-
#400
by
spacemuppet
on 18 Jun, 2007 21:19
-
What would happen if the shuttle had to return with 7+3 or someday 7+...5? people, unplanned? Do they just sit on the floor with no presure suit and hope for the best on the way down? Has this been designed into the works?
What is the max the ISS will ever hold?
-
#401
by
Jim
on 18 Jun, 2007 21:54
-
there will be same number of seats on a soyuz spacecraft as there are permanent occupants of the ISS. The shuttle won't have to take them down.
-
#402
by
Andrewwski
on 18 Jun, 2007 21:59
-
EDIT: Never mind, found my answer.
-
#403
by
Jim
on 18 Jun, 2007 22:02
-
smaller LON crew and it only goes after the stranded shuttle
-
#404
by
ichilton
on 18 Jun, 2007 22:56
-
Um, not to sound insulting, but much of that info is already available through internet searches (Google, etc.) - lots of NASA and industry pages, pdf documents and reports that describe and detail the various comm channels, bandwidths, and what and how data is radiated back and forth
I've done quite a bit of searching but have not been able to find much useful information.
Don't suppose you have any links as a starting point?
Thanks
Ian
-
#405
by
Jorge
on 18 Jun, 2007 23:04
-
-
#406
by
Ikelos
on 19 Jun, 2007 20:11
-
Is this correct, that the shuttle has a limit for crosswind components for landing and also a max wind of 25 knots. Or is it a crosswind of 15 and headwind of 25 meaning the total wind would be a max of 40? Which is it?
Either way, why is there a max wind and not just a crosswind component limit. When the shuttle is coming in at 180+ knots, is there a negative effect between 25 knots of pure headwind vs 35 knots of pure headwind. Where did this 25 number come from. As a pilot, we want as much headwind as possible because it makes the touch down ground speed lower, and when you have a lakebed to land on, you can make it so there is a 0 knot crosswind component.
With bad weather forcasted in KSC and possible wind gusts up to 30 knots at EDW, is the difference in 5 knots of headwind worth making the shuttle land at White sands or over seas?
-
#407
by
mkirk
on 19 Jun, 2007 23:35
-
Ikelos - 19/6/2007 3:11 PM
Is this correct, that the shuttle has a limit for crosswind components for landing and also a max wind of 25 knots. Or is it a crosswind of 15 and headwind of 25 meaning the total wind would be a max of 40? Which is it?
Either way, why is there a max wind and not just a crosswind component limit. When the shuttle is coming in at 180+ knots, is there a negative effect between 25 knots of pure headwind vs 35 knots of pure headwind. Where did this 25 number come from. As a pilot, we want as much headwind as possible because it makes the touch down ground speed lower, and when you have a lakebed to land on, you can make it so there is a 0 knot crosswind component.
With bad weather forcasted in KSC and possible wind gusts up to 30 knots at EDW, is the difference in 5 knots of headwind worth making the shuttle land at White sands or over seas?
Crosswind: The crosswind flight rule limits are based primarily on factors such as main landing gear side loads, controllability and handling qualities, pilot workload, and HUD (heads up display) symbol availability – with large crab angles the HUD symbols can move off the combining glass.
For a nominal end of mission the crosswind limit is 15 knots for daytime and 12 for night. On launch day this limit can be increased to 17 knots (daytime only) based on realtime evaluation by the STA (shuttle training aircraft) pilot.
Headwind: The headwind component limitation factors in orbiter performance and predicted touchdown energy. To answer your question - yes there is a negative affect of 35 on the head verses 25. In simple terms this is about the orbiter's ability to make it to the runway - remember the orbiter is a high speed glider at this point and pushing up the power is not really an option.
The peak head component is 25 knots (day or night).
Mark Kirkman
-
#408
by
hyper_snyper
on 19 Jun, 2007 23:49
-
I have a question. Is it true or false that the Air Force imposed certain cross range requirements on the Shuttle during development? This resulted in larger than necessary wings.
If the above is true and also true that the cross range capability was never needed, how much smaller could the wings be and by how much would the payload be increased?
I thought I read somewhere about this once and I'm curious about it. I could be mistaken.
-
#409
by
Andrewwski
on 20 Jun, 2007 00:00
-
I read about that once too. It was in a book. The alternative would have been a shuttle that was much differently shaped (no delta wings), sort of airplane-looking, if I recall correctly.
-
#410
by
joncz
on 20 Jun, 2007 00:19
-
The crossrange requirement was due to the Air Force's requirements for launching the shuttle into polar orbit. In an Abort Once Around event, any potential landing sites (such as Edwards) have rotated to the east at least 1500 miles.
-
#411
by
Ikelos
on 20 Jun, 2007 01:16
-
" there is a negative affect of 35 on the head verses 25. In simple terms this is about the orbiter's ability to make it to the runway - remember the orbiter is a high speed glider at this point and pushing up the power is not really an option."
