-
#920
by
Jim
on 25 Aug, 2007 12:38
-
Trekkie07 - 25/8/2007 1:37 AM
Jim - 25/8/2007 12:59 AM
Trekkie07 - 24/8/2007 10:06 PM
OK. Now it's time for me to ask a question. How long does it take to turn a High Bay around after a rollout to the start of SRB stacking for the next mission?
o minutes. Just like an OPF, there is nothing consumable that prevents another MLP form going ine
Thanks. But how long would it take to reposition the work platforms from a rollout config to a SRB stacking config? Minutes... hours?
0 minutes. There are none needed right away. The SRB holddown posts on the MLP have to be aligned. When the SRB aft segment is stacked, none are needed
-
#921
by
Thorny
on 25 Aug, 2007 18:33
-
Jorge - 24/8/2007 9:12 PM
Not quite right. It would be 12 hours if KSC was on the equator, but because it isn't, the descending opportunity is typically 4 orbits (6 hours) after the ascending opportunity.
But one of those opportunities, the descending node, would bring the Shuttle in over the continental United States (coming down over Minnesota, Illinois, Tennessee, etc.) and since the Columbia accident, NASA prefers not to risk that approach anymore. That leave the ascending node, with a Shuttle coming in over Central America, the Caribbean, and Cuba.
While true, that's not the main reason. NASA avoided the descending opportunities for ISS flights even before the Columbia accident because they typically required a lot of crew sleep-shifting, and because of concerns over noctilucent clouds during the summer months.
Thanks, Jorge. Would it be correct to say that the second opportunity is 6 hours after the first, and then you don't get another one for another 18 hours?
And I know at least two landings came in over the U.S. on descending node (I witnessed STS-79 from northeast of Atlanta) what were the exceptions that NASA would do this for?
-
#922
by
Jim
on 25 Aug, 2007 18:41
-
the opportunities between ascending and descending are 6 hours, but there are usually two opportunities on back to back orbits for ascending and two opportunities on back to back orbits for descending
-
#923
by
Jorge
on 25 Aug, 2007 20:32
-
Thorny - 25/8/2007 1:33 PM
Jorge - 24/8/2007 9:12 PM
Not quite right. It would be 12 hours if KSC was on the equator, but because it isn't, the descending opportunity is typically 4 orbits (6 hours) after the ascending opportunity.
But one of those opportunities, the descending node, would bring the Shuttle in over the continental United States (coming down over Minnesota, Illinois, Tennessee, etc.) and since the Columbia accident, NASA prefers not to risk that approach anymore. That leave the ascending node, with a Shuttle coming in over Central America, the Caribbean, and Cuba.
While true, that's not the main reason. NASA avoided the descending opportunities for ISS flights even before the Columbia accident because they typically required a lot of crew sleep-shifting, and because of concerns over noctilucent clouds during the summer months.
Thanks, Jorge. Would it be correct to say that the second opportunity is 6 hours after the first, and then you don't get another one for another 18 hours?
What Jim said.
And I know at least two landings came in over the U.S. on descending node (I witnessed STS-79 from northeast of Atlanta) what were the exceptions that NASA would do this for?
Non-summer flight (so no concern over noctilucents) combined with a mission timeline that puts the descending opportunity during the crew's awake period. The latter was more often the case for Shuttle-Mir flights since the shuttle crew was sleep-shifted to match the Mir crew. For Shuttle-ISS flights the two crews tend to meet in the middle so it's more typical for the descending opportunity to wind up during crew sleep.
-
#924
by
Ankle-bone12
on 25 Aug, 2007 23:15
-
Jim - 24/8/2007 5:22 AM
Not in the MPLM. The crew has no access to it in the payload bay of the shuttle (there is no tunnel). On spacehab missions, there is a tunnel and the crew has slept in the module.
