-
#800
by
parham55
on 12 Aug, 2007 01:20
-
Is the orbiter/ISS stack traveling -X in the velocity vector to protect the TPS, or is it maybe a radiator issue? Thanks.
-
#801
by
MKremer
on 12 Aug, 2007 02:28
-
parham55 - 11/8/2007 8:20 PM
Is the orbiter/ISS stack traveling -X in the velocity vector to protect the TPS, or is it maybe a radiator issue? Thanks.
The former. It's only in that attitude when an orbiter is docked.
-
#802
by
dantdbv
on 12 Aug, 2007 06:46
-
Help!
These have annoyed me for a while, so now is the time to do something about it.
On the STS-1 & STS-2 ET's there were black numbers as seen on the pics mentioned below, but i haven't seen anything about them anywhere.
What i would like to know is, if any of you know what, why, how and when they are, and if you do know, then please share it with me.
These pics were from the now defunct STSliftof site, i've made an 11MB rar file and have uploaded it on rapidshare.com
http://rapidshare.com/files/48466406/sts12etn.rar.html Scroll down and click on the free button. If you see these lines, then XXX tells you how long you have to wait until you can download again.
You have reached the download-limit for free-users. Want to download more? (in red)
Get your own Premium-account now! Instant download-access! (Or wait XXX minutes)
Use winrar or similar to unpack the file
KSC-80pc-746 3.574KB
KSC-80pc-747 3.320KB
80pc-0608 1.865KB
80pc-0709 1.614KB
And these from KSC, if you don't like to go straight to the highress pics, then go here to get the options
http://images.ksc.nasa.gov/photos/1981Or browse through KSC pics from 1950 to 2005 here
http://images.ksc.nasa.gov/photosSTS-1
http://images.ksc.nasa.gov/photos/1981/high/KSC-81PC-0164.jpgSTS-1
http://capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_US/shuttle/ksc/LC39_chrono_part2.htmJust below the 1980 headline.
STS-2
http://images.ksc.nasa.gov/photos/1981/high/KSC-381C-2366.03.jpgSTS-2
http://images.ksc.nasa.gov/photos/1981/high/KSC-81PC-0681.jpgBy the way, thank you for all of the truly good information, that you have all given me since i joined up
Happy day
-
#803
by
Endeavour118
on 12 Aug, 2007 07:06
-
Thorny - 11/8/2007 11:51 AM
Lee Jay - 9/8/2007 3:52 PM
Does anyone remember a mistaken announcement or a release by NASA that could have been mistaken by TV news as a cancellation? I remember very specifically the cancellation call and I wasn't that young (16 - 10th grade) so I don't think it was me.
It was delayed all morning by the cold temperature, but there was no scrub call. One of the talking heads on Morning TV must have misinterpreted a comment about extended holds due to weather for a scrub of the launch.
yeah the LCC people and the MMT people say one thing the media assumes another. and assumption is the mother of all foul ups!
-
#804
by
gordo
on 12 Aug, 2007 14:30
-
erioladastra - 12/8/2007 2:05 AM
"Is there not a shared network between the shuttle and ISS? "
As someone already noted, the orbiter only has laptops and ancient GPCs. Only minimal caution and warning data is exchanged and some other commands and telemetry but no real network between the ISS and orbiter laptops. So if they want to exchange info it is sneakernet.
got to be in bluetooth range lol
-
#805
by
Lee Jay
on 13 Aug, 2007 02:55
-
Why don't the FD2 OBSS inspections include the leading edge of the vertical stabilizer?
-
#806
by
rdale
on 13 Aug, 2007 03:01
-
My guess is it'd be physically impossible for debris to jump off the tank and over the top of the orbiter?
-
#807
by
Jorge
on 13 Aug, 2007 03:08
-
Lee Jay - 12/8/2007 9:55 PM
Why don't the FD2 OBSS inspections include the leading edge of the vertical stabilizer?
OBSS inspections are very time-consuming and are generally reserved for areas where the critical damage tolerance is small enough that only the OBSS sensors are good enough.
The critical damage tolerance for the vertical stabilizer is loose enough that any critical damage can be spotted in the RPM photos.
-
#808
by
Lee Jay
on 13 Aug, 2007 03:11
-
Okay, fair enough. But they generally don't start the "official" RPM photography until the vertical stab is pretty much out of sight, and they stop it before it comes back around. Or, is that an error by me? Anyway, it seems the V-stab gets less attention than the wing leading edges, yet losing it means losing the vehicle and crew too. Just wondering about that.
-
#809
by
Lee Jay
on 13 Aug, 2007 03:13
-
On the other hand, they can probably see it really well from the aft of the orbiter. So, do they rely on the crew for stab imagery like they did for the OMS pod blanket?
