Shuttle Questions Q & A (Part 3)

• #540 by ChrisGebhardt on 06 Jul, 2007 02:02
• I've seen something scrolloing across the top of these threads in the "Now on L2" space that said, "Extending Shuttle Life Beyond 2010". As I'm not a member of L2, can someone please tell me what this was about and how much detail it went into if any? Thanks.
• #541 by jarthur on 06 Jul, 2007 15:11
• I have a question that could go in this thread, but it could also go in the Mir thread or possibly even the ISS thread, so feel free to move it if need be.
  
  
  I am curious why the shuttle brought up the docking module to MIR for Shuttle-Mir dockings? I don't think it served as an adapter between US and Russian docking systems because the shuttle was able to dock directly to Kristal on the first docking mission (STS-71 I think), nor was it a clearance issue for the same reason. So what purpose did the module serve?
  
  And since the Russians already had a docking system that was compatible with the shuttle, why not switch all their docking ports to to this system? Sure they would have to switch over their Progress and Soyuz spacecraft, but it would add a lot of flexibility to the ISS. Then their wouldn't be "sides" so to speak. US vehicles could dock on the Russian side and vice versa assuming proper clearances and what not. For instance the little used PMA-3 could be used to dock an extra Progress or something.
  
  Thanks!
• #542 by psloss on 06 Jul, 2007 15:17
• Quote

  jarthur - 6/7/2007  11:11 AM
  
  I am curious why the shuttle brought up the docking module to MIR for Shuttle-Mir dockings? I don't think it served as an adapter between US and Russian docking systems because the shuttle was able to dock directly to Kristal on the first docking mission (STS-71 I think), nor was it a clearance issue for the same reason. So what purpose did the module serve?
  

  Well, here's a starter from the STS-74 press kit:
  
  

  Quote

  The Russian-built Docking Module (DM), to be carried aloft by Atlantis and left attached to the Kristall module of the Mir Space Station, is designed to allow Shuttle-Mir dockings with the Kristall module located at the Mir radial port.
  
  Without the DM, Kristall would have to be moved to the longitudinal axis of Mir to provide clearance for each Shuttle docking. The longitudinal axis location is undesirable for Kristall because the longitudinal port is normally a location for Progress resupply modules and Soyuz spacecraft. In addition, it is not desirable to continually move the Kristall from port to port in preparation for a Shuttle docking.
  
  The 15.4-foot long DM will allow clearance for the Shuttle to dock with Kristall located at the radial axis of Mir. The module will not be moved from that location once STS-74 is complete. All further Shuttle dockings will take place using the DM. It may also be used for future Soyuz dockings.
• #543 by Jim on 06 Jul, 2007 15:28
• Quote

  jarthur - 6/7/2007  11:11 AM
  
  And since the Russians already had a docking system that was compatible with the shuttle, why not switch all their docking ports to to this system? Sure they would have to switch over their Progress and Soyuz spacecraft, but it would add a lot of flexibility to the ISS. Then their wouldn't be "sides" so to speak. US vehicles could dock on the Russian side and vice versa assuming proper clearances and what not. For instance the little used PMA-3 could be used to dock an extra Progress or something.
  

  
  The only US vehicle to use the APAS is the shuttle.  HTV and COTS will use the CBM's.  The shuttle can't use the other ports anyways due to clearance issues.    Progress, Soyuz and ATV use the Russia probe and drogue.   Switching the  Progress, Soyuz and ATV is not the issue, it is the ISS which would be harder to adapt.  PMA-3 couldn't be used for progress since it doesn't have a KURS system associated with it.   CEV will place a LIDS adapter on the APAS to convert them
  
  
• #544 by jarthur on 06 Jul, 2007 15:42
• Thanks for your answers guys.
  
  
  

  Quote

  The Russian-built Docking Module (DM), to be carried aloft by Atlantis and left attached to the Kristall module of the Mir Space Station, is designed to allow Shuttle-Mir dockings with the Kristall module located at the Mir radial port.
  
  Without the DM, Kristall would have to be moved to the longitudinal axis of Mir to provide clearance for each Shuttle docking. The longitudinal axis location is undesirable for Kristall because the longitudinal port is normally a location for Progress resupply modules and Soyuz spacecraft. In addition, it is not desirable to continually move the Kristall from port to port in preparation for a Shuttle docking.
  
  The 15.4-foot long DM will allow clearance for the Shuttle to dock with Kristall located at the radial axis of Mir. The module will not be moved from that location once STS-74 is complete. All further Shuttle dockings will take place using the DM. It may also be used for future Soyuz dockings.

