-
#620
by
ichilton
on 21 Dec, 2006 23:32
-
Hi,
Does anyone know if the landing will be covered live by any TV channels available in the UK?
Thanks
Ian
-
#621
by
Chris Bergin
on 21 Dec, 2006 23:36
-
ichilton - 22/12/2006 12:15 AM
Hi,
Does anyone know if the landing will be covered live by any TV channels available in the UK?
Thanks
Ian
BBC News 24 and Sky News.
-
#622
by
ichilton
on 21 Dec, 2006 23:37
-
Thanks Chris
-
#623
by
Chris Bergin
on 21 Dec, 2006 23:40
-
ichilton - 22/12/2006 12:20 AM
Thanks Chris
It's what we're here for
It'd of been on ITV News Channel, but that's no longer around, I was shocked to hear the other day. Sky's usually best.
-
#624
by
Chris Bergin
on 22 Dec, 2006 13:24
-
Ok, let's keep this thread on Shuttle Q and A only please.
-
#625
by
Jorge
on 22 Dec, 2006 16:40
-
Jim - 21/12/2006 1:19 PM
There are other issues with DN also. mkirk can enlighten us. Way back there use to be a density shear in the upper atmosphere
Noctilucent clouds also. There is a flight rule on this, will look it up if I get a chance.
--
JRF
-
#626
by
Jorge
on 22 Dec, 2006 17:27
-
Jorge - 22/12/2006 11:23 AM
Jim - 21/12/2006 1:19 PM
There are other issues with DN also. mkirk can enlighten us. Way back there use to be a density shear in the upper atmosphere
Noctilucent clouds also. There is a flight rule on this, will look it up if I get a chance.
--
JRF
Flight Rule A2-207. Noctilucent clouds are only an issue in the summer. Another issue is sleep-shifting; the descending opportunities are several hours after the ascending ones so crew fatigue becomes an issue. So descending opportunities are not considered for nominal EOM, but could be considered for emergencies.
Since descending opportunities won't be considered in the nominal case, public risk is not a factor unless the orbiter is "compromised" (TPS, loss of fault-tolerance in entry-critical systems).
--
JRF
-
#627
by
hmh33
on 22 Dec, 2006 18:16
-
SWAG: If the STS were in purely vertical flight then OMS assist with T/W < 1 would be worse than useless as you say. But because it is in largely horizontal flight by that point, gravity losses are not so important and the horizontal component of the acceleration provided by the OMS is adding useful velocity.
-
#628
by
C5C6
on 25 Dec, 2006 19:31
-
I just wondered, do astronauts use some kind of a drug to sleep? i find it hard to believe that with so much adrenaline flowing they are able to sleep as if everything was normal....is there any training for this issue?
by the way, watching sts-121 launch i heard some calls i dont understand
- "Press to ATO, select Istres" : i know what ATO and istres are, but what is 'Press to ATO, select Istres'?
- "Single Engine OPS-3" : no idea :-P ...
- "Single engine istres, 104" : whats that '104'?
- "Press to MECO" : again, i know what MECO is but what is 'press to MECO'?
- "Go for plus-x" : no idea again :-P :-P ...
thank you!!
-
#629
by
elmarko
on 25 Dec, 2006 20:06
-
C5C6 - 25/12/2006 8:14 PM
I just wondered, do astronauts use some kind of a drug to sleep? i find it hard to believe that with so much adrenaline flowing they are able to sleep as if everything was normal....is there any training for this issue?
by the way, watching sts-121 launch i heard some calls i dont understand
- "Press to ATO, select Istres" : i know what ATO and istres are, but what is 'Press to ATO, select Istres'?
- "Single Engine OPS-3" : no idea :-P ...
- "Single engine istres, 104" : whats that '104'?
- "Press to MECO" : again, i know what MECO is but what is 'press to MECO'?
- "Go for plus-x" : no idea again :-P :-P ...
thank you!!
Istres is one of the TAL sites for the mission, and the commander was told to "select" it, ie, in the case of a TAL, fly to that site.
Press to MECO means the shuttle is carrying enough velocity to be able to make MECO under 2 engine power if one fails
Single engine istres 104 means that if 2 engines failed, the last one could carry on at 104% of it's performance, which is the nominal power level.
Single Engine OPS 3 means that the shuttle could reach a TAL site with 2 engines out and the remaining engine at 109% power and use OPS 3 software on the shuttle computers to do it. (I think. Can someone confirm this one for me please? I remember there's something about Droop guidance but I didn't want to explode his C5C6's head
)
-
#630
by
elmarko
on 25 Dec, 2006 20:12
-
And also, can someone tell me the plus x stuff in more detail please, because I can never remember which direction X actually is
-
#631
by
Jim
on 25 Dec, 2006 21:47
-
-
#632
by
elmarko
on 25 Dec, 2006 22:57
-
I see, so that's the translation away from the tank after ET SEP then?
