Space Shuttle Return to Flight - Pt. 3

[shuttle_rtf]

Agreed. Seems to fit nicely.

 

[nacnud]

So how are the ISPRs getting there, or is the ISS going to be some hollow aluminium tubes and no experiments?

 

[redgryphon]

A little OT, but the Japanese H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV) can bring up to 8 ISPRs to the ISS. It does not dock with the ISS, but instead will rendevous with it and then be berthed using the SSRMS. Perhaps the US could contract with NASDA for payment-in-kind to include some HTV cargo space. Of course the HTV is behind schedule, and is expensive for the Japanese too. The NASDA website suggests a 2007 launch, but it will probably be after the JEM is up and running (~2008) But I would guess it would be cheaper than developing a whole new unmanned vehicle designed to berth with the ISS CBM.

 

[ozspace]

Re the LOX Feedline Bracket Ice problem:<br />"What about hosing down with Glycol like they do on airliners? I guess that opens up a whole new lot of questions in relation to chemical on foam, insulation properties, etc, etc." <br /><br />I would love some well informed comment from the "brains trust" around here on this thought....

 

[ltm_se]

Maybe just a studpid question. Isn't it rather dangerous to heat up part of the ET/feedlines with heaters? Wouldn't this kind of heeting expand the fluids in the tank and cause cracks and/or higher pressure with explosion risk?<br /><br />Another question? When the tank is emptied during lauch. What is then occuping the "empty" part of the tank? Is it vacuum or some form of gas?<br /><br />

 

[najab]

><i>When the tank is emptied during lauch. What is then occuping the "empty" part of the tank?</i><p>The press-repress system that has been getting so much attention recently uses engine heat to boil propellants and feed the gas back into the top of each tank. This gas maintains the necessary ullage pressure inside the tanks.</p>

 

[drwayne]

The whole issue of insuring that the fuel is settled in the tanks prior to firing the engines is critical and fascinating, particularly for (1) Multi-stage rockets during staging transients and (2) Engines that must re-start in space - like the SIVB.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[daniko]

Hi everyone !<br /><br />I've spotted <b>this item</b> and it made me thinking. The issue is about the goals behind shuttle flights and the author is pretty unmerciful about it. Recently I've noted several other informations of that kind but the last one made me wander if there are new trends raising in the US society.<br /><br />I'm outside US so please insiders tell me:<br /><br />Are the piloted spaceflights not of social interest anymore ?!?

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Welcome our Bulgarian friend (I've met Hristo Stoichkov once!).<br /><br />That article is what we call in the media a "columnist rant" and is but one man's opinion only. <br /><br />There is little to no research into RTF efforts - and more so the Shuttle Bashing in here is less objective than I've seen from some of the Shuttle Bashers on here (and there seems to be a lot on space.com).<br /><br />I don't wish to blow trumpets here, but I'll tell you a little something about public interest in the Shuttles. We're a new media site specific to the Shuttles and we reach 19,000 average page impressions on articles. So there's interest there.<br /><br /> />Like the monster in some ghastly horror movie rising from the dead for the umpteenth time, the space shuttle is back on the launch pad. This grotesque, lethal white elephant - 14 deaths in 113 flights - is the grandest, grossest technological folly of our age.<<br /><br />Personally, I find that disrespectful and borderline disgusting.

 

[ozspace]

Looks like the new STS-121 tank is at KSC<br /><br />http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/countdown/video/chan4large.jpg

 

[drwayne]

"Are the piloted spaceflights not of social interest anymore ?!? "<br /><br />Even during the peak of the Apollo days, there was a asizeable fraction of the population who were opposed to "wasting money in space when there are problems right down here on Earth"<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

ET-121 is currently on the launch pad with Discovery!<br /><br />That's either ET-119 arriving, or ET-120 heading back.