  
  
  So was some form of the DM always planned, as I assume the different docking ports on Kristal were originally intended for dockings with Buran?
• #545 by brahmanknight on 06 Jul, 2007 16:23
• I believe the DM was meant to be used for Buran.
• #546 by Jim on 06 Jul, 2007 16:49
• Quote

  brahmanknight - 6/7/2007  12:23 PM
  
  I believe the DM was meant to be used for Buran.

  
  No, there was an existing port for Buran.  DM was just for the shuttle
• #547 by jarthur on 06 Jul, 2007 17:11
• Quote

  Jim - 6/7/2007  10:49 AM
  
  

  Quote

  brahmanknight - 6/7/2007  12:23 PM
  
  I believe the DM was meant to be used for Buran.

  
  No, there was an existing port for Buran.  DM was just for the shuttle

  
  
  Which port was intended for Buran, and why could it not be used for Shuttle?
• #548 by parham55 on 06 Jul, 2007 17:43
• thanks for the GREAT picture pad rat!
• #549 by Jim on 06 Jul, 2007 18:49
• Quote

  jarthur - 6/7/2007  1:11 PM
  
  

  Quote

  Jim - 6/7/2007  10:49 AM
  
  

  Quote

  brahmanknight - 6/7/2007  12:23 PM
  
  I believe the DM was meant to be used for Buran.

  
  No, there was an existing port for Buran.  DM was just for the shuttle

  
  
  Which port was intended for Buran, and why could it not be used for Shuttle?

  
  Kristall.  as stated there were clearance problems
• #550 by jarthur on 06 Jul, 2007 19:14
• Quote

  Jim - 6/7/2007  12:49 PM
  
  
  Kristall.  as stated there were clearance problems

  
  
  So there are clearance problems for the Shuttle, but not Buran?
• #551 by Jorge on 06 Jul, 2007 20:15
• Quote

  jarthur - 6/7/2007  2:14 PM
  
  

  Quote

  Jim - 6/7/2007  12:49 PM
  
  
  Kristall.  as stated there were clearance problems

  
  
  So there are clearance problems for the Shuttle, but not Buran?

  
  Mir would have been in a different config for the planned Buran/Mir dockings, with no clearance concerns.
  
  If Buran/Mir had gotten further in planning, the Russians would eventually have had to solve the same problem as with Shuttle/Mir. The "permanent" Mir config would have had the same clearance problem for Buran.
• #552 by Jackson on 06 Jul, 2007 23:25
• Quote

  pad rat - 5/7/2007  3:25 PM
  
  It's the green bowl-shaped area. Close enough for ya?

  
  That's a great picture. Sure would get a lot of salad in that bowl!  :laugh:
• #553 by blazotron on 07 Jul, 2007 00:53
• Quote

  missinglink - 2/7/2007  12:33 PM
  
  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.

  
  I'm glad it was helpful.  I appreciate the interest of you and others in these topics (which I of course find interesting and important myself), and am happy to help when I can.
• #554 by spacemuppet on 08 Jul, 2007 01:41
• What is the purpose of jettosining the landing drogue chute during rollout?  I see no purpose for this other than looking cool and giving the pilot something else to do.  Is there a good reason?
• #555 by DaveS on 08 Jul, 2007 01:47
• Quote

  spacemuppet - 8/7/2007  3:41 AM
  
  What is the purpose of jettosining the landing drogue chute during rollout?  I see no purpose for this other than looking cool and giving the pilot something else to do.  Is there a good reason?

  The reason is that it would get entangled and snagged by the SSME nozzles and create one big mess to clear out in the OPF or in MDD.
• #556 by ZANL188 on 08 Jul, 2007 01:50
• I can think of a number of reasons to do that.  Keeping it from getting tangled with the support trucks after wheel stop seems to be the best.
• #557 by APG85 on 08 Jul, 2007 23:59
• How many aerodynamic tailcones does NASA have for transporting the shuttles on the 747's and are any of them the original one used for the Enterprise drop tests?  Thanks...
• #558 by DaveS on 09 Jul, 2007 00:10
• Quote

  APG85 - 9/7/2007  1:59 AM
  
  How many aerodynamic tailcones does NASA have for transporting the shuttles on the 747's and are any of them the original one used for the Enterprise drop tests?  Thanks...

  1: 2
  2: Yes. They had to manufacture a new tail cone for Endeavour as the old one didn't fit here as she had a modified vertical stabilizer for the drag chute.
  As she was the first one equipped with the new drag chute, the rest of the fleet still had the old vertical stabilizer and needed to use the old tail cone.
  
  Once the rest of the fleet had been equipped with the modified vertical stabilizers, the old tail cone was modified to support the modified vertical stabilizers.
• #559 by spacemuppet on 09 Jul, 2007 01:54
• What was the shortest time gap between shuttle launches ever?  I assume it happened sometime before 1986?