-
#540 by Jim on 21 Mar, 2006 23:18
-
Quote
TheMadCap - 21/3/2006 4:49 PM Thanks for the wonderfull pics and explaination on the beanie cap. Another dumb question: why route the incoming cryogenic fuel and oxidizer through the shuttle into the tanks during fueling? Is it to check the flow path to ensure there are no leaks? It would seem easier to fill the tanks themselves. My apologies if I missed this in any of the previous 36 pages.
It was to save money. All the expensive fill and drain valves are on the Orbiter and get reused each flight. The ET has the minimal number of valves, the inflight disconnects, required.
-
#541 by Chris SF on 22 Mar, 2006 08:35
-
Quote
psloss - 21/3/2006 3:04 PM
Also, for a few seconds after liftoff, the vehicle drifts to the north due to the canted thrust of the main engines (one of the pros will be able to say at what point that changes...it's shortly after liftoff). Even though it doesn't take the pad tower out of the line of fire, perhaps it mitigates those effects somewhat...
If you're not already familiar with that, next time you see video of a shuttle liftoff from the east camera site (facing west), check it out...
Ah yes, I've seen the drift on the first few seconds. Always wondered about that. Thanks. -
#542 by FransonUK on 22 Mar, 2006 16:44
-
What is the large white pole that protrudes out of the top of the launch tower?
-
#543 by Jim on 22 Mar, 2006 16:48
-
Quote
FransonUK - 22/3/2006 11:44 AM What is the large white pole that protrudes out of the top of the launch tower?
Lightning mast
-
#544 by FransonUK on 22 Mar, 2006 17:16
-
Quote
Jim - 22/3/2006 11:48 AM
QuoteFransonUK - 22/3/2006 11:44 AM What is the large white pole that protrudes out of the top of the launch tower?
Lightning mast
Damn, simply didn't 'strike' me as that obvious
-
#545 by DaveS on 23 Mar, 2006 19:41
-
How long does the crew usually image the ET after jettisoning it? Just wondering.
-
#546 by James (Lockheed) on 23 Mar, 2006 20:17
-
Quote
DaveS - 23/3/2006 2:41 PM
How long does the crew usually image the ET after jettisoning it? Just wondering.
Not sure of how long, but it's restricted from the point of having the flight deck top windows facing the falling tank to when they are out of range for filming, which is by a hand held camera I believe. -
#547 by Andy L on 24 Mar, 2006 13:12
-
This is less technical, but there's some ambiguity over how much a Shuttle mission costs. A billion dollars a time?
-
#548 by nacnud on 24 Mar, 2006 13:25
-
There was a study into this, it depends on how you do the accounting
Total cost of shuttle program / number of launches = ~ $1.3B per launch
Current cost of adding a launch to the schedule* = ~$600-750M per lanch (ish)
*Not sure how this works out now the shuttle is to be retired. -
#549 by Terry Rocket on 24 Mar, 2006 14:40
-
That's a lot of cash
Any reason to how they became so expensive, as I'm sure the whole point of being a RLV was to save cash overall?
-
#550 by Jim on 24 Mar, 2006 16:04
-
Quote
Terry Rocket - 24/3/2006 9:40 AM That's a lot of cash
Any reason to how they became so expensive, as I'm sure the whole point of being a RLV was to save cash overall?Not design for operations.
-
#551 by Jim on 24 Mar, 2006 16:05
-
Quote
Terry Rocket - 24/3/2006 9:40 AM That's a lot of cash
Any reason to how they became so expensive, as I'm sure the whole point of being a RLV was to save cash overall?Not design for operations.
-
#552 by Davie OPF on 24 Mar, 2006 16:40
-
Quote
Terry Rocket - 24/3/2006 9:40 AM
That's a lot of cash Any reason to how they became so expensive, as I'm sure the whole point of being a RLV was to save cash overall?
As with most new technology, it's impossible to project costs involved with maintaining and modifying. Add in the market dropping out of the primary role of the Shuttle, and the Air Force pulling out post 51L, then it all adds up. -
#553 by NASA_LaRC_SP on 25 Mar, 2006 00:15
-
Air force design specs. Air force pulled out. Not good for business. That was a major part of it.
-
#554 by Do Shuttles Dream on 25 Mar, 2006 02:17
-
Did NASA gain any compensation from the Air Force pulling out? The money all comes from the same place, so I don't see why NASA should suffer for it?
-
#555 by Jim on 25 Mar, 2006 05:15
-
Quote
Do Shuttles Dream - 24/3/2006 9:17 PMDid NASA gain any compensation from the Air Force pulling out? The money all comes from the same place, so I don't see why NASA should suffer for it?
the shuttle was forced on the Air Force . Shuttle didn't lose any funding when they left.
-
#556 by TheMadCap on 25 Mar, 2006 13:50
-
Quote
Jim - 25/3/2006 12:15 AM
QuoteDo Shuttles Dream - 24/3/2006 9:17 PMDid NASA gain any compensation from the Air Force pulling out? The money all comes from the same place, so I don't see why NASA should suffer for it?
the shuttle was forced on the Air Force . Shuttle didn't lose any funding when they left.
But is it safe to say that due to the Air Force coming on board, the shuttle's final design is radically different than originally designed? Do you think that there would be less problems with flights if one of the lighter, crew-only type crafts would have been built? -
#557 by Jim on 25 Mar, 2006 13:57
-
Quote
TheMadCap - 25/3/2006 8:50 AMBut is it safe to say that due to the Air Force coming on board, the shuttle's final design is radically different than originally designed? Do you think that there would be less problems with flights if one of the lighter, crew-only type crafts would have been built?
The shuttle was never crew only. The USAF requirements were 65K lbs, 60 ft long x 15 ft dia payload with 1000 mi crossrange.
NASA's was 45k and 40 ft x 10ft.
-
#558 by Avron on 25 Mar, 2006 14:29
-
Quote
Jim - 25/3/2006 9:57 AM
QuoteTheMadCap - 25/3/2006 8:50 AMBut is it safe to say that due to the Air Force coming on board, the shuttle's final design is radically different than originally designed? Do you think that there would be less problems with flights if one of the lighter, crew-only type crafts would have been built?
The shuttle was never crew only. The USAF requirements were 65K lbs, 60 ft long x 15 ft dia payload with 1000 mi crossrange.
NASA's was 45k and 40 ft x 10ft.
That is significant.. its like having a requirement for another vehicle.. -
#559 by mong' on 25 Mar, 2006 15:35
-
yes it's a big difference but I am not sure how it could have affected the cost of the system.
Granted it would have been lighter (hence less propellant) but the problems would have been the same,i.e: Thermal protection and high turnaround times.
Any reason to how they became so expensive, as I'm sure the whole point of being a RLV was to save cash overall?