Question General Spaceflight Q&A

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,613
Reaction score
2,332
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
It would be pointless to start a new thread for this:


In this well-known image, I noticed that the Orbiter's elevons are raised. What is the reason for this?

No special reason, the hydraulics are completely deenergized in orbit, so the control surfaces can move free during every motion of the spacecraft. The pressure is only kept up at a low level by the circularization pumps, if these are active.
 

Phillips

Regular witty saying title.
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
46
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Why is it that the space shuttle missions aren't in exact order like the Soyuz? For example, after STS-95, STS-88 was next. And why were there missions like STS-51-A or STS-47-C?
 

garyw

O-F Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
Addon Developer
Tutorial Publisher
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
10,485
Reaction score
209
Points
138
Location
Kent
Website
blog.gdwnet.com
Lets start with the easy one.

Any mission number is assigned to that mission for life. So STS-95 was the John Glenn flight. When planning was started that would have been the next number available. STS-88 would have already been in the planning stages and possibly even started training.

Now, for whatever reason, delays, politics, anything, STS-95 flew ahead of STS-88 but the mission would keep the designation simply because every would have known that STS-95 is the John Glenn mission and all the planning docs for that mission would have STS-95 on it so it's easier to keep the names and fly them out of sequence than to swap names around and confuse everyone - especially the PAO's!

STS-51-A style designations were an early programme idea. Its broken down like this:

STS (Space Transportation System)

1985 = Paid for by the financial year of 85.
1 = Launching from KSC. 2 would have been Vandenburg if it had been made operational.
A = First mission of that financial period, B second mission, C third mission and so on.
 
Last edited:

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,613
Reaction score
2,332
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,613
Reaction score
2,332
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
I'm guessing that this is done while docking: the ISS is very heavy but the docking connection looks very small, what stops the connection from simply snapping?

The force is pretty low, not much higher than the impact forces during docking. The orbit is raised by using the downward firing RCS thrusters, in a long period of pulses. Each primary thruster of the RCS has just 3880 N force, the Shuttle uses only 4 at a time during the maneuver. A large amount of the thrust is also lost by the thrusters pointing a bit outward. Around 12 kN force act on the docking point, that is approximately the weight force of a car.

During docking, you get the same force when the PRCS is fired for pushing the docking systems together, so they latch together and achieve capture. The four springs that push the Shuttle away during undocking have the same force.
 

Fabri91

Donator
Donator
Joined
Jun 2, 2008
Messages
2,179
Reaction score
233
Points
78
Location
Valmorea
Website
www.fabri91.eu
Reading about the SDLV and comparisons with Energia/Buran brought to my mind a question, even if a bit off-topic: what is the reason to have the main engines attached to the orbiter itself, if they are just dead weight after launch and just more energy to get rid of during reentry? Would it have been possible to get the engines to reenter in one piece in some other way?
 

garyw

O-F Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
Addon Developer
Tutorial Publisher
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
10,485
Reaction score
209
Points
138
Location
Kent
Website
blog.gdwnet.com
what is the reason to have the main engines attached to the orbiter itself, if they are just dead weight after launch and just more energy to get rid of during reentry? Would it have been possible to get the engines to reenter in one piece in some other way?

After launch the amount of 'dead weight' they make is actually quite low. To add in a jettison system, recovery system, piping, fuel for the deorbit and so on would not only add weight and complexity it would add additional processes to the timeline requiring post orbit jettision of the engines.

The other option is to add the engines to the tank but then you lose them with the tank.
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,613
Reaction score
2,332
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
Reading about the SDLV and comparisons with Energia/Buran brought to my mind a question, even if a bit off-topic: what is the reason to have the main engines attached to the orbiter itself, if they are just dead weight after launch and just more energy to get rid of during reentry? Would it have been possible to get the engines to reenter in one piece in some other way?

They are simply too expensive to throw away. One costs 69 million dollar, more than a whole Delta II rocket.

It would have been possible to recover them: By throwing them into a new spacecraft, that protects them during reentry, that would be more expensive than installing the main engines into the orbiter.

On the Energia, throwing away the engine worked, because the RD-0120 engines are much cheaper than the SSMEs, by simpler construction and slightly lower performance. But: This was only possible because the Soviet engineers had much better knowledge about designing bipropellant rocket engines, the USA never had this option.
 

thesnorklemonkey

Tutorial Publisher
Tutorial Publisher
Joined
Aug 5, 2010
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Ottawa
Website
www.youtube.com
So does the shuttle have a bailout option for the early stages of launch? I assume jetissoning the SRB's would put a put of force on the ET and cause it to disintegrate, like on STS-51L. I know that when the SRB's are gone and the shuttle is below subsonic speed, the astronaut's can escape, at least from what I've heard.