Ok. But I saw in the STS126 FDRD on L2 that the MPLM has 3 crew quarters and teadmil etc. I wonder if astronauts sleep there when birthed to station, Or is that not what that is.
-
#925
by
brahmanknight
on 26 Aug, 2007 00:20
-
I think the crew quarters are being delivered to the station for Node 2.
-
#926
by
MKremer
on 26 Aug, 2007 01:04
-
Racks for crew quarters, galley, treadmill, waste (toilet) are all for ISS installation.
-
#927
by
John2375
on 27 Aug, 2007 00:54
-
noctilucents.. i'm just finding out and learning about this now.. -
That's only a northern hemisphere thing for some reason?? Because coming in the other way they still are at extreme southern latitudes..
-
#928
by
Jim
on 27 Aug, 2007 01:13
-
John2375 - 26/8/2007 8:54 PM
noctilucents.. i'm just finding out and learning about this now.. -
That's only a northern hemisphere thing for some reason?? Because coming in the other way they still are at extreme southern latitudes..
Coming the other way, the shuttle would be at higher altitudes during the higher latitudes
-
#929
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 27 Aug, 2007 04:52
-
Is there someplace where NASA lists the call names for the various astronauts (i.e. where do they list that Jim Kelly is "Vegas")?
-
#930
by
Jim
on 27 Aug, 2007 11:05
-
Maybe the astronauts bios, but just like for you, they are word of mouth and not documented
-
#931
by
mjp25
on 28 Aug, 2007 02:10
-
I appologize if this has been answered before. I did a search and couldn't find anything and I have read through the 3 shuttle Q&A's. Why were the chines on Columbia black? When she was delivered (albiet with may tiles still not installed) it looks like she was going to have a similar tile pattern as the subsequent orbiters. It even looks like they aren't really black tiles but something else. Are they white tiles painted black? Why didn't she ever get white tiles or blankets there? Why did they not change the tiles to blankets around the crew compartment? Did it have to do with the outer moldline? Was the airframe a different dimension?
-
#932
by
Jim
on 28 Aug, 2007 02:20
-
They is what they thought was needed. the airframe is the same. It was cheaper just to leave it
-
#933
by
GLS
on 28 Aug, 2007 10:55
-
I've read somewhere that sometime before STS 1 they painted the chine area with some black paint because they thought it was going to be hotter than they had expected, and over the years they actually installed black tiles (HRSI) there.
-
#934
by
MKremer
on 28 Aug, 2007 23:52
-
A painted on thermal coating as opposed to just plain old black paint, but you're correct... although I'm not so certain they didn't just leave/touchup the coating rather than actually replace all those tiles (there were quite a few of the them in that area on both wings).
-
#935
by
spaceshuttle
on 29 Aug, 2007 06:35
-
What's with the weird markings and scratches on the noses of some of the tanks?
-
#936
by
GLS
on 29 Aug, 2007 22:27
-
I think that's recently applied foam (light color, although some foam types are lighter than others...), either to repair a damaged foam area or because they needed to re-check weld thickness... or it could be that the foam was too thick and they trimmed it down. Each tank has it's own history.
-
#937
by
spaceshuttle
on 29 Aug, 2007 22:33
-
GLS - 29/8/2007 5:27 PM
I think that's recently applied foam (light color, although some foam types are lighter than others...), either to repair a damaged foam area or because they needed to re-check weld thickness... or it could be that the foam was too thick and they trimmed it down. Each tank has it's own history.
Awesome! Thanks! :laugh:
-
#938
by
tnphysics
on 30 Aug, 2007 01:05
-
Why isn't the RCS a TPS breach?
-
#939
by
Lee Jay
on 30 Aug, 2007 01:12
-
tnphysics - 29/8/2007 7:05 PM
Why isn't the RCS a TPS breach?
I don't know, but it seems to me that any rocket nozzle capable of handling the continuous burning of hypergolic propellants inside without damage is also likely to have what it takes to withstand reentry plasma.
