-
#480
by
Danny Dot
on 22 Jun, 2007 20:33
-
Antares - 22/6/2007 2:25 PM
I've heard it said that the STS-37 landing miss was due to the CDR "taking it wide around the HAC." Can anyone confirm?
It was a combination of "errors". Flying wide around the HAC was one of the many problems. See my write-up at the following link.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.shuttle/browse_thread/thread/209e4408b4786d02/5c6efd21ae4f32a1I have since been told by reliable sources the landing was about 600 feet short and not 1,600 feet short. I recall the belief by "all" at the time that if we had been landing at KSC, we would have been short of the underrun. I would not put it past NASA to fudge the official number from 1,600 to 600 feet. For example the Shuttle Operations Data Base lists the touch down point as 623 feet instead of negative 623 feet. I have an excellent memory of such things and 1,600 is leathal (at KSC) and 600 is not. The word on the street at the time was STS-37 would have been loss of crew if we had been landing at KSC.
Danny Deger
-
#481
by
dawei
on 23 Jun, 2007 15:01
-
When are the O2, N2, He, N2 and hydrazine tanks depressurized after the space shuttle lands? Do they need to be depressurized before the ground crew is allowed to be close to the shuttle in light of concerns about pressure vessel failure?
-
#482
by
Jim
on 23 Jun, 2007 16:51
-
dawei - 23/6/2007 11:01 AM
When are the O2, N2, He, N2 and hydrazine tanks depressurized after the space shuttle lands? Do they need to be depressurized before the ground crew is allowed to be close to the shuttle in light of concerns about pressure vessel failure?
At the OPF
-
#483
by
psloss
on 24 Jun, 2007 16:44
-
OK, going back a-ways to a
question I had during the STS-115 launch campaign, which I'll repost here:
me - 8/9/2006 7:43 AM
Chris Bergin - 8/9/2006 7:27 AM
"The ECOs are normally armed when the ET 5% sensors go dry during flight (typically around 8 minutes 0 seconds)" - thanks to the source who saw the question and passed on the answer *waves* 
My thanks, too -- since that sensor also failed on the STS-121 tank, what's the condition to arm the sensors without the 5% sensor?
Edit: I'm assuming with the system biased to the LOX side, the 5% sensor on the LOX tank would be uncovered first and that sensor didn't fail on the STS-121 tank, but I'm curious if there's another indicator or whether it would be "computationally-based."
Thanks.
-
#484
by
mkirk
on 25 Jun, 2007 02:18
-
psloss - 24/6/2007 11:44 AM
OK, going back a-ways to a question I had during the STS-115 launch campaign, which I'll repost here:
me - 8/9/2006 7:43 AM
Chris Bergin - 8/9/2006 7:27 AM
"The ECOs are normally armed when the ET 5% sensors go dry during flight (typically around 8 minutes 0 seconds)" - thanks to the source who saw the question and passed on the answer *waves*
My thanks, too -- since that sensor also failed on the STS-121 tank, what's the condition to arm the sensors without the 5% sensor?
Edit: I'm assuming with the system biased to the LOX side, the 5% sensor on the LOX tank would be uncovered first and that sensor didn't fail on the STS-121 tank, but I'm curious if there's another indicator or whether it would be "computationally-based."
Thanks.
I hope I understand what you are asking.
The 5% sensors are not what arms the ECO sensors. They are armed when the vehicle reaches a specific flight mass or if two engines have been shutdown. This mass is currently set at about 2% total propellant remaining in the tank.
Propellant quantity, which is available to the crew on the Trajectory display as a percentage of total quantity, is a guidance derived calculation based on SSME flow rate. Since the sensors in the tank are all fixed level sensors this calculation is the best way to determine ET propellant quantity.
Mark Kirkman
-
#485
by
texas_space
on 25 Jun, 2007 03:30
-
Does anyone know what the system for the astronaut flight badges is (if there is one)? I noticed some folks have a gold badge, silver badge, or a silver military-style badge (e.g. for rated aviators and pilots).
-
#486
by
simonbp
on 25 Jun, 2007 05:13
-
texas_space - 24/6/2007 8:30 PM
Does anyone know what the system for the astronaut flight badges is (if there is one)? I noticed some folks have a gold badge, silver badge, or a silver military-style badge (e.g. for rated aviators and pilots).
I believe the silver badge is an unflown astronaut, while gold denotes one that has...
Simon
-
#487
by
Jim
on 25 Jun, 2007 11:38
-
simonbp - 25/6/2007 1:13 AM
texas_space - 24/6/2007 8:30 PM
Does anyone know what the system for the astronaut flight badges is (if there is one)? I noticed some folks have a gold badge, silver badge, or a silver military-style badge (e.g. for rated aviators and pilots).
I believe the silver badge is an unflown astronaut, while gold denotes one that has...
Simon
Depends on the branch of military the astronaut belongs to. Gold is Navy and NASA and silver is USAF
-
#488
by
texas_space
on 25 Jun, 2007 14:35
-
OK that makes more sense. Thanks for the answer guys!