Anyone know?
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,613
Reaction score
2,332
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
So does the shuttle have a bailout option for the early stages of launch? I assume jetissoning the SRB's would put a put of force on the ET and cause it to disintegrate, like on STS-51L. I know that when the SRB's are gone and the shuttle is below subsonic speed, the astronaut's can escape, at least from what I've heard.

Anyone know?

Yes, I know. And no, the Shuttle does not have such options. You can theoretically jettison the SRBs pretty early, the separation system is designed for this, but practically, the exhaust with its up to 5 cm large white-glowing slag balls, would badly damage your orbiter.

It is also impossible to simply jettison the ET any time. When the ET still contains too much fuel, the CoG of it is too high and it would likely hit the orbiter with its tumbling motion. Separating the ET with a lot of fuel in it is only possible with a very tough maneuver that is done during the RTLS maneuver.

The earliest abort options after SRB ignitions are always RTLS type aborts. You jettison the SRBs and fly a higher trajectory for gaining potential energy, aiming for the right moment to turn around, so the ET is almost dry when you can drop it and glide home. If you are too far away for returning to KSC, you can aim this RTLS at another runway at the US east coast, this is a East-Coast Abort Landing (ECAL).

When all three engines fail, or you are at a point where you can't get the energy for reaching a runway, you do an contingency abort: You simply reach a stable gliding flight, and when you are low and slow enough, a small explosive charge punches a hole into the cabin wall for quickly reducing pressure in the cabin, a second one is triggered to blow away the mid deck hatch, and a long curved pole is extended for bailing out below the large low wing of the orbiter.


There are no longer ejection seats on the Shuttle, these had only been available for the first flight and had been disabled and later removed for the others.

Still, the shuttle is, in terms of abort modes, only slightly worse than other manned spacecraft. While you can't simply abort in the first 85 seconds of flight (that is the soonest time for a secure SRB separation), it has more options for the rest of the ascent. There are many things that can go wrong inside the Shuttle, but the 69 million Euro for each SSME come for a good reason: Contrary to the simpler engines used on other launchers, the SSME has a very good health management, that usually reacts too soon, than too late, even being capable to detect small errors in fluid flow or a slightly different turbine vibration sound.

It is for example doubtful, a soyuz launcher would survive a STS-51L like rapid disintegration of the launcher right below the capsule, even though it has the better abort system in general.
 

IronRain

The One and Only (AFAIK)
Administrator
Moderator
News Reporter
Donator
Joined
Oct 11, 2009
Messages
3,484
Reaction score
403
Points
123
Location
Utrecht
Website
www.spaceflightnewsapi.net
In the movie Deep Rescue, Discovery makes an emergency landing in the sea.. is this possible?
 
Last edited:

DaveS

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Donator
Beta Tester
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
9,434
Reaction score
689
Points
203
There are no longer ejection seats on the Shuttle, these had only been available for the first flight and had been disabled and later removed for the others.
Actually, only Columbia and Enterprise had the Lockheed zero/zero ejection seats. Following STS-4, the seats on Columbia were deactivated. They were not removed until the Spacelab Only (SLO) mods for STS-9.

Challenger and the subsequent orbiters were never equipped with the ejection seats.
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,613
Reaction score
2,332
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
In the movie Deep Rescue, Discovery makes an emergency landing in sea.. is this possible?

Yes, in good conditions. It is generally not recommended, but possible.

There is a video on Youtube that shows the scale model tests for such ditching and gives some clues, which landing conditions would mean the complete destruction of the cabin and loss of crew.



---------- Post added at 08:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:50 PM ----------

Actually, only Columbia and Enterprise had the Lockheed zero/zero ejection seats. Following STS-4, the seats on Columbia were deactivated. They were not removed until the Spacelab Only (SLO) mods for STS-9.

Hadn't they been already deactivated for all missions with more than two astronauts as crew? I can image that the jet blast of the seats would be more devastating to the flight deck mission specialists than the odds of a bail-out.
 

DaveS

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Donator
Beta Tester
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
9,434
Reaction score
689
Points
203
Hadn't they been already deactivated for all missions with more than two astronauts as crew? I can image that the jet blast of the seats would be more devastating to the flight deck mission specialists than the odds of a bail-out.
STS-1 through 4 were all Orbital Flight Test missions which only used two crew members (CDR and PLT). STS-5 was the first "operational" mission which used a crew of four (CDR, PLT, MS1 and MS2/FE).

Following STS-5 Columbia was removed from active status to undergo a series of modifications to convert her from her initial test flight configuration to a operational configuration. The SLO mods were only the first ones.

Following STS-9 she was once again removed from active status to complete the mods at Palmdale in time for STS-61C.
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,613
Reaction score
2,332
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
ah ok, I thought STS-2 already had mission specialists.
 
Top