-
#340
by
Ben E
on 31 Jan, 2006 11:48
-
Exactly, Hotol. I recall a picture of the STS-58 crew in training, with Lucid, Fettman and Wolf shoulder-to-shoulder in the middeck and they could barely fit in. I can see maybe eight or perhaps nine people at a push, but not 11. I think they also need to have someone in an 'upright' seat by the side hatch in case of a bailout contingency.
-
#341
by
nacnud
on 31 Jan, 2006 13:33
-
Here is a VR of the
Orbiter Middeck Trainer you'll need quicktime. The large round airlock has been removed from all the orbiters so I think there is a little more room than shown.
-
#342
by
Hotol
on 31 Jan, 2006 13:41
-
Nice! Thanks for that, really helpful.
-
#343
by
Ben E
on 31 Jan, 2006 15:07
-
Ah, of course, the airlock!
STS-58 was Columbia, which had the internal airlock. You're right: the other orbiters would have a lot more internal room in their middecks because the airlock is now outside in the payload bay.
Still a tight squeeze though.
Many thanks.
-
#344
by
BogoMIPS
on 31 Jan, 2006 20:11
-
A question I thought of today...
How close to maxxed out is the cargo capacity of the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft when hauling a shuttle? I know it's limited to about 1000 miles due to fuel consumption from the mass involved...
-
#345
by
Ender0319
on 01 Feb, 2006 01:59
-
That's not a stupid question. I see someone has already provided the answer regarding the SSRMS - yes, that can now be controlled from the ground via MCC commanding.
The SRMS is too old (for lack of a more gratifying term) of a design to be allowed to be controlled from the ground. So, for as long as there is a need for the SRMS, there must be a human-in-the-loop to operate it.
Before the HSM was put back on the schedule, Goddard was looking at a remotely operated robotic arm to service HST. I believe the technical, political, and economic challenges may have been too great to permit a tele-robotic mission. Perhaps in the future, this can be considered.
Jamie Young - 30/1/2006 8:54 PM
Stupid question from me time.
The Shuttle has really shown the robotic arms work well and are an invaluable tool on the Shuttle and ISS. Could they eventually become pre-programmed and controlled from Earth, maybe?
I know we won't see this on the Orbiters, but would it have been possible to eventually take man out of the loop, with a Buran style unmanned flight and automated robotic arms, for say a HSM.
Please understand this is just theory, it won't happen with four years of STS remaining.
-
#346
by
mkirk
on 01 Feb, 2006 22:16
-
BogoMIPS - 31/1/2006 3:11 PM
A question I thought of today...
How close to maxxed out is the cargo capacity of the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft when hauling a shuttle? I know it's limited to about 1000 miles due to fuel consumption from the mass involved...
Here is a link to the fact sheet for the SCA. The real problem for the SCA's performance is that with the orbiter attached it has to fly at such low altitudes...around 15,000 feet...this means it eats up gas and it has to skirt around all the cumulus cloud buildups and weather which in turn kills its range capability. During ferry flights another aircraft is designated as the "Pathfinder" flys ahead of the SCA to scope out a favorable root for the SCA to fly.
I also included a couple of pictures of the SCA. The one picture is the aft attchement point for the orbiter with some special instructions on it. You would think that since NASA hires the best and brightest that such instructions would not have to be spelled out:)
Mark
-
#347
by
STS-Chris
on 02 Feb, 2006 15:24
-
"Attach Orbiter here"
"Black side down"
^^ Very good!
Nice Pics.
-
#348
by
Jonesy STS
on 02 Feb, 2006 15:26
-
Very important not to place an Orbiter upside down on the SCA
-
#349
by
nacnud
on 02 Feb, 2006 16:35
-
Yeah, it could get very confusing especialy on landing - is the 747 carrying the shuttle or the shuttle carrying the 747
-
#350
by
STS-Chris
on 02 Feb, 2006 16:44
-
Okay, I have another question. So far I couldn't find an answer.
How is the status of the external tank debris problem?
Is it going to be solved?
Is a launch of STS-121 in May realistic?
-
#351
by
Chris Bergin
on 02 Feb, 2006 20:12
-
I want to keep this thread for specific questions about the Shuttle, not mission updates or anything that will change in time, as this is a resource thread.
All your questions are answered if you just look around a little more.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/forum-view.asp?fid=2Welcome to the site
-
#352
by
Captain Scarlet
on 03 Feb, 2006 15:23
-
What will happen to the SCAs after the Shuttle retirements?
-
#353
by
mkirk
on 03 Feb, 2006 19:12
-
Captain Scarlet - 3/2/2006 10:23 AM
What will happen to the SCAs after the Shuttle retirements?
Actually that is a question a lot of the Aircraft Operations people have been asking among other things. What happens to the Shuttle Training Aircraft (STA), the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (SCA), and the T-38 fleet. It is just to soon to tell, but I know some of those folks are a little concerned about there jobs as the transition to the CEV program begins. Presumably the T-38 fleet will stick around but perhaps it will be a smaller fleet...this would really be dependent on the required size of the Astronaut Corps for CEV. It is just to valuable a tool for crew coordination experience in a high stress flight environment and a transportation tool. The C-9 which replaced the old "vomit comet" (KC-135) will still be needed but who knows what will happen to the STA and SCA. They might be able to find a home or use in flight research...
It is just to soon to know what is going to happen.
Mark
-
#354
by
Donna Spaceships
on 04 Feb, 2006 11:00
-
How different is it to fly a SCA, compared to a normal 747?
-
#355
by
Jamie Young
on 04 Feb, 2006 17:27
-
Donna Spaceships - 4/2/2006 6:00 AM
How different is it to fly a SCA, compared to a normal 747?
I think they'd be a lot of difference, with all that weight, not only just the orbiter, but the ballast inside the SCA.
-
#356
by
Heather
on 05 Feb, 2006 11:40
-
Hello, been a guest here for a long time. Great site.
I have a question. You know the ET is the one part of the Shuttle that isn't reused, has anyone got video or images of it burning up after being seperated? I've only seen images of it falling away. How long until it starts to burn up and how long does it take? Is there nothing left, or do some parts still splash into the ocean?
-
#357
by
psloss
on 05 Feb, 2006 13:25
-
Heather - 5/2/2006 7:40 AM
Hello, been a guest here for a long time. Great site.
I have a question. You know the ET is the one part of the Shuttle that isn't reused, has anyone got video or images of it burning up after being seperated? I've only seen images of it falling away. How long until it starts to burn up and how long does it take? Is there nothing left, or do some parts still splash into the ocean?
There is video of some ET re-entries on a few low-inclination, direct-insertion launches (I believe). If I recall correctly, I saw ET breakup video broadcast on CNN from the STS-41C launch and also amateur video on the STS-37 launch from I think Maui.
Philip Sloss
-
#358
by
Heather
on 05 Feb, 2006 13:32
-
Thank you, but are they available on the internet to view?
-
#359
by
psloss
on 05 Feb, 2006 13:41
-
Heather - 5/2/2006 9:32 AM
Thank you, but are they available on the internet to view?
Wish I could say conclusively, but I don't know.