-
#489
by
Antares
on 25 Jun, 2007 15:16
-
Does anyone know what the NASA### call sign is for the SCA? I was thinking about following it on flightaware.
-
#490
by
Almurray1958
on 25 Jun, 2007 15:37
-
Four Gulfstream II aircraft comprise the current STA fleet, although other Gulfstream II aircraft, lacking STA capabilities, are also used by NASA for personnel transport purposes. Although the majority of the fleet have markings similar to those pictured above, paint schemes do vary slightly across aircraft. Current STA tail numbers are:
* N944NA
* N945NA
* N946NA
* N947NA
source wikipedia, copied from NASA sources
of course these are tail numbers, not necessarily call signs...
-
#491
by
psloss
on 25 Jun, 2007 15:43
-
In that case, the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft are NASA 905 and NASA 911, so N905NA and N911NA, respectively.
-
#492
by
fcmadrid
on 25 Jun, 2007 19:51
-
Hello!
I wonder how do they put space shuttle on boeing 747, when they drive him home to nasa?
Thanks
-
#493
by
DaveS
on 25 Jun, 2007 19:58
-
fcmadrid - 25/6/2007 9:51 PM
Hello!
I wonder how do they put space shuttle on boeing 747, when they drive him home to nasa?
Thanks
They're already at NASA. More specifically at the Dryden Flight Research Center(DFRC) at Edwards AFB.
And for how they do it, see this QuickTime movie:
http://www1.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Movie/STS/HTML/EM-0084-17.htmlIt shows the ferry flight processing Discovery underwent when she landed at DFRC in August 2005 following her RTF mission STS-114.
-
#494
by
Andrewwski
on 26 Jun, 2007 03:24
-
-
#495
by
missinglink
on 27 Jun, 2007 18:45
-
I have seen the Space Shuttle called the world's most complex machine. Surely this is incorrect? A nuclear submarine is bigger and has more moving parts, not to mention having a nuclear reactor inside... all the more so for an aircraft carrier? And what about the International Space Station?
Speaking of which, is there a spinoff from the ISS and other space projects in the area of "handling of complexity"? What I mean is, are lessons learned from managing the mind-boggling complexity of these machines transferable to other projects down on earth, and are they published somewhere we can learn from them?
One more question about the ISS. Every pic I've seen of the insides shows an environment of astounding ugliness. Access panels, racks, cables, struts, HVAC lines... wasn't there any money in the budget for a quiet nook someplace with unbroken surfaces in soothing colors where people can go to chill? It's no problem for short-time visits, but for someone staying aboard for months on end, don't they go bonkers just from the visual clutter?
-
#496
by
Andrewwski
on 27 Jun, 2007 19:42
-
I think it seems a lot less cluttered if you're there.
First, everything is carefully planned. Nothing's "cluttered" like it was on Mir. Everything has it's proper place.
Second, and only an astronaut could answer this, but it would seem to me that it would be more organized when you're actually in zero-g. You can use all of the surfaces, and don't have to worry about walking on them or anything. You can concentrate on any area in a comfortable position.
-
#497
by
Thorny
on 27 Jun, 2007 19:53
-
missinglink - 27/6/2007 1:45 PM
One more question about the ISS. Every pic I've seen of the insides shows an environment of astounding ugliness. Access panels, racks, cables, struts, HVAC lines... wasn't there any money in the budget for a quiet nook someplace with unbroken surfaces in soothing colors where people can go to chill?
Nope, the Habitation Module was cancelled in 2001 due to ISS cost overruns.
-
#498
by
whitewatcher
on 27 Jun, 2007 20:21
-
missinglink - 27/6/2007 8:45 PM
Speaking of which, is there a spinoff from the ISS and other space projects in the area of "handling of complexity"? What I mean is, are lessons learned from managing the mind-boggling complexity of these machines transferable to other projects down on earth, and are they published somewhere we can learn from them?
Yes. Aerospace Engineers can easily find a job in different areas of business. It's their ability to see ideas in a context and to detect connections between things and concepts.
Example: Thermodynamics and aerodynamics have many points of contact. It's hard to understand hypersonic aerodynamics without understanding basic thermodynamics. (Both are highly complex fieds of research!)
I know many former fellow students working in different industries now. They design cars, drilling machines, clothes, ....
W.L. Gore & Associates produces the famous Gore-Tex clothing. At the same time, many cables used in the ATV and european ISS modules are produced by this company. As far as I know, they started with making wires and then looked for different possible applications to sell their PTFE.
-
#499
by
missinglink
on 27 Jun, 2007 20:46
-
Thank you all for replies.
whitewatcher, that's good to hear. I was looking for spinoffs of a more abstract nature, in the field of operations research.
Such as, "Here is what we've learned in decades of working on one of the most complicated engineering projects ever, with the added difficulty of operating in an extremely unforgiving environment. After numerous setbacks and failures caused by our inadequate grasp of the cross-links and inter-relations between different parts of the system, we developed a set of rules that reduced the incidence of unforeseen consequences. This paper gives a high level overview of the ruleset and we believe that the insights gained by us are to some extent transferable across a broad range of industries in which large-scale projects are conducted. Specifically..."