-
#633
by
cape51
on 26 Dec, 2006 03:59
-
Does the shuttle have to wait until SRB sep until it can perform RTLS, or can it disengage earlier?
I've been looking on here for documentation concerning the procedure, so if anyone can point me in the right direction, i would appreciate it
-
#634
by
norm103
on 26 Dec, 2006 03:59
-
yep cant tell srb sep. and would have the ssme and et longer
-
#635
by
northanger
on 26 Dec, 2006 03:59
-
-
#636
by
landofgrey
on 26 Dec, 2006 03:59
-
There's no way to "manually" command SRB separation, for (somewhat) obvious reasons. If they did separate, they'd still be burning and the orbiter and ET would be consumed in their exhaust and destroyed. There are other reasons as well, but that one is pretty hard to get around (read: impossible). After Challenger, NASA's acting Administrator and non space expert Dr. William R. Graham claimed on network news that the shuttle could've separated and landed had the crew known there was a problem. Well, there was a problem and he was part of it. The only time an Amdinistrator wasn't at KSC for a launch, he was having lunch with a member of Congress. Sadly funny, Graham PERSONALLY SCRUBBED the STS-51L launch attempt on Jan. 27, 1986 because the weather forecast predicted rain. Instead the weather was perfect and warm and had Challenger not been scrubbed on that day, the accident wouldn't have happened on the 28th.
"Dr. William R. Graham served as NASA Deputy Administrator from November 25, 1985, to December 4, 1985, and as Acting Administrator from December 4, 1985, to May 11, 1986. After the appointment of James Fletcher as NASA Administrator, Dr. Graham served as Deputy Administrator from May 11, 1986, to October 1, 1986. Before joining NASA Dr. Graham was a scientific advisor and consultant to the Reagan Administration. He was also a founder of R&D Associates in the early 1970's. Dr. Graham served as Deputy Administrator for only 9 days before being appointed as NASA' Acting Administrator due to the sudden leave of absence taken by NASA Administrator James Beggs. After serving as Deputy Administrator, Dr. Graham was appointed as Science Advisor to the President in 1986." - NASA
The "sudden leave of absence" of James Beggs was due to two things. First, there was a criminal investigation for corruption that was, in fact, a political move by some powerful people in the Pentagon who wanted Beggs out and "one of their own" in. Beggs was forced out and had to fight the legal battle for years before all charges and allegations were summarily dismissed. Too bad his career was as well. Second, and it relates to the battle with the Pentagon as well, Beggs threatened to resign if Graham was made Deputy Administrator, on the grounds that he wasn't qualified for the job and being qualified was essential (as events a couple months later proved). So, a week after Graham's appointment, Beggs bailed out and focused on his own legal troubles. This is an example of the political garbage that ran rampant over the agency throughout the 70's and 80's, worse in some ways than it is now, and a large peripheral contributor to the Challenger accident and to the inadequate design of some critical systems of the shuttle.
Oh, but to answer your question ha ha ha no, the shuttle can't separate. I guess I diverged a bit with the history lesson.
-
#637
by
cape51
on 26 Dec, 2006 03:59
-
thats great thanks, but I'm looking for something more technical. Along with RTLS, I am also looking for procedures if the shuttle doesn't have enough enery or is too disabled to land. It is for a paper that I am writing
-
#638
by
landofgrey
on 26 Dec, 2006 03:59
-
FYI - the L2 section has the ascent abort flight procedures handbook, so that's the first place to check I guess.
RTLS can be selected anytime after T-0, but nothing is done until after the SRB's separate. That's when all of the prop dump and pitcharound stuff happens. There's no option, no switch or computer command that will either manually or automatically separate the SRB's. The only thing that could would be a destruct command from the RSO, but in that case there'd be no RTLS either.
If there's not enough energy for RTLS or TAL abort then the orbiter would be ditched in the ocean following crew bailout below 50K feet or something like that and if the orbiter is in a stable glide. They'd get the orbiter off the tank and glide down low enough to where they could blow the hatch and pop the slide boom and bailout.
If you want to know who might be able to help, try Mark Kirkman on here. He knows all about that kind of stuff and probably has the procedures in hand already.
-
#639
by
cape51
on 26 Dec, 2006 04:08
-
Thanks
