-
#520
by
Orbiter Obvious
on 01 Jul, 2007 03:23
-
treynolds37 - 30/6/2007 10:03 PM
Hey guys and gals, I was part of the Flat Gorby story. We (friends and family) did it because we know Suni and Gorby and it was just a good story not a NASA thing. You guy's are good on your flight analysis, good job!
Tim
Not sure what this is doing on Shuttle Q&A, but are you saying you're a friend of Suni Williams?
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5140
-
#521
by
Andy L
on 01 Jul, 2007 03:29
-
treynolds37 - 30/6/2007 10:03 PM
You guy's are good on your flight analysis, good job!
Tim
Welcome, this is site packed with NASA, USA and so on engineers and managers and the followers of shuttle and space flight. No gimicks required
-
#522
by
mkirk
on 01 Jul, 2007 15:53
-
OV-106 - 30/6/2007 9:54 PM
brahmanknight - 30/6/2007 5:26 PM
How much electricity does the orbiter produce? In terms of kWs?
It depends on the need of the vehicle but each fuel cell is capable of producing up to 16KW if necessary.
For planning purposes power is generally assumed to be 18 kw (total orbiter power) per mission day. A mission extension day is assumed to be about 15 kw.
Actual mission power useage is much lower especially with docked operations, and priority power downs.
The Group B power down aims for about 12-13 kw and the Group C aims for around 11 kw. There are other contingency power downs which take the loads much lower.
Here is a basic rundown from the SCOM (shuttle crew operations manual) about Fuel Cell output:
“The nominal voltage and current range of each fuel cell is 2 kW at 32.5 volts dc, 61.5 amps to 12kW at 27.5 volts dc, 436 amps. Each is capable of supplying up to 10 kW maximum continuous power in nominal situations, 12 kW continuously in off-nominal situations (with one
or more fuel cells failed), and up to 16 kW for 10 minutes. The average on-orbit power consumption of the orbiter is approximately 14 kW, leaving additional capability available for
payloads. Each fuel cell is serviced between flights and reused until it has accumulated 2,000
hours of on-line service.”
Mark Kirkman
-
#523
by
Danny Dot
on 01 Jul, 2007 17:14
-
mkirk - 1/7/2007 10:53 AM
snip
For planning purposes power is generally assumed to be 18 kw/hr (total orbiter power) per mission day. A mission extension day is assumed to be about 15 kw/hr.
snip
Did you mean kw-hr?
Danny Deger
-
#524
by
mkirk
on 01 Jul, 2007 17:20
-
Danny Dot - 1/7/2007 12:14 PM
mkirk - 1/7/2007 10:53 AM
snip
For planning purposes power is generally assumed to be 18 kw/hr (total orbiter power) per mission day. A mission extension day is assumed to be about 15 kw/hr.
snip
Did you mean kw-hr?
Danny Deger
Hell, I don't know...did I?
I don't speak Electrical...
I changed the previous posts to kw.
Mark Kirkman
-
#525
by
RedSky
on 01 Jul, 2007 18:59
-
After seeing Atlantis leaving California this morning on its piggyback flight back to KSC... as the 747 turned on the taxiway pointing away from the camera, it made me think about the aero cover over the shuttle's engines. We've seen this since the first test release flights with Enterprise, but today seeing it that way made me think:
1) Its much wider than a 747 fuselage, so I assume either some very large cargo aircraft has to transport it back from KSC to the west coast.... or else it is separable into pieces. Anyone know if it breaks down into smaller sections?
2) Is the "cost" of its transport back west included in what is always quoted in the extra cost of the shuttle landing in the west instead of KSC ($1.5 million).
3) How many of these exist? Is there one at White Sands in case a shuttle landed there, or is the one at Edwards flown there before flying back to KSC.
-
#526
by
blazotron
on 01 Jul, 2007 19:09
-
mkirk - 1/7/2007 10:20 AM
Danny Dot - 1/7/2007 12:14 PM
mkirk - 1/7/2007 10:53 AM
snip
For planning purposes power is generally assumed to be 18 kw/hr (total orbiter power) per mission day. A mission extension day is assumed to be about 15 kw/hr.
snip
Did you mean kw-hr?
Danny Deger
Hell, I don't know...did I?
I don't speak Electrical...
I changed the previous posts to kw.
It's got to be kW, which is electrical power, rather than kWh (kw-hr). At the quoted nominal 14 kW average production, the orbiter produces 14 kW * 24 hours/day = 336 kWh per day = 336 kWh per day * 3600 sec/hr = 1.21 GJ per day. For comparison, the average US house uses about 1 kW (averaged over the day), which is 24 kWh per day. Thus, the shuttle uses about 15 times the electricity used by an average house. The unit kW/hr doesn't make sense in this context (it would be the rate of change of electrical load).
-
#527
by
DaveS
on 01 Jul, 2007 19:10
-
1)It's seperable into sections, one lower and one upper section.
2)Probably.
