-
#960
by
brahmanknight
on 01 Sep, 2007 21:15
-
Can anyone explain why some flights need a payload commander, and others don't?
-
#961
by
Jim
on 01 Sep, 2007 21:29
-
brahmanknight - 1/9/2007 5:15 PM
Can anyone explain why some flights need a payload commander, and others don't?
It depends on how crew intensive the mission is. And if the MS needs to be assigned earlier. this was applicable to science (module) missions
-
#962
by
brahmanknight
on 01 Sep, 2007 21:57
-
Was the EDO pallet ever considered for ISS missions, before the thought of SSPTS came about?
-
#963
by
Jim
on 01 Sep, 2007 22:14
-
No, because it takes up space in the payload bay, which would then reduce the need for longer missions since less would be done on a mission
-
#964
by
APG85
on 02 Sep, 2007 21:19
-
I had read at one time that Columbia was to heavy to ever be used for ISS missions. Was this really the case and were there plans to reduce it's weight (if this was true)? Had it survived, would Challenger have had the same issue? Thanks.
-
#965
by
Jorge
on 02 Sep, 2007 21:59
-
APG85 - 2/9/2007 4:19 PM
I had read at one time that Columbia was to heavy to ever be used for ISS missions. Was this really the case
Columbia was too heavy to be used for most ISS assembly missions. She was scheduled to be the orbiter for STS-118, and that was only possible because the S5 truss segment was relatively light and the primary mission was resupply via Spacehab (which could not be loaded as fully as it would have been on any other orbiter).
and were there plans to reduce it's weight (if this was true)?
No. Most of the easy stuff (removing development flight instrumentation, etc) had already been done. Most of the rest of the difference was structural weight and there were no plans to try to shave that. Ironically, one of the few things that could have been removed but wasn't - the OEX recorder - later proved useful to the Columbia Accident Investigation Board.
Had it survived, would Challenger have had the same issue?
No. Challenger was lighter than Columbia, more similar to the other orbiters.
-
#966
by
APG85
on 02 Sep, 2007 22:22
-
Thanks!!
-
#967
by
usn_skwerl
on 03 Sep, 2007 14:24
-
one thing ive wondered about...when the shuttle reenters after deorbit burn, it comes in with a ~40 degree angle relative to the atmosphere. wouldnt its shape force it to pitch down with 0 degree AoA? a "pointy end forward" profile? i understand the air is relatively thin, and they do use the RCS for att. control, but it just seems like its almost against physics, considering one end is pointy and one end has the "aerodynaminticity" of a dinner table.
-
#968
by
APG85
on 03 Sep, 2007 14:51
-
What was the fastest orbiter turn-around time (from landing to it's next launch)? I was thinking Atlantis 51J - 61B. Is this correct? Thanks.
-
#969
by
Danny Dot
on 03 Sep, 2007 15:09
-
usn_skwerl - 3/9/2007 9:24 AM
one thing ive wondered about...when the shuttle reenters after deorbit burn, it comes in with a ~40 degree angle relative to the atmosphere. wouldnt its shape force it to pitch down with 0 degree AoA? a "pointy end forward" profile? i understand the air is relatively thin, and they do use the RCS for att. control, but it just seems like its almost against physics, considering one end is pointy and one end has the "aerodynaminticity" of a dinner table.
The elevons and body flap go up and the shuttle is in trim at the 40 degrees angle of attack. RCS is not used except in the very early entry for pitch. It is used down to Mach 1 for lateral direction control, but not for pitch.
Danny Deger
-
#970
by
Jim
on 03 Sep, 2007 15:09
-
usn_skwerl - 3/9/2007 10:24 AM
one thing ive wondered about...when the shuttle reenters after deorbit burn, it comes in with a ~40 degree angle relative to the atmosphere. wouldnt its shape force it to pitch down with 0 degree AoA? a "pointy end forward" profile? i understand the air is relatively thin, and they do use the RCS for att. control, but it just seems like its almost against physics, considering one end is pointy and one end has the "aerodynaminticity" of a dinner table.
Not with the aerosurfaces keeping the pitch up, just like aircraft flaring before touchdown.
-
#971
by
GLS
on 03 Sep, 2007 15:20
-
APG85 - 3/9/2007 3:51 PM
What was the fastest orbiter turn-around time (from landing to it's next launch)? I was thinking Atlantis 51J - 61B. Is this correct? Thanks.
Yep, that's correct!
-
#972
by
APG85
on 03 Sep, 2007 15:22
-
GLS - 3/9/2007 11:20 AM
APG85 - 3/9/2007 3:51 PM
What was the fastest orbiter turn-around time (from landing to it's next launch)? I was thinking Atlantis 51J - 61B. Is this correct? Thanks.
Yep, that's correct!
I'd love to know the inside story on how they turned Atlantis so quickly!
-
#973
by
GLS
on 03 Sep, 2007 16:15
-
Back in those days they didn't have all the checks and tests and inspections that are in place today, and the SRB stacking was quicker, the OVs were *new*... Plus the people were working like hell with loads of overtime, and the managers had go fever. That's how you get such a small turnaround time, although it wasn't very safe...
-
#974
by
TJL
on 03 Sep, 2007 19:11
-
Looks like Stephen Bowen has been replaced on STS-124 by Greg Chamitoff.
Anyone know if Bowen's been re-assigned to a downstream shuttle flight?
Thank you.
-
#975
by
DaveS
on 03 Sep, 2007 19:14
-
-
#976
by
shuttlefan
on 07 Sep, 2007 01:32
-
I know that the shuttle PROBABLY achieved its highest altitude on the Hubble missions but is it possible that since we don't have that information from the DOD missions, that it could have actually climbed to a higher altitude on at least one of those flights?
-
#977
by
Jim
on 07 Sep, 2007 01:35
-
there always is "could" but..........
-
#978
by
pippin
on 07 Sep, 2007 08:05
-
shuttlefan - 7/9/2007 3:32 AM
I know that the shuttle PROBABLY achieved its highest altitude on the Hubble missions but is it possible that since we don't have that information from the DOD missions, that it could have actually climbed to a higher altitude on at least one of those flights?
Maybe our Russian friends here on the site can find out about that ;-)
-
#979
by
Lee Jay
on 07 Sep, 2007 22:17
-
I just don't know where to ask this.
I *know* I saw a map of the VAB here at some point. But searching and searching hasn't found it for me. Does someone have a link to such a floor plan?
