Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Lepape2 on February 24, 2011, 04:34:10 PM
-
Anyone saw the launch live? I noticed a bunch of debris from the center tank belly camera flying off from the shuttle at T+3:50... couldn't tell whether it was thermal shield material or remnants of isulation...
Anyway, was quite a sight for its last launch ever!
-
You misspelt the title...you should change it :)
And that material looked like insulation to me. Shouldn't be any problem, since the relative velocity between it and Discovery was quite low.
That said, I thought I saw some stuff flying off behind the Shuttle a minute or so afterwards - I'm not sure what angle it was flying at then, but that could have been insulation too.
-
Saw some but it didn't look that bad. Ice maybe. Camera lens was wet at one point.
-
Saw some but it didn't look that bad. Ice maybe. Camera lens was wet at one point.
I agree that it may have been ice.
-
I saw it too, looked small & looked like it was moving just slightly slower then the shuttle itself, so even if it touched anything probably wouldn't cause damage, almost looked like leafs falling off.
-
I was fortunate enough to be down here staying in Orlando for the week on vacation. Went to the Kennedy Space Center tuesday. The place was great. I took a tour and got within a mile or two of the launch pad. Figuring it is a once in a life time opportinity to see a shuttle launch, we came back to a town called Titusville to watch the launch. Took us most of the morning\afternoon to get through traffic, but it was well worth it! The launch was one of the most amazing things I've ever seen. We found a spot on the water facing the launch pad from around 15 miles away. Got some pictures of my tour Tuesday and of the launch a bit ago that I'll make sure to post Sunday when I get home. I consider myself extremely fortunate to have gotten the chance to see it in person.
To the OP: STS-133 actually.
-
I saw it too, looked small & looked like it was moving just slightly slower then the shuttle itself, so even if it touched anything probably wouldn't cause damage, almost looked like leafs falling off.
Columbia was destroyed because a piece of Insulation foam hit the wing. At that speed a penny could rip a hole in the fuselage if it had enough force. Just saying
-
Well,
This will be interesting.
-
Columbia was destroyed because a piece of Insulation foam hit the wing. At that speed a penny could rip a hole in the fuselage if it had enough force. Just saying
That piece of foam came off much lower in the atmosphere and hit with a much great speed & force then the peices that came off today, those came off much higher in the atmosphere in a lower gravity environment, thats why it looked like they just kinda floated off, and not torn off at high speed like the Columbia foam.
-
Yup. Listening to the NASA audio off the NASA website, it sounds as though they had a bit of foam loss but they aren't concerned about it.
-
will find out in next few days when they inspect the heat shield for damage. hopefully will be down there for the June launch.
-
It's probabley ice, it is February in the northern hemisphere.
-
Anyone saw the launch live? I noticed a bunch of debris from the center tank belly camera flying off from the shuttle at T+3:50... couldn't tell whether it was thermal shield material or remnants of isulation...
Anyway, was quite a sight for its last launch ever!
Yes I saw it. Big damn cloud blocked the high altitude view of it :(.
The debris scared the crap out of me.. especially since they were firing the thrusters and what I saw in a snap moment was something floating, then impacting then little flames coming from somewhere..cripes!
-
There's two gases loaded into the rockets for fuel with a temp from -200 to 400 degrees Fahrenheit. Ice can form no matter what the outside temp. NASA had confirmed foam loss as I said in my previous post though. Think those numbers are accurate. If not, someone feel free to correct me.
-
Sorry. That was -400 Fahrenheit.
-
According to NASA, they don't think it was a threat. But we'll find out for sure when they look at the heat shield with the OBSS tomorrow.
-
Buster you are thinking of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen, with temperatures of less
than -297 and -423 Fahrenheit. At those temperatures it can liquify the air and
turn the normally soft insulating foam into concrete.
Strip
-
I'd say that's it Strip. Couldn't remember what it was exactly that fueled the rockets. Just remembered it was extremely cold!
-
Yeah sorry about the title mispelling... I was a little carried out by the launch :rolleyes:
Too late to edit also :noid
Like Yossarian said, they will inspect the whole heat shield with Canadarm tomorrow and dock with the ISS in 3 days.
-
Double post sorry...
-
Columbia was destroyed because a piece of Insulation foam hit the wing. At that speed a penny could rip a hole in the fuselage if it had enough force. Just saying
Read up on your physics, a penny would reach terminal velocity well before that speed (50 mph).
-Penguin
-
Penquin, in this circumstance you need to follow your own advice and stop
giving it to others.
The foam struck the leading edge of the wing it impacted around 500 mph,
it accelerated to that speed in about 50 feet of relative distance. Now, how
fast you think the terminal velocity of the foam would have been? Terminal
velocity appliess in a free fall, not a dynamic situation like a rocket launch.
Strip
-
My big mouth and I...
-Penguin
-
Just in case anyone wants HD coverage for landing:
http://www.ustream.tv/spacevidcast (http://www.ustream.tv/spacevidcast) (with talking heads at times)
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/nasa-hd-tv (http://www.ustream.tv/channel/nasa-hd-tv) (without talking heads)
-
It's probabley ice, it is February in the northern hemisphere.
Hmm which month is it currently in the southern hemisphere? :D
-
My big mouth and I...
-Penguin
Here's a new avatar for you buddy :D
(http://www.coloredsixpackrings.com/images/16_lovelace.JPG) :devil
-
i never did have a good felling about this about what happened to the crew (some getting sick etc) and all the delays and now littel parts flying off
god i hope this will not be another columba god forbid but i got this nightma in the back off my imnd :uhoh :uhoh :confused:
-
This will not be another Columbia. They already made it into orbit.
-
This will not be another Columbia. They already made it into orbit.
Umm Columbia was destroyed on re-entry, not take off, your thinking of Challenger, but to answer olds442 it wont be another Columbia, they checked the outside of the shuttle with the Canada arm on the shuttle and there was no damage.
-
they should leave it up there as part of the station and come down in a soyuz imo :P
-
That piece of foam came off much lower in the atmosphere and hit with a much great speed & force then the peices that came off today, those came off much higher in the atmosphere in a lower gravity environment, thats why it looked like they just kinda floated off, and not torn off at high speed like the Columbia foam.
(http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/563/palm.gif)
Air density is more a factor than gravity.
-
Your right my wording should have been better, but I thought it was clear I was also talking about the air by saying atmosphere & not altitude, I was just mentioning the lower gravity because like I said it looked like the pieces floated off.
-
they should leave it up there as part of the station and come down in a soyuz imo :P
Quoted post isn't totally serious, but that's not feasible. IIRC ISS can't support Orbiter and Orbiter energy resources aren't capable of it. No idea on feasibility of bootstrapping Orbiter for it, but I'll bet it's not worthwhile.
-
The biggest problem is the corrosive nature of the fuel and oxidizer burned in the Reaction Control System.
Once the propellants are loaded into the tanks there is a period of guaranteed flight readiness. After a certain period of time (6-8 weeks I believe) the integrity of the system cannot be assured. The propellants in question are nitrogen tetraoxide and monomethyl hydrazine, both highly reactive to surrounding metals. In fact even compatible alloys must be passivated, in which a light layer of oxide is turned into a protective coating.
The energy resources are directly related to the propellant budget as the fuel cells are powered by hydrogen and oxygen.
The CO2 scrubbers are regenerative so carbon dioxide poisoning should be a none issue.
Strip
-
So even if you loaded only enough RCS propellant to use it all up, there'd be some trouble from residuals? And if it wasn't a problem, would the ISS be able to satisfy the orbiter's power requirements? Otherwise it's just a dead shell.
-
The residuals would create a problem, but that would a be a moot (no pun intended) point anyway as NASA would never allow it. The OMS engines are strictly prohibited from being run dry, or even beyond about about 10% fuel remaining. The Orbital Maneuvering engines are also responsible for intercepting the ISS from a lower orbit. Combine that with the contingency requirements NASA will require a large quantity of reserve propellant. Once docked firing the OMS engines would be impossible as would dumping the remaining propellant overboard. I don't know enough about the ISS and Space Shuttles power capabilities to comment on the ability to transfer power.
Make no mistake, if NASA chose to do it they probably could figure out a way but its improbable for sure.
Strip
-
Now that I think about it I definitely remember one of the insiders at NSF saying leaving an Orbiter docked at ISS was not feasible/not worthwhile.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=9018.msg165682#msg165682
Not that one but that's another idea of how useless it might be. Just dead weight.
-
Doh! you're right Trax...
Back from vacation :cry Weather was great, had a blast. Like I said, I'll post a few pictures of the launch I took.
Kennedy Space Center entrance
(http://i419.photobucket.com/albums/pp278/B4B/Flag.jpg)
rockets
(http://i419.photobucket.com/albums/pp278/B4B/rockets.jpg)
Myself in front of Explorer. You can get some idea of the size as I am 6'1". It is on concrete blocks, though.
(http://i419.photobucket.com/albums/pp278/B4B/Explorer.jpg)
This building here is where Shuttles are assembled and readied for missions, it's massive.
(http://i419.photobucket.com/albums/pp278/B4B/NASAbuilding.jpg)
The Shuttle on the launch pad. This picture was taken Tuesday. You can see the orange fuel tank. It's the only part of the shuttle not recycled as it breaks up upon re-entering the atmosphere.
(http://i419.photobucket.com/albums/pp278/B4B/launchpad.jpg)
Launch
(http://i419.photobucket.com/albums/pp278/B4B/launch1.jpg)
(http://i419.photobucket.com/albums/pp278/B4B/launch2.jpg)
(http://i419.photobucket.com/albums/pp278/B4B/launch3.jpg)
(http://i419.photobucket.com/albums/pp278/B4B/smoketrail1.jpg)
-
Just from another perspective: what would you gain from leaving the shuttle in orbit?
The answer is pretty much nothing. You'd be occupying a valuable docking port on the ISS with a massive spacecraft that has room for a few beds (which you could stick pretty much anywhere on the ISS anyway) and little else. The habitable area of the the Space Shuttle amounts to the flight deck (which does have a robotic arm - that could be useful, but you don't need an entire shuttle to mount it on) and the lower deck. You could use the decks for storage, but you'd be better off just getting another module up there. And as for storage in the cargo bay...why bother?
What the Space Shuttle excels at is getting into and out of orbit. It has a large payload capacity, a large payload bay, it can take people with it, and it can take stuff back to Earth. But there's no reason why you'd want to take up that port on the ISS.
-
Read up on your physics, a penny would reach terminal velocity well before that speed (50 mph).
-Penguin
Terminal velocity perhaps at sea level :D