-
#200
by
Rocket Guy
on 01 Jan, 2006 20:24
-
Well they didn't have a chute until the mid 1990s, and they didn't use it on STS-95. When they do use the drag chute, rollout ends just past mid-point, not nearly using the whole runway. So without it, they still have double the amount of runway to roll down, but even then it doesn't come close to using it all.
-
#201
by
Firestarter
on 01 Jan, 2006 20:26
-
Thanks. That explains the really long runways as a safety margin, rather than the orbiter needing all the length.
-
#202
by
BogoMIPS
on 02 Jan, 2006 03:15
-
Hi everyone.
For the most part, Shuttle is an automated system, with a few things done manually by the crew aboard (landing. Could the existing shuttles be modified to allow for unmanned operations? Presumably they could, but would it be worth it?
My first thought was to use the new CLV to orbit the modules, as it will likyle be availabe in the next couple years (before the new SDHLV), but the required payload adapters and mass involved meant that launcher wasn't capable of launching all of the modules.
My next thought is that you use unmanned shuttle launches to get the remaining modules to ISS. Once docked (and that might be the real trick), the ISS crew could board the orbiter, if not everything about the process could be automated.
Then the orbiter could un-dock, and head home.
If one or more of the remaining orbiters could be flown unmanned, it might allow for ISS completion without addressing all of the concerns for crew risk.
-
#203
by
psloss
on 02 Jan, 2006 06:43
-
Firestarter - 1/1/2006 4:26 PM
Thanks. That explains the really long runways as a safety margin, rather than the orbiter needing all the length.
For reference, they did a "minimal braking" test on STS-44; it's not necessarily a perfect analog for a concrete runway, but that Edwards lakebed landing rollout took up over 11000 feet:
http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/shuttle/missions/sts-44/mission-sts-44.html
-
#204
by
Jonesy STS
on 02 Jan, 2006 13:49
-
What protection is there on the windows for the flight deck when launching? All that pressure, surprised glass windows are a good idea?
-
#205
by
Chris Bergin
on 02 Jan, 2006 17:38
-
Jonesy STS - 2/1/2006 2:49 PM
What protection is there on the windows for the flight deck when launching? All that pressure, surprised glass windows are a good idea?
Welcome to the site
The windows on the Orbiter are very strong and very thick, made up on several layers.
There was some concern on STS-114 about MMOD (Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris) hits on a few windows, but hasn't been mentioned again - so doesn't appear to be a concern....but you get the idea, these windows are very strong and thick.
-
#206
by
anik
on 02 Jan, 2006 20:40
-
Does anybody has exact times of Shuttle launches (within milliseconds)?…
I collect the time of "SRB ignition command from GPC", which is considered as official time of Shuttle liftoff... For example, the official time of Challenger (51-L) launch was "16:38:00.010 UTC – SRM Ignition Command (T=0) – 0.000 – GPC"…
P.S.: Good source, but there are not all times...
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/green/lanlanto.pdf
-
#207
by
Chris Bergin
on 02 Jan, 2006 21:00
-
Let me ask KSC PR and see if they can help.....I'd assume they'd have the access
-
#208
by
truebeliever
on 02 Jan, 2006 21:36
-
Good post !!!
I have often thought about a possible interim option to help with the current foam problems.... Have the astronauts fly up on Soyuz, fly the shuttle unmanned with cargo. Upon docking inspect for any damage to the tiles. If none, board it and fly it back. If some are damaged, repair if possible. The Soyuz would still be availabe for safe return in a worst case scenario.
I think we are going to have to do some real test flights to get all of the foam issues behind us. This would minimize the risk.
The only question is can the orbiter dock automatically with the ISS?
-
#209
by
Shuttle Man
on 02 Jan, 2006 21:41
-
An orbiter could fly unmanned "Soviet Buran" style, with a few modifcations. It would only be landing gear deployement etc.
Docking with the ISS would simply incorpate the level of currently available Progress automation.
So yes.