-
#810
by
Jorge
on 13 Aug, 2007 04:36
-
Lee Jay - 12/8/2007 10:11 PM
Or, is that an error by me? Anyway, it seems the V-stab gets less attention than the wing leading edges, yet losing it means losing the vehicle and crew too. Just wondering about that.
All true... but the v-stab also has less fragile TPS than the WLE, sees lower temperatures during entry, and as others have pointed out, is generally outside the path of debris from the SRBs/ET. And as you've pointed out, it's easily photographed by the shuttle crew from the aft windows, just like the OMS pods.
-
#811
by
Lee Jay
on 13 Aug, 2007 13:17
-
Jorge - 12/8/2007 10:36 PM
Lee Jay - 12/8/2007 10:11 PM
Or, is that an error by me? Anyway, it seems the V-stab gets less attention than the wing leading edges, yet losing it means losing the vehicle and crew too. Just wondering about that.
All true... but the v-stab also has less fragile TPS than the WLE, sees lower temperatures during entry, and as others have pointed out, is generally outside the path of debris from the SRBs/ET. And as you've pointed out, it's easily photographed by the shuttle crew from the aft windows, just like the OMS pods.
Okay, as long as it gets a formal looking over. It just never gets mentioned that I can recall and so I was wondering if it gets photos or a looking at through binoculars or something. Of course, before the last flight, I never heard them inspecting the OMS pods either.
-
#812
by
joncz
on 13 Aug, 2007 15:13
-
Question related to today's EVA where they're R&R a CMG with one brought up in the payload bay.
If they've already got the launch cradle for the CMG, why are they not returning the failed one on STS-118? I heard commentary (and verified in the execute package) that they're stowing the CMG on the ESP to be returned at a later date.
-
#813
by
DaveS
on 13 Aug, 2007 15:16
-
joncz - 13/8/2007 5:13 PM
Question related to today's EVA where they're R&R a CMG with one brought up in the payload bay.
If they've already got the launch cradle for the CMG, why are they not returning the failed one on STS-118? I heard commentary (and verified in the execute package) that they're stowing the CMG on the ESP to be returned at a later date.
Thw new CMG-3 is on ESP-3 which is to be mounted on P3 and left at the station. So there goes your launch cradle!
-
#814
by
joncz
on 13 Aug, 2007 15:29
-
Got it. Thanks!
-
#815
by
Danny Dot
on 13 Aug, 2007 18:36
-
If a shuttle is found to be too dangerous to land, what happens to that shuttle?
I have heard there is a kit on ISS that allows for an unmanned landing attempt. I have also heard the plan is for a deorbit burn with a planned burn up over an ocean. What is it?
What I know of shuttle design, it would be VERY difficult to automate everything for a landing attempt:
Close payload doors
Start APUs
Transition to OPS 3
Lower landing gear
Deploy airdata
My guess is the shuttle will be burned up over the ocean if it can't bring the crew home safely.
Danny Deger
-
#816
by
JMS
on 13 Aug, 2007 18:51
-
Danny Dot - 13/8/2007 1:36 PM
If a shuttle is found to be too dangerous to land, what happens to that shuttle?
I have heard there is a kit on ISS that allows for an unmanned landing attempt. I have also heard the plan is for a deorbit burn with a planned burn up over an ocean. What is it?
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?id=4582
-
#817
by
MKremer
on 13 Aug, 2007 18:52
-
You'd have to define "too dangerous to land". If it's too dangerous period (ie- not likely to survive reentry) then deorbit-destruction would be the only choice. Otherwise it's a management call for an empty remote deorbit and landing try at Vandenberg (which would still likely be a remote choice even after any attempted TPS repairs to try and bolster survivability).
Either way, that could probably be the end of the Shuttle program once a LON mission has to launch.
-
#818
by
Jorge
on 13 Aug, 2007 19:16
-
Danny Dot - 13/8/2007 1:36 PM
If a shuttle is found to be too dangerous to land, what happens to that shuttle?
I have heard there is a kit on ISS that allows for an unmanned landing attempt.
The "kit" consists of a cable from the GCIL to the affected control panels.
I have also heard the plan is for a deorbit burn with a planned burn up over an ocean. What is it?
Either. Depends on extent of damage and level of expectation the vehicle would survive.
What I know of shuttle design, it would be VERY difficult to automate everything for a landing attempt:
Close payload doors
Start APUs
Transition to OPS 3
Lower landing gear
Deploy airdata
The kit makes no attempt to automate anything. The cable from the GCIL to the switches allows MCC to "throw" the switches remotely using SPCs and RTCs. All the software stuff like item entries and OPS transitions are handled via DEU-equivalent uplinks.
-
#819
by
Danny Dot
on 13 Aug, 2007 19:31
-
Does anyone have any pictures of this kit? Does it have little motors that physically throw the switches? I can see how this would work. The air data deploy would be tough because it has to be pulled out before it can be thrown.
Danny Deger