Shuttle Questions Q and A

• #80 by STS Tony on 01 Nov, 2005 22:32
• Check out this picture I found. Four Orbiter being processed. Shows what could have been!

  ---

  
• #81 by Flightstar on 01 Nov, 2005 22:36
• Ha, well I'd of had a few words about rollover of an Orbiter as we've got TWO being trasfered on the VAB cranes!:)
  
  What that image is showing you is the process, note the arrows.
• #82 by STS Tony on 01 Nov, 2005 22:37
• Oh crap, now I see! Sorry
• #83 by SRBseparama on 02 Nov, 2005 01:56
• Still, if that is to scale, a very good image that I've never seen before.
• #84 by DaveS on 02 Nov, 2005 22:27
• This is not question about the orbiters, but rather about the VAB. How long does it take to completly open those huge high bay doors? Is it a matter of hours of 10's of minutes? I have searched for answer on thi but have come up empty handed.
• #85 by Rocket Guy on 02 Nov, 2005 23:07
• A few minutes; the lower the panel the longer. The closing of the VAB doors (whatever part may be open) before launch is a part of the countdown. You can watch them close fairly quickly.
• #86 by norm103 on 03 Nov, 2005 17:05
• here is the  ET hook up point.  the part pointed out was were the cam was on sts-114

  ---

  
• #87 by FransonUK on 03 Nov, 2005 21:03
• Cool image. So how does it seperate/let go off the ET when at the end of a launch?
• #88 by nacnud on 04 Nov, 2005 00:08

• Quick question, the STS was designed to service spacestations and fix satellites (I think...) why is there not a docking port internallywithin the crew quarters but only externally in the payload bay.

• #89 by Flightstar on 04 Nov, 2005 02:31
• Quote

  nacnud - 3/11/2005  7:08 PM
  
  

  Quick question, the STS was designed to service spacestations and fix satellites (I think...) why is there not a docking port internallywithin the crew quarters but only externally in the payload bay.

  
  Ironically, it was never intended primarily to be a ship that would be visting space stations, even though many of the sales pitches had it on the side of a space station.
  
  When it was concieved, it was sold as a reusable and more economical alternative to the standard disposable stage rockets. The idea was to have a ship that could deliever payloads, in various ways, have multiple senarios while delievering, be able to retrieve payloads that had malfunctions and basically have versitility on the side of them.
  
  If I read your post correctly, you refer to a docking port that was purposed for EVA entrance and exit to the payload cargo bay.
  
  Why a docking port was then installed into all orbiters externally was the best solution for MIR and then ISS docking.
• #90 by norm103 on 04 Nov, 2005 02:58
• what was the reasons for changeing the STS mission # on the early fight afther STS-9 to the for exam. STS-41D#?
• #91 by SRBseparama on 04 Nov, 2005 03:01
• Ressing? Gonna have to watch that spelling of yours Norm!
• #92 by Rocket Guy on 04 Nov, 2005 04:38
• Because they thought there would be 40 flights a year and didn't want to wind up with STS-400.
  
  First numner is for the planned year of launch, second for the launch site (1 is KSC 2 is Vandy) and the letter was the planned mission of that year by number (A1, B2 etc).
• #93 by DaveS on 10 Nov, 2005 22:06
• Something I have always wondered is how workers remove the red tape around the ET umbilical wells that is visivle during mating ops in the VAB? Doesn't the tape damage the tiles?
• #94 by nacnud on 11 Nov, 2005 12:25
• Q: Will Manned Maneuvering Units (MMU) ever be used again, and if not why not?
  
  Thanks
  http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/Astronaut-EVA.jpg/600px-Astronaut-EVA.jpg" />
  
  MMU inspection of an orbiter, from MMU user guide
  

  ---

  
• #95 by David AF on 11 Nov, 2005 12:37
• Quote

  DaveS - 10/11/2005  5:06 PM
  
  Something I have always wondered is how workers remove the red tape around the ET umbilical wells that is visivle during mating ops in the VAB? Doesn't the tape damage the tiles?

  
  It's not tape, it's a type of paint that just wipes off when they mate to the ET (At least that is what I was told).
• #96 by MKremer on 11 Nov, 2005 13:00
• Quote

  nacnud - 11/11/2005  7:25 AM
  Q: Will Manned Maneuvering Units (MMU) ever be used again, and if not why not?
  
  Thanks
  

  
  I seriously doubt it. The Shuttle MMUs were developed up through the early 80's before Challenger, back when "lots of cheap flights" were still being envisioned for things like routine satellite deployments and recoveries.
  After Challenger, and the Air Force pullout, and after realizing how expensive and valuable the Shuttles (and her crews) are, the "cheap space moving van" concept didn't make sense anymore. There wasn't much need for untethered spacewalks from that point on, too, because it was found that the Shuttle arm and tethered EVA workers could do as much or more than a free-floating astronaut.
  
  There's a good history of MMU and development here:
  http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4219/Chapter13.html
  
  

  Yet the MMU has not been used since 1984. There are several reasons for this. First, most extravehicular activities were effective without use of the MMU. Tethers, safety grips, hand bars, and other restraints allowed astronauts to work in the open cargo bay. Furthermore, the maneuverability of the Space Shuttle itself and the utility of the shuttle's robotic manipulator arm had proved capable of rescuing satellites-the primary function for which the MMU had been designed. The orbiter could be piloted with such accuracy that on mission 41-B, for example, commander Vance D. Brand piloted the Challenger into position so that McCandless on the manipulator arm could grab a foot restraint that had broken loose and floated away from the orbiter. On flight 41-C, the MMU failed to achieve mechanical mating to the Solar Max satellite, but the orbiter and manipulator arm recovered the satellite. On the Discovery mission, 51-A, commander Henry W. Hartsfield operated the remote manipulator arm to knock ice off a waste-water port, the ice being a reentry hazard. This sort of contingency was a potential MMU activity, but the manipulator arm solved the problem.
  
  Another reason for lack of use of the MMU was the Challenger accident. In January 1986 the Challenger exploded 73 seconds after launch. The crew of seven, the spacecraft, and the payload were lost. That accident initially prompted a suspension of space flights that lasted into September 1988. The accident and resulting investigations also prompted new safety rules that would require expensive changes to the existing MMU, changes pending both a customer and a mission for the MMU. Still another reason for not using the MMU has been the lack of a new user with adequate funding and appropriate mission. Finally, since the Space Station is still under discussion, the Space Shuttle remains the main space human flight program of the United States. The MMU is not necessary to its operations.

  
  
  
• #97 by Bruce H on 11 Nov, 2005 14:49
• Exactly, although it's a shame we didn't see it for the gap filler removal.
• #98 by nacnud on 11 Nov, 2005 14:58
• That what I was wondering, maybe the HSM could use a couple.
• #99 by Flightstar on 11 Nov, 2005 15:12
• Quote

  nacnud - 11/11/2005  9:58 AM
  
  That what I was wondering, maybe the HSM could use a couple.

  
  That'll be the same as you saw with the Gap Fillers. I know you will know this, but for the benefit of others, Hubble will be captured and secured in the Cargo Bay and access will be from the end of the Robotic Arm for work higher up the telescope than is viable from a tether in the Cargo Bay area.