-
#420 by hyper_snyper on 22 Feb, 2006 20:31
-
Tyvek covers, then.
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/briefings/0726/pm/003_STS-114_EHV224_mU207143908558.jpg
Stuff that STS114 shed...
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/briefings/0726/pm/index.html
-
#421 by Chris Bergin on 22 Feb, 2006 20:42
-
There we are. Nice one, cheers.
-
#422 by Thomas ESA on 26 Feb, 2006 17:25
-
Why did NASA go with Solids and not Liquid boosters?
-
#423 by nacnud on 26 Feb, 2006 17:40
-
$$$
The original plan was for a two stage to orbit vehicle with both stages flying back to land on a runway. It was cheaper to go for solids and a drop tank (ET) rather than a flyback first stage. This site has some of the cocepts that were looked at.
-
#424 by Jim on 26 Feb, 2006 19:06
-
Quote
Thomas ESA - 26/2/2006 12:25 PMWhy did NASA go with Solids and not Liquid boosters?
High initial costs and replacement costs if they were to be lost at sea (happened on STS-4)
-
#425 by Rocket Guy on 26 Feb, 2006 21:30
-
To clarify, those covers were the new RCS thruster covers, designed to fall off as it launched. Good photo here:
http://www.ktb.net/~billmeco/sts114B.html -
#426 by dmc6960 on 27 Feb, 2006 19:13
-
What are some of the reasons that the Shuttle cannot be turned around and reflown as quickly as originally invisioned? Obviously thermal tile inspections take a long time, but what are some of the other reasons it cannot just be refueled and re-stacked?
-
#427 by mkirk on 27 Feb, 2006 19:22
-
Quote
dmc6960 - 27/2/2006 2:13 PM
What are some of the reasons that the Shuttle cannot be turned around and reflown as quickly as originally invisioned? Obviously thermal tile inspections take a long time, but what are some of the other reasons it cannot just be refueled and re-stacked?
I am sure the processing guys can elaborate, but I will touch on some of it.
A lot of the systems and subsystems have proven to require more TLC (tender love & care) than planned. Flight history has proven that some of them should be inspected, repleced, or serviced more often than originally planned. Another factor is access to some of these systems was not planned for in the original design phase, so it is more time consuming to get access to them. Manpower is another issue. The program can NOT afford a REAL 3 shift 24/7 operation. Yes there are three shifts but 2 of them use minimal manpower compare to day shift. Also a lot more safety oversight and quality assuranece is required than originally envisioned.
Just my thoughts, others might be able to add more.
mark -
#428 by Jim on 27 Feb, 2006 19:38
-
Reconfiguring for different payloads takes some time. Attach hardware and wiring has to be removed and reinstalled. Hypergol loading takes days for setup, loading and teardown.
Back in the days of the two week turnaround between flights, it was only going to be 2 hours after landing that the orbiter was going to be back in the OPF. Likewise, I think the countdown was 4 or 6 hours and the crew went onboard 1-2 before launch.
There were many unjustified assumptions made for the 2 weeks turnaround
-
#429 by nacnud on 27 Feb, 2006 20:09
-
Given the knowledge gained from the STS could a vehicle with a 2 week turnaround actualy be built?
-
#430 by Jim on 27 Feb, 2006 20:19
-
Quote
nacnud - 27/2/2006 3:09 PMGiven the knowledge gained from the STS could a vehicle with a 2 week turnaround actualy be built?
DC-X did, twice in one day.
It all depends on what you want to do.
Payloads have to be designed to be ready quickly and take minimum reconfiguration. There weren't enough facilities to prepare 40 or more spacecraft, much less the nation's ability to produce that many spacecraft. It takes a month to prep a spacecraft.
The ER can't support a launch of different LV's closer than 48 hrs.
The whole space infrastructure needs to built with ops in mind.
EELV was suppose to be factory to pad. The Delta IV factory was sized for 40 boosters a year. Pad flows can't know support that rate.
-
#431 by nacnud on 27 Feb, 2006 20:29
-
True, it also didn't get much above a couple of thousand feet, any guess on orbital vehicles?
-
#432 by mkirk on 28 Feb, 2006 01:31
-
Here are some more pictures of my favorite place on the orbiter, the flight deck!
I found these files of Discovery on my laptop. They were taken in the OPF shortly before the STS-114 rollover to the VAB.
The FIRST PICTURE is of the aft flight deck looking into the payload bay. On the left is where the Commander/Pilot stand to fly the orbiter during rendezvous and docking. The monitor in the upper left can be used to call up the same type of flight displays as the front cockpit monitors. The controller on the left is for translational maneuvers (forward, back, up, down, left, right). The control stick in the middle of the center console is for rotational maneuvers (roll, pitch, and yaw). Above that you can see the top of a second translational controller (between the windows) that combined with another rotational controller (to the right, out of view), are used in conjunction with the controls on the right side of the console to control the RMS (remote manipulator system) or “robot arm”; they are NOT used to control the orbiter.
Notice the Canadian Flag on the RMS console.
One of our members here in the forum, Ender0319, can tell you all you want to know about operating the arm!!
On the upper left console below the window are the controls for the DAP (digital auto pilot), these allow the Commander/Pilot to select how the thrusters will fire and at what velocity and rotational rates. During the final docking phase the closure rates to the space station are very small, ideally you want to fly in at about .1 feet per second (+/- .03).
The switches on the center console around the control stick are used for controlling the video cameras and lighting in the payload bay.
The lower left and lower center console are for operating the orbiter docking system.
In the SECOND PICTURE you see a view into the payload bay thru the aft windows. You can see the red (remove before flight) cover on the top of the orbiter docking system. On the right is the robot arm. The OBSS (orbiter boom sensor system) goes on the left (no yet installed in this picture). In the back you see the top of the OMS (orbiter maneuvering system) pods and the vertical stabilizer. The speedbrake is visible in the open position.
Mark
-
#433 by Ender0319 on 28 Feb, 2006 03:37
-
MMMMMMMMM... RMS.......
-
#434 by SimonShuttle on 28 Feb, 2006 22:22
-
Quote
Ender0319 - 27/2/2006 10:37 PM
MMMMMMMMM... RMS.......
I bet you know every switch on that image!
-
#435 by Jamie Young on 28 Feb, 2006 23:28
-
Why are some of the swtiched taped over?
-
#436 by Jim on 01 Mar, 2006 00:29
-
Quote
Jamie Young - 28/2/2006 6:28 PMWhy are some of the swtiched taped over?
Protect against accidental movement
-
#437 by Jamie Young on 01 Mar, 2006 01:49
-
Just those switches? The others ok to move? Ok, then this question is a bit moving on, but when that picture was taking, was Discovery turned on?
-
#438 by Ender0319 on 01 Mar, 2006 02:05
-
I'll have to pull out a drawing to see what the taped over switches do. I did not notice that the first time around. Good eyes!
-
#439 by Avron on 01 Mar, 2006 03:25
-
Looking at the images, if the US flag was removed, you would think the Shuttle was Canadian
I bet you know every switch on that image!