Yes but you can account for a 25 knot headwind just the same as a 35. Where do you draw the line and should it a definitive line? especially when the backup landing site is a lake bed that is over 10 miles long? It seems stupid to me that they would call off a landing at EDW for 26 knot winds.
-
#412
by
Namechange User
on 20 Jun, 2007 02:13
-
hyper_snyper - 19/6/2007 6:49 PM
I have a question. Is it true or false that the Air Force imposed certain cross range requirements on the Shuttle during development? This resulted in larger than necessary wings.
If the above is true and also true that the cross range capability was never needed, how much smaller could the wings be and by how much would the payload be increased?
I thought I read somewhere about this once and I'm curious about it. I could be mistaken.
It's true. Also the size of the payload bay and up/down mass was heavily influenced by the USAF and the percieved requirements of the time based on the hopeful and assumed flight rate. If these requirements were not there it's anyone's guess what the shuttle would have looked like.
-
#413
by
Jorge
on 20 Jun, 2007 06:07
-
hyper_snyper - 19/6/2007 6:49 PM
I have a question. Is it true or false that the Air Force imposed certain cross range requirements on the Shuttle during development? This resulted in larger than necessary wings.
If the above is true and also true that the cross range capability was never needed, how much smaller could the wings be and by how much would the payload be increased?
I thought I read somewhere about this once and I'm curious about it. I could be mistaken.
Partially. The USAF did impose the crossrange requirement, and it did drive NASA toward the delta-winged orbiter, but whether that's "larger than necessary" depends on how you define "necessary". The USAF wanted the high crossrange in order to perform single-orbit polar missions from Vandenberg. The crossrange enabled the orbiter to land back at Vandenberg even though the Earth would have rotated far enough to move Vandenberg a thousand miles east of the orbiter's groundtrack.
But that's not the only thing that crossrange is useful for. The crossrange can be used during ascent aborts, enabling an "Abort Once Around" mode and allowing NASA to need fewer TAL sites than would otherwise be required (with lower crossrange, you'd need one under every inclination the shuttle flies). The crossrange is also used nominally to increase landing opportunities - the standard is to provide two landing opportunities per day to each of the three CONUS primary landing sites. That simply wouldn't be possible with a low-crossrange orbiter. And it isn't true that the capability has never been used - take a look at the actual crossranges for the first 93 flights:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/green/entare.pdfThe crossranges are pretty much uniformly distributed within the orbiter's ~800 n.mi. crossrange limit.
For these reasons, Robert Thompson (shuttle program manager during the 70's) has said that NASA might well have ended up going with the high crossrange design anyway, even if the USAF wasn't a partner.
http://caib.nasa.gov/events/public_hearings/20030423/transcript_am.htmlThe leading alternative to the high crossrange design was Max Faget's straight wing design. It had a crossrange capability of about 300 n.mi. But it would not necessarily have had a larger payload than the high-crossrange orbiter, since it used internal fuel tanks. OV-106 is right; you really can't make too many assumptions about what the orbiter would have looked like if the high crossrange design hadn't won the day. Faget's design had some other shortcomings which Thompson discusses in his CAIB testimony.
-
#414
by
gispa
on 20 Jun, 2007 07:46
-
hi guys can somebody explain me wath is the flyaround of the iss after undockin?? thank you
-
#415
by
rfoshaug
on 20 Jun, 2007 09:58
-
It is what the name suggests: the shuttle flies around the station.
After undocking, the shuttle first went to a point about 600 feet in front of the station. Then it slowly (and beautifully) did a complete 360° "loop" around the station, keeping its distance at about 600 feet, and keeping the top of the shuttle constantly pointing toward the station. This allowed the crew of Atlantis to photograph the station from all angles and document how it looks, help search for any damages etc.
After the flyaround, when the shuttle was back in its position in front of the docking port, it continued for another 90° to the "top" of the station and then flew away from it.
-
#416
by
rsp1202
on 20 Jun, 2007 13:19
-
It also provides the pilot some stick time, since theoretically he will later command his own mission.
-
#417
by
iphitus
on 20 Jun, 2007 13:19
-
What would happen if the shuttle happened to just miss a landing attempt, say arrive off the side of the SLF? Has it got enough energy to go-around? Or is the SLF long enough that it'd be able to correct itself?
-
#418
by
psloss
on 20 Jun, 2007 13:33
-
iphitus - 20/6/2007 9:19 AM
What would happen if the shuttle happened to just miss a landing attempt, say arrive off the side of the SLF? Has it got enough energy to go-around? Or is the SLF long enough that it'd be able to correct itself?
It cannot go around -- if they miss the SLF runway, you're talking about a really bad day.
This was noted earlier in the thread -- read through this exchange about coming up short of the runway on STS-37 and Danny Dot's Usenet post that he links to:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=6156&start=331#M143930
-
#419
by
pkspx
on 20 Jun, 2007 15:11
-
I don't know if this was ever asked before, but can someone define the sounds of when the shuttle is landing. It sounds like a jet airplane coming in. I would have thought this "Glider" would be silent as a bird coming in.