 

[najab]

Ahh...the confusion that comes from using similar numbers. He wasn't saying it was ET number 121, he was saying that it's the ET <b>for</b> STS-121. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[ozspace]

OK, anyway it was arriving so that would be ET-119 <i> for </i> STS-121.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

I swear I'm going blind, but I read "ET-121"..............I'm off to Specsavers <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>OK, anyway it was arriving so that would be ET-119 for STS-121.<<br /><br />Don't forget STS-300! <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/crazy.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[robot_pilot]

>Yes, it is true that the testing wasn't high-fidelity to the<br /> />flight environment, but the diffuser in the 'problem' tank<br /> />was non-spec, plain and simple. The flow rate through<br /> />that diffuser configuration during testing matched what<br /> />was seen during the tanking test to a 'T'.<br /><br />No, not necessarily. One issue I have here is that we don't have a good indication that the ground-supplied helium is indeed coming in at the flowrate it's supposed to... we think it's about 1.4 lb/sec, but I suspect it may be considerably less.<br /><br />For one thing, the prepress pulses only last a half-second, so that helium is probably going to just pressurize the pressline (and ground piping) and then start blowing down into the LH2 tank when the pulse stops. This is NOT how the tests at Stennis modeled the flowrate... and the tank geometry IS an issue, since it determines how the helium gas mixes with the ullage gas.<br /><br />The flowrates used at the test (for helium) were about 1.0 to 1.5, so I have no problem with that... and it appears that the cause MAY have been the duplex diffuser screen, but I just don't like the fact that these test results may have been (or, rather, WERE) responsible for canceling a third tanking test. I understand that we've got a schedule to maintain, but isn't this the same type of thinking that got us into trouble with Columbia (Re: CAIB report)?<br /><br /> />If all the bananas in your house have disappeared, and<br /> />there's a monkey sitting on the kitchen floor with a pile of<br /> />banana skins all around him - why are you going to look<br /> />for an elephant?<br /><br />Who said I was going to look for an elephant? How do you now that a second monkey (i.e. the culprit) wasn't in the room, and left right before you walked in? Again, this is circumstantial. You would automatically blame the remaining monkey - incorrectly - for the actions of the other monkey. See where I am going here? It was probably the

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Just been pointed out on the Shuttle Status report that ET-119 will now fly with Atlantis on STS-115 and ET-120 (the one which had the problems on both Tanking Tests) will fly on STS-121 (STS-300).<br /><br />Asking USA people if this IS the case and if they've reverted to the single mesh diffuser etc. on ET-120.

 

[najab]

><i> That's my whole problem with this, that they were too quick to accept the duplex screen as the culprit. </i><p>I understand where you are coming from, but it's easy to go too far the other way - the Shuttle is a 'quirky' vehicle, what you'd expect from any system of its complexity. If we (well, 'they' really) test until <b>everything</b> is understood, it will never launch: there will <b>always</b> be unknown unknowns. The situation is that there was a part out of spec, and there was a behaviour out of spec, the manner in which the part was out of spec is consistent with the behaviour <b>AND</b> you can reproduce similar results with a similar test.<p>><i>I'm just not happy with what seems to be the fact that NASA's cultural problems are apparently still there.</i><p>I don't think you can compare the way this problem has been handled to pre-STS-107 behaviour. One crucial difference, in fact <b>the</b> crucial difference is that everybody knows about it and has had a chance to put in their two centsworth. A quick conclusion isn't necessarily a rash one.</p></p></p>

 

[drwayne]

"If the problem is still there when we do the prepress for launch we will just scrub the launch."<br /><br />That sounds like a logical method to me.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[daniko]

Another <b>link</b> about how astronauts will try to patch the wings of the Shuttle if damaged.<br />There were some new details for me.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

ET order confirmed as:<br /><br />ET-121 = STS-114<br />ET-120 = STS-121 (STS 300)<br />ET-119 = STS-115

 

[SpaceKiwi]

Is ET-120 still at KSC, or has it been sent back to Michoud for mods?<br /><br />Edited to correct my inability to read. Thanks for the answer below, SRTF. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

ET-119 arrived yesterday. ET-120 was going to be sent back to Michould.......but that was never set in stone and now appears to be staying to help Atlantis go uphill.<br /><br />ET-121 is on the pad with Discovery, as you know.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Ice Bracket concerns taken OFF a launch constraint!<br /><br />Going back and forth with some engineers to write up a story, but I'm getting a load of positiveness following an e-mail that was sent to some USA engineers (did you get it SG?) about Ice Debris.<br /><br />This is the most postive I've heard people about a July launch!!!! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />