Author The Spaceflight Thread  (Read 370 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

The Spaceflight Thread
« on: October 26, 2017, 07:07:02 AM »
Not really aviation news, but an important step for the American Human Spaceflight industry, so I started a new thread.
Post all your Spaceflight news, questions, concerns and opinions.  Be it that rover on Mars, or that Space-X launch to the ISS. If it flies in space, lets discuss it here.

The recent test of Main Engine 2063 was a success. ME-2063 is a RS-25D engine that was assembled in late 2014 3 years after the Space Transportation System(STS) was retired after STS-135 in 2011.
4 of these RS-25D engines are to be used in the sustainer role on the core stage of/for the upcoming Space Launch System(SLS) to be launched no earlier than December 15, 2019 during Exploration Mission-1(EM-1). EME-1 will be an unmanned flight test of the SLS rocket and Orion capsule that will fly to the Moon and back.  The first test flight of Orion was completed in December 5 2014 when she was launched atop a Delta 4-Heavy rocket and boosted out away from Earth and then re-entered the Earths atmosphere at speed much faster than experience during Low Earth Orbit (LEO) re entries. That test was Exploration Flight Test-1(EFT-1) and the flight lasted 4hours 24 minutes.  This was the first time since Apollo-17 in 1972, some 43 years prior, that America has launched a vehicle capable of supporting humans beyond Low Earth Orbit. Orion reached a max altitude of 3600miles and re entry velocities of 20,000mph(8900 meters/second), splashed down in the pacific and was recovered by the USS Anchorage.
USS Anchorage


At the end of the Space Shuttle Program(SSP) there were 15 RS-25 engines left over, 14 that had flight history, and ME-2062 which was built in 2010, but never even test fired or "Green Run" as they say.  Then in 2014 ME-2063 was assembled making for 16 RS-25 engines, 2 without flight testing without even having been "Green Run".  On October 19, NASA opened up Stennis Space Center in Mississippi for any US citizen to watch the
Green Run" of ME-2063.
Here is the full "Green Run" test of the 2014 build ME-2063.


and here is a condensed video of ME-2063 being assembled back in 2014.


ME-2063 will be used on the second SLS launch, EM-2 along with her as yet un-tested sister ME-2062(circa 2010).  The other 2 Main Engines will be ME-


The four engines manifested for EM-1 are ME-2045, ME-2056, ME-2058, and ME-2060.


With the EM-1 mission taking a major slip to the right and being ready for flight no earlier than December 15, 2019, the major engine "Green Run" test that will take place now in early 2019 at Stennis Space Center in Mississippi.  First, the quartet of previously tested RS-25 engines will be shipped from Stennis, to Michoud Assembly Factory in Louisiana where the 4 engines will be installed onto the first SLS core stage.  Then the engine/corestage will be loaded onto the freshly lengthened Pegasus barge, then transported to Stennis SPace Center for the "Green Run" testing of the core stage where all 4 RS-25 engines will be fired at the same time on the specially modified B-2 test stand at Stennis.
The 4 RS-25 SLS engine core stage Green Run test will be very similar to the Saturn-V 1st stage (called the S1-C) testing that ran 5 F-1 engines at the same time.  The F-1 engines burn liquid Oxygen and RP-1(a high quality rocket kerosene) while the RS-25 SLS engines burn Liquid Hydrogen and Liquid Oxygen.  The result is heat and water. In fact after RS-25 engine tests it rains downrange of the test facility.
S1-C Saturn V 1st stage testing at Stennis.


These 4 engines will serve as Contingency engines for EM-1 if there is an issue with 1 or all of the EM-1 flight engine set. If the originally planned EM-1 flight set proves to be OK, the Contingency engines will be the 4 flight engines for EM-2.

Here is the proposed manner in which the 16 current engines will be flown on EM-1 through EM-4, assuming no issues occur with the flight certification with these engines.


So at the end of the Space Shuttle Program, there were 15 Main Engines that were known as RS-25-D or RS-25 Block-II Space Shuttle Main Engines(SSME) or "Heritage" engines as they were setup and configured to be used in sets of 3 for Space Shuttle usage. Then ME-2063 was created in 2014 to make 16 Main Engines. These "reusable" engines were designed for over 50 starts for a long service life.
Then after these 16 engines have been tested in the new configuration of 4 engines at a time, with higher fuel and oxidizer "head" pressures and higher 109% Rated Performance Level(RPL) the engines are considered to be "Adaptation" engines.  Since the quartet of Main Engines will be dumped into the sea after use, the design constraints for starts and service life is considerably relaxed. These engines are now considered "expendable" rather than "reusable" designed to last for only 6 starts and roughly 2500 seconds of run time.



If all 16 Main Engines work as designed, there is enough RS-25s for 4 SLS launches(4 per launch).  NASA has already started negotiations for 6 new style RS-25 Main Engines, these new engines will be designed from the onset to be "expendable" without the rigorous long life expectancies that the original RS-25 were put through in the early 70's.  These engines will be known as "Restart" engines as these will be the new engines after the RS-25 assembly line will have been restarted at what is now known as Aerojet/Rocketdyne since 2013.
The procurement for these new RS-25 engines is a difficult process as it is difficult to foresee the engines need for the late 20's and beyond.

Here is a graphic outlining the 3 differing naming classifications of the engines along with some design differences and thrust designations and the engines ISP(basically the amount of impulse per unit of fuel, aka a measure of how efficient a rocket engine converts its fuels into thrust).  SLS will use 4 RS-25 engines which will start a few seconds before liftoff, just as they did in triplet on the Space Shuttle.  This gives the liquid fueled engines time to start, throttle up to max power while at the same time the computers run various checks to ensure a safe liftoff.  If there is an issue, the engines are shut down, prior to the liftoff command being given. If an abort signal is given prior to liftoff, but after the main engines have started, in the Space Shuttle world this was referred to a Redundant Set Launch Sequencer abort(RSLS Abort, or pad abort. This occurred 5 times with Shuttle, with the last one on STS-68.  All of this main engine verification before the liftoff command is given is VERY important, because one of the signals that is commanded is the signal to ignite the 2 Solid Rocket Boosters, one on each side of the SLS rocket, as well as the command to blow the explosive nuts that hold each of the SRBs to the Mobile Launch Platform(MLP).  Once the SRBs which are powered by a solid fuel, powdered aluminum, are ignited, they cannot be shut off until they burn out some 130 seconds later.
The SRBs used for SLS are very similar to the ones used for the Space Shuttle Program(SSP).  The Space Shuttle used 2 SRBs, each one being composed of 4 segments with each Solid Rocket Motor(SRM) delivering a maximum of approx. 3.1 million pounds of thrust 22 seconds into the flight which decreased down to 2.2 million pounds at 50 seconds mission elapsed time(MET) as the "stack"(the Orbiter, External Tank, 2 SRBs) approached the speed of sound in an area of Maximum Dynamic Pressure(Max-Q) on the vehicle. When approaching Max-Q the 3 RS-25s reduced throttles from 104.5% down to approx. 72% while at the same time the SRBs also reduced their thrust profiles. The SRBs are "throttled" by the shape of the solid propellant inside the 1/2" thick steel cases.  The shape in which the solid fuel is cast can change the rate at which the solid fuel burns, therefore its thrust profile can be manipulated somewhat.
Here is the thrust profile of a Space Shuttle style 4 segment SRB


The SLS rocket will use the same 1/2 thick steel cases as the Space Shuttle did, except that instead of 4 segments, 5 segments will be used.  Instead of the Space Shuttles SRB thrust maxing out at almost 3.1 million pounds, the SLS 5 segment SRB will output approx. 3.6 million pounds of thrust EACH for SRBs making 7.2 million pounds of thrust total. Couple that with 4 RS-25 engines making over 500,000 pounds of thrust each, the Block 1 SLS rocket will produce over 9.2 million pounds of thrust, making SLS the most powerful rocket ever built by humans.  For comparison, the 5 F-1 engines that powered the first stage of the Apollo programs monster Saturn-V rocket produced approx. 1.5 million pounds each, with 5 of them firing at once, the Saturn V's total 1s stage thrust was 7,500,000 pounds of thrust.
The Space Shuttle SRBs were designed to launch with the Shuttle, separate after 122 seconds, with parachutes slