAB doors that the shuttle rolls out of. whater or not thos doors are ever open durning stacking ops?
-
#403
by
Jim
on 03 Oct, 2006 17:23
-
depends on the weather
-
#404
by
hyper_snyper
on 03 Oct, 2006 18:09
-
The Virgin Galactic website claims that Shuttle launches are very environmentally unfriendly. They claim some large number like NYC's environmental impact over a week per launch, or something like that. Is this claim true and where does it come from? I would imagine from the SRBs since SSME exhaust is water vapor.
-
#405
by
Jim
on 03 Oct, 2006 18:20
-
The SRM's put out tons of hydrogen chloride and some aluminum oxide. It punches a hole in the ozone layer that can be seen for days.
-
#406
by
GLS
on 03 Oct, 2006 21:15
-
About the *wierd* mission naming between 83-86, does anyone know what is the correct mission name, "61B", "61-B", "STS 61B" or "STS 61-B"
I know the meanings and all but I don't know what is the "most" correct version...
BTW, and what about STS 29R, is it 29R, or just 29? In 85 it went STS 28 and then STS 30, there was no STS 29 flown, which raises my question....
-
#407
by
astrobrian
on 03 Oct, 2006 21:22
-
STS-61B is how I have it on my calendar, but the flight patch poster has it as STS-61-B so not sure if there is an "official" way to have it.
-
#408
by
Jim
on 03 Oct, 2006 22:49
-
STS 61-B. In '85, those weren't mission designations but mission sequencial numbers
-
#409
by
Austin
on 03 Oct, 2006 23:41
-
hyper_snyper - 3/10/2006 10:52 AM
The Virgin Galactic website claims that Shuttle launches are very environmentally unfriendly. They claim some large number like NYC's environmental impact over a week per launch, or something like that. Is this claim true and where does it come from? I would imagine from the SRBs since SSME exhaust is water vapor.
According to the following article, the effect of SRM exhaust on the ozone/environment is minimal...
http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/summer2000/01.html
-
#410
by
shuttlefan
on 04 Oct, 2006 01:29
-
Jim - 3/10/2006 8:36 AM
The test was the Shuttle interface Test. The crew just participated in it. The test is still run
Why don't the crews participate anymore, just to save time in getting the Shuttle out of the VAB and to the pad?
-
#411
by
Jim
on 04 Oct, 2006 01:54
-
Not needed and no value added
-
#412
by
Jason
on 04 Oct, 2006 15:17
-
I've noticed on pictures of Atlantis that there is what appears to be an RCC strip below and behind the nose cone just in front of the nose gear doors, that I haven't noticed on other orbiters (or at least on Discovery). Why would it exist on one and not the other? Do or did any of the others have this strip?
-
#413
by
Jorge
on 04 Oct, 2006 16:13
-
Jason - 4/10/2006 10:00 AM
I've noticed on pictures of Atlantis that there is what appears to be an RCC strip below and behind the nose cone just in front of the nose gear doors, that I haven't noticed on other orbiters (or at least on Discovery). Why would it exist on one and not the other? Do or did any of the others have this strip?
It is indeed an RCC strip. It's called the "chin panel". All the orbiters have it. Lighting and age will affect the appearance of RCC panels so the chin panel is more obvious on some orbiters than others.
--
JRF
-
#414
by
GLS
on 04 Oct, 2006 21:33
-
Jim - 3/10/2006 11:32 PM
STS 61-B. In '85, those weren't mission designations but mission sequencial numbers
Yeah... looking at the manifests it looks to me like these numbers (28, 29, 30...) are *launch slots* or something....
Anyway, they added the "R" until STS 33R, and the STS 33 was the last *slot* "to be used" (it was STS 51-L), so this tell me that they add the "R" if that number "was used" in 85-86. But STS 29 wasn't used.... (I think it was going to be 61-A, but 61-A was moved to STS 30 or something...) ...anyway it wasn't used so one wonders if in 89 it was STS 29 or if it was STS 29R and why...
Hope this is not too complicated!
-
#415
by
meiza
on 04 Oct, 2006 22:20
-
Austin - 4/10/2006 12:24 AM
According to the following article, the effect of SRM exhaust on the ozone/environment is minimal...
http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/summer2000/01.html
Well, the article surely states that in the conclusions but I'm not exactly sure how they reach them. It does show that in the
short term ozone is practically depleted from near the wake in a 8 kilometer wide swath (I guess the area moves downwind) 30 to 60 minutes after the launch. But not much research is done on longer term or wider area effects, what if the compounds the rockets put there are very long-lived and keep breaking up the ozone?
-
#416
by
Austin
on 04 Oct, 2006 22:46
-
meiza - 4/10/2006 3:03 PM
Austin - 4/10/2006 12:24 AM
According to the following article, the effect of SRM exhaust on the ozone/environment is minimal...
http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/summer2000/01.html
But not much research is done on longer term or wider area effects, what if the compounds the rockets put there are very long-lived and keep breaking up the ozone?
Ok, but we have been launching shuttles for 25 years now. Although I am no expert on the environment, I would imagine that if the compounds did in fact have long-term effects, the results would be apparent. Granted, 25 years is not a long time, but there would be come measurable effects by now, I would think.
-
#417
by
spaceshuttle
on 05 Oct, 2006 01:32
-
Austin - 4/10/2006 5:29 PM
meiza - 4/10/2006 3:03 PM
Austin - 4/10/2006 12:24 AM
According to the following article, the effect of SRM exhaust on the ozone/environment is minimal...
http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/summer2000/01.html
But not much research is done on longer term or wider area effects, what if the compounds the rockets put there are very long-lived and keep breaking up the ozone?
Ok, but we have been launching shuttles for 25 years now. Although I am no expert on the environment, I would imagine that if the compounds did in fact have long-term effects, the results would be apparent. Granted, 25 years is not a long time, but there would be come measurable effects by now, I would think.
i'd think that after 10 years, we would see something...
Jim - 3/10/2006 11:32 PM
Yeah... looking at the manifests it looks to me like these numbers (28, 29, 30...) are *launch slots* or something....
Anyway, they added the "R" until STS 33R, and the STS 33 was the last *slot* "to be used" (it was STS 51-L), so this tell me that they add the "R" if that number "was used" in 85-86. But STS 29 wasn't used.... (I think it was going to be 61-A, but 61-A was moved to STS 30 or something...) ...anyway it wasn't used so one wonders if in 89 it was STS 29 or if it was STS 29R and why...
Hope this is not too complicated!
funny how the military has to be so friggin' fancy with these ridiculous codenames for the missions...
-
#418
by
Jim
on 05 Oct, 2006 01:50
-
Not the military, it was NASA. USAF had nothing to do with it.
The numbers were KSC numeric designations. When the shuttle program decided to use the sequencial number designations, KSC has to use the "R" as a decriminator to differentiate between pre and post Challenger flights
-
#419
by
spaceshuttle
on 05 Oct, 2006 01:56
-
Jim - 4/10/2006 8:33 PM
Not the military, it was NASA. USAF had nothing to do with it.
The numbers were KSC numeric designations. When the shuttle program decided to use the sequencial number designations, KSC has to use the "R" as a decriminator to differentiate between pre and post Challenger flights
yes in deed, lol. well, at least things are MUCH easier now-a-days...
I know the meanings and all but I don't know what is the "most" correct version...