Chris did a story on automation of the fleet being possible?
-
#210
by
Chris Bergin
on 02 Jan, 2006 21:43
-
-
#211
by
BogoMIPS
on 03 Jan, 2006 01:41
-
Thanks for that link Chris... *Very* interesting to know it was at least considered!
I hadn't thought of the angle posed in the article of off-loading the crew at ISS and attempting to remote-land a potentially damaged orbiter, but that is another excellent reason that such a system should be implemented.
Computer-piloted vehicles landing themselves occured more than once on several X-plane models, so I have no doubt this could be done. The real questions are:
1. How much $?
2. How long to implement?
The article was written back in April of '05. I wonder if the idea was seriously revisited after STS-114's foam shedding incident.
-
#212
by
Bruce H
on 03 Jan, 2006 04:42
-
BogoMIPS - 2/1/2006 8:41 PM
Thanks for that link Chris... *Very* interesting to know it was at least considered!
I hadn't thought of the angle posed in the article of off-loading the crew at ISS and attempting to remote-land a potentially damaged orbiter, but that is another excellent reason that such a system should be implemented.
Computer-piloted vehicles landing themselves occured more than once on several X-plane models, so I have no doubt this could be done. The real questions are:
1. How much $?
2. How long to implement?
The article was written back in April of '05. I wonder if the idea was seriously revisited after STS-114's foam shedding incident.
1) Not much, about $5 per orbiter, max.
2) Ironically, over the space of the downtime while the PAL ramp issue is being dealt with, but it seems they've stretched their resources to thinly to take this option seriously.
-
#213
by
BogoMIPS
on 03 Jan, 2006 14:04
-
1) Not much, about $5 per orbiter, max.
Well, I don't think anything on the Shuttles costs only $5.
The obviously known systems that aren't automated (landing gear, atmospheric instrument probes) seem like pretty simple systems to automate:
Atmospheric Probes: at altitude X, deploy.
Landing gear: Deploy during final approach at appropriate time (not going to look it up in more detail at the moment).
Linking these automations into the computer system(s) on the orbiter, and testing them enough to trust them will likely some time. You don't anything like this deploying during re-entry, for obvious reasons.
Heck, you don't even need to really "automate" the gear deployment... Just enable radio-control of it! Something similar to the range safety destruct systems... Signal coded ARM and DEPLOY messages from a ground station to the orbiter during final approach, and for the atmospheric probes during descent.
If there's a crew aboard, simply don't use that remote equipment!
I agree that implementing this seems, from my aerospace engineering armchair here, to be a no-brainer...
-
#214
by
Bruce H
on 03 Jan, 2006 14:11
-
I apologize. $5m, was the figure I intended to note.
-
#215
by
dmc6960
on 03 Jan, 2006 17:53
-
Although difficult to see at launch due to the SRM's, it seems the LOX/LH2 SSME puts out a very light, tight blue flame in its exhaust. However the Boeing RS-68 LOX/LH2 engine puts out a huge bright orange flame in its exhaust. Anybody know the reason this is so? Personal curiosity.
-Jim
-
#216
by
UK Shuttle Clan
on 03 Jan, 2006 18:34
-
That's interesting.
So the SSME is quiet envioromentally sound, given the by product is water vapour and some hydrogen?
-
#217
by
UK Shuttle Clan
on 03 Jan, 2006 18:39
-
Here's a good picture of the near transparent SSME exhaust:
-
#218
by
rsp1202
on 03 Jan, 2006 19:27
-
During early boost phase of the Delta IV Heavy the lower section of boosters and engine bells were charred and aflame, with the flame migrating upwards and covering quite a portion of the stack. I find it interesting that this is intentional and anticipated. It's quite a dirty-looking booster during climb-out. The RD-180 Russian engine on the Atlas runs oxygen-rich and its exhaust flame is especially bright, but I don't recall it eveloping as much of the booster tail or tank. Different strokes, etc.
-
#219
by
rsp1202
on 03 Jan, 2006 19:57
-