3)Two. One for each SCA.
-
#528
by
mkirk
on 01 Jul, 2007 22:35
-
blazotron - 1/7/2007 2:09 PM
mkirk - 1/7/2007 10:20 AM
Danny Dot - 1/7/2007 12:14 PM
mkirk - 1/7/2007 10:53 AM
snip
For planning purposes power is generally assumed to be 18 kw/hr (total orbiter power) per mission day. A mission extension day is assumed to be about 15 kw/hr.
snip
Did you mean kw-hr?
Danny Deger
Hell, I don't know...did I?
I don't speak Electrical...
I changed the previous posts to kw.
It's got to be kW, which is electrical power, rather than kWh (kw-hr). At the quoted nominal 14 kW average production, the orbiter produces 14 kW * 24 hours/day = 336 kWh per day = 336 kWh per day * 3600 sec/hr = 1.21 GJ per day. For comparison, the average US house uses about 1 kW (averaged over the day), which is 24 kWh per day. Thus, the shuttle uses about 15 times the electricity used by an average house. The unit kW/hr doesn't make sense in this context (it would be the rate of change of electrical load).
Yeah I know, I was just kidding around and reflecting my lack of electrical expertise (not related to shuttles and airplane) by not catching the mistake prior to someone pointing it out.
Also I really don't speak electrical or EE...even though many of my friends are EE (electrical engineers) I try not to hold it against them...
Mark Kirkman
p.s.
I should also point out that the shuttle's electrical system was the first system I was certified as an instructor in when I worked in the Shuttle Training Division.
-
#529
by
brahmanknight
on 02 Jul, 2007 00:41
-
How does the oribiter transmit TV signals during liftoff since it doesn't have it's KU antenna deployed?
-
#530
by
DaveS
on 02 Jul, 2007 00:43
-
brahmanknight - 2/7/2007 2:41 AM
How does the oribiter transmit TV signals during liftoff since it doesn't have it's KU antenna deployed?
There's a dedicated S-Band antenna located on the ET that downlinks the ET cam video.
-
#531
by
MKremer
on 02 Jul, 2007 01:12
-
-
#532
by
parham55
on 02 Jul, 2007 02:21
-
Any photos of the salad bowls we've been hearing about? I checked out some of the hi-res images of the orbiters hanging in the VAB prior to ET mating. Are any closer photos available? Also, what are some of the details on how the SCA/ET attachment points connect to the salad bowls? Is there some type of bolt that holds the two sections together? Thanks.
-
#533
by
blazotron
on 02 Jul, 2007 08:17
-
mkirk - 1/7/2007 3:35 PM
Yeah I know, I was just kidding around and reflecting my lack of electrical expertise (not related to shuttles and airplane) by not catching the mistake prior to someone pointing it out.
Oops--wish I had picked up on the joke, although I thought it did seem a little out of character for you to be having trouble with those units...
-
#534
by
Jim
on 02 Jul, 2007 11:24
-
parham55 - 1/7/2007 10:21 PM
Any photos of the salad bowls we've been hearing about? I checked out some of the hi-res images of the orbiters hanging in the VAB prior to ET mating. Are any closer photos available? Also, what are some of the details on how the SCA/ET attachment points connect to the salad bowls? Is there some type of bolt that holds the two sections together? Thanks.
-
#535
by
missinglink
on 02 Jul, 2007 19:33
-
blazotron, sorry for not replying sooner to your outstanding post about the complexity of the Shuttle. Thank you, that gives me a good idea of the level of planning involved.
This forum is truly a remarkable place, I don't know of any other place on the Net where so many knowledgeable people go out of their way to be so forthcoming with useful information and where amateurs like me can ask questions without fear of being ridiculed.
-
#536
by
ShuttleDiscovery
on 02 Jul, 2007 19:50
-
Danny Dot - 22/6/2007 9:33 PM
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/209e4408b4786d02/5c6efd21ae4f32a1
I 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
Are there any videos of this landing? I can't find any on YouTube...
-
#537
by
parham55
on 03 Jul, 2007 02:27
-
Jim,
Thank you.
Rob
-
#538
by
Danny Dot
on 06 Jul, 2007 00:37
-
ShuttleDiscovery - 2/7/2007 2:50 PM
Danny Dot - 22/6/2007 9:33 PM
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/209e4408b4786d02/5c6efd21ae4f32a1
I 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
Are there any videos of this landing? I can't find any on YouTube...
No video made. There was a last minute change to a lakebed runway that is rarely used. No MLS and no cameras.
Danny Deger
http://www.dannydeger.net
-
#539
by
psloss
on 06 Jul, 2007 01:20
-
Danny Dot - 5/7/2007 8:37 PM
No video made. There was a last minute change to a lakebed runway that is rarely used. No MLS and no cameras.
I coulda swore that I watched that on CNN live, but I don't have the tape in front of me to verify. Next time I'm home I'll look for it. IIRC, no mention of it was made by the press at the time.
