-
#400
by
Jim
on 21 Feb, 2006 01:06
-
STS Tony - 20/2/2006 7:04 PMWow, thanks for the close up.Seems like an awfully large amount of things to look at during flight. How long does it take to train someone to be competent in 'flying an Orbiter'? Is it the hardest 'plane' to learn?
Remember, the Orbiter has a crew. Yes, CDR and PLT are responsible for "flying" the shuttle during ascent and entry, but they get help from one of the other astronauts, who is designated as the "flight engineer". Plus the crew has Mission Control "looking over their shoulders." The crew trains more per flight than other vehicles. Look at what "David AF" flies and he does it all by himself.
-
#401
by
mkirk
on 21 Feb, 2006 01:23
-
Chris Bergin - 20/2/2006 2:45 PM
No wonders this thread jumped by 400 page views in a few hours.
Here's a question Mark, going off what we're seeing in front of us here CWF7 lights, what would Commander Collins of been seeing for her to call back on the loop, during STS-93: "This is Columbia, we're in the roll, we've got a fuel cell (glitch) level one."
Top middle on the panel? (Fuel Cell Reac)
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=442&start=1
Fascinating stuff 
Ahh yes STS-93. I was in the SCA (sim control area) that morning at "O-dark hundred hours" this is a set of consoles in the MCC identical to those in the flight control room where the instructors can watch over the data in real time. Instructors have no real active role in the mission other than to provide technical support or input on how the crew may or may not react in certain situations.
I have looked at the STS-93 thread and there might be some points I can add to. Let me review my notes and the flight loop tapes and I will post something to this thread about it in a few days.
I can tell you that there were several different things all happening at once during that ascent including a small fire in the flight control room...actually an overhead projector blew out and just smoked up the room a little, but this came just after MECO when everyone had already had a much more exciting 8 1/2 minutes than planned. FLIGHT that morning was John Shannon and just after MECO I can still rember him remarking "whew...folks we don't need any more of these!!" meaning that was just like a simulation rather than the normally quiet actual launches.
The call Eileen made was a FUEL CELL PH #1...this occured as a result of the short on the ac bus which caused the fuel cell 1 to initiate a self test which in turn annunciated the PH message. The PH is just a measure of the fuel cells PH level in the water...this in itself was not directly related to the short but rather a symptom of the short. FUEL CELL PH would have sounded and alarm and the message would have shown up on the GPC CRT. When I refresh my memory I will try and post a narative of the hole sequence.
About the FUEL CELL REAC light you mentioned; thankfully no, that light did not illuminate. That light refers to the reactant valves for the fuel cells. If that lights up it is supposed to be an indication that one or more of the valves that let the hydrogen and oxygen into the fuel cells has failed closed. If this occurs and the failure is real the specific fuel cell will fail in about 30 seconds do to starvation and it will take all of the electrical busses that are connected to it down alsot...this is bad!!! Fortunately in that case you still have two more fuel cells to pick up the load...unless your day is really bad. Instructors give scenarios like this to the crews all the time, so they are prepared to react to them very quickly.
Mark Kirkman
-
#402
by
Jamie Young
on 21 Feb, 2006 01:40
-
This place is Shuttle heaven!
-
#403
by
Launch Fan
on 21 Feb, 2006 01:48
-
I hear ya! No questions yet, just that I wonder where you guys, this thread and this site has been for the past 10 years of my life! This is great info. Thank you.
-
#404
by
Rocket Nut
on 21 Feb, 2006 10:31
-
STS Tony - 20/2/2006 8:04 PM
Seems like an awfully large amount of things to look at during flight. How long does it take to train someone to be competent in 'flying an Orbiter'? Is it the hardest 'plane' to learn?
I have to respond here...allow an old guy to reminisce for a few minutes...
I transitioned to several different aircraft over my military career. I remember vividly my first impression of every plane. It was always "wow, will I ever be comfortable with all those new instruments and switches".
After very few training sessions and before the first similator 'ride', everything seemed very familiar and "old hat". I was always amazed at just how quickly one can learn to use such a large collection of essential instrumentation once you know the basics. And the engineers work very hard at putting things in a logical place, making it even easier to become familiar with systems. Of course, they always seem to put a few circuit breakers or switches in extremely awkward places...just to keep us on our toes, I guess. After the initial training, it was just a matter of repitition, repitition, repetition, and exposure to malfunctions.
Good thing about the Shuttle is that you have a lot of other experts looking over your shoulder at all times. In a plane, it can be only one or 2 people.
Cheers,
Larry
-
#405
by
Jonesy STS
on 21 Feb, 2006 12:41
-
Jamie Young - 20/2/2006 8:40 PM
This place is Shuttle heaven!
Isn't it just.
I really liked the images of Mission Control. Never seen what those monitors show before.
-
#406
by
RRP
on 21 Feb, 2006 12:57
-
Thanks for the photos of the Shuttle cockpit (and the Raptor). Blown away. I am an ex-Navy engineer and always, always the first response to an alarm is to silence it. So you can think. Whoever invented alarms made damn sure you would not be able to ignore it. I can only imagine the shuttle's are in the same mold.
-
#407
by
Ben E
on 21 Feb, 2006 13:33
-
Yes, clearly the astronauts have a lot to do during ascent. I just wonder how they manage to do it without a single slip. You can talk about sheer expertise, but even Sally Ride said that, during her STS-7 launch as the flight engineer, she found it difficult to even call out "Roll program" in the first few seconds after leaving the pad.
It's always amazed me, having seen in-the-cockpit liftoff videos, how violent Shuttle launches are for the astronauts and how they manage to stay focused.
Call me a wimp, but I'm not a big fan of scary rides that throw you violently upside-down, and despite any level of expertise and training on the ground or in T-38s, isn't there the risk that when an astronaut's orientation is suddenly and rapidly changed from vertical to inverted, barrelling into orbit at several thousand miles an hour, the entire cabin shaking violently, encased in a cumbersome pressure suit, trying to read and tick off a checklist attached to their knee whilst paying attention to a set of blurry computers in front of them AND preparing for a hundred different potential contingencies, isn't there a risk that they'll just momentarily lose focus and miss something?
-
#408
by
Crispy
on 21 Feb, 2006 16:46
-
Massive respect indeed for anybody who can fly one of those things. Still, the russians had the right idea with Buran - automatic takeoff and landing.
-
#409
by
Jim
on 21 Feb, 2006 17:43
-
Crispy - 21/2/2006 11:46 AMMassive respect indeed for anybody who can fly one of those things. Still, the russians had the right idea with Buran - automatic takeoff and landing.
The shuttle's ascent is automatic. The crewmembers monitor the performance of the vehicle and are ready to "take over" in case of failures. "Take over" is a misnomer. The crew enacts backup procedures in case of subsystem failures and selects the abort mode (if required) but the vehicle still flys it. There has been no vehicle yet that man has piloted to orbit. The shuttle has some ability in second stage flight.
This is an outstanding issue for manrating vehicles. The guidance system still would have to provide info to the crew, the control system would have to take the crew's input and translate it into vehicle motion. All this while going to orbit with ever changing control gains. During crucial times, like liftoff, the crew can react fast enough. Addtionally, the launch vehicle must fly as close to the optimal flight path to make it to orbit. There isn't a large fuel reserve to make up for large excusions.
-
#410
by
STS Tony
on 21 Feb, 2006 21:31
-
mkirk - 20/2/2006 8:23 PM
Chris Bergin - 20/2/2006 2:45 PM
No wonders this thread jumped by 400 page views in a few hours.
Here's a question Mark, going off what we're seeing in front of us here CWF7 lights, what would Commander Collins of been seeing for her to call back on the loop, during STS-93: "This is Columbia, we're in the roll, we've got a fuel cell (glitch) level one."
Top middle on the panel? (Fuel Cell Reac)
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=442&start=1
Fascinating stuff
Ahh yes STS-93. I was in the SCA (sim control area) that morning at "O-dark hundred hours" this is a set of consoles in the MCC identical to those in the flight control room where the instructors can watch over the data in real time. Instructors have no real active role in the mission other than to provide technical support or input on how the crew may or may not react in certain situations.
I have looked at the STS-93 thread and there might be some points I can add to. Let me review my notes and the flight loop tapes and I will post something to this thread about it in a few days.
Mark Kirkman
That would be awesome if you could. One of the most interesting launches to learn ascent information from.
-
#411
by
psloss
on 21 Feb, 2006 22:17
-
STS Tony - 21/2/2006 5:31 PM
That would be awesome if you could. One of the most interesting launches to learn ascent information from.
Absolutely. STS-51F would also be interesting; I've seen/heard excerpts of film shot in the MCC during that ascent. I would love to hear the flight director loop for the STS-93 ascent, and that was before Mark's story.
Philip Sloss
-
#412
by
Chris Bergin
on 21 Feb, 2006 22:37
-
I daren't split this thread, it's like a goldmine of info
-
#413
by
Mark Max Q
on 22 Feb, 2006 17:03
-
Question.
On lift off, some of the RCS covers at the aft blow off, but the forward RCS seem to have their covers remain on.
What is the reason for this and removes them?
-
#414
by
DaveS
on 22 Feb, 2006 17:15
-
Mark Max Q - 22/2/2006 7:03 PM
Question.
On lift off, some of the RCS covers at the aft blow off, but the forward RCS seem to have their covers remain on.
What is the reason for this and removes them?
It's the shockwave from the SSMEs that tears aft ones apart. As there's no significant force on the FRCS covers, they remain intact and they come off on their own a little bit later in the ascent.
-
#415
by
Jim
on 22 Feb, 2006 17:33
-
DaveS - 22/2/2006 12:15 PMMark Max Q - 22/2/2006 7:03 PMQuestion.On lift off, some of the RCS covers at the aft blow off, but the forward RCS seem to have their covers remain on.What is the reason for this and removes them?
It's the shockwave from the SSMEs that tears aft ones apart. As there's no significant force on the FRCS covers, they remain intact and they come off on their own a little bit later in the ascent.
Sometimes the aft ones burn off. They are sometimes called butcher paper.
-
#416
by
mkirk
on 22 Feb, 2006 18:41
-
Mark Max Q - 22/2/2006 12:03 PM
Question.
On lift off, some of the RCS covers at the aft blow off, but the forward RCS seem to have their covers remain on.
What is the reason for this and removes them?
Just t add to the other answers:
Starting with STS-114 the RCS covers were modified with a Tyvek material that has an open end or scoop. This functions as a parachute to help pull the forward RCS convers off while the shuttle is still at a relatively low velocity. This was a precaution designed to prevent the covers from coming off at a high velocity and posing a debris threat to the orbiter.
I attched a picture of the new covers but it is hard to see the opening at the top end in this photo.
Mark
-
#417
by
Chris Bergin
on 22 Feb, 2006 20:17
-
Someone jog my memory. During STS-114's launch (literally the first few seconds) you could see "debris" fall down the outside of Discovery.
I know it was normal, but what was it again?
All good for when the TV people panic and need an explanation.
-
#418
by
hyper_snyper
on 22 Feb, 2006 20:24
-
^^Birdstrike?
-
#419
by
Chris Bergin
on 22 Feb, 2006 20:26
-
hyper_snyper - 22/2/2006 9:24 PM
^^Birdstrike?
Na, covers of some sort.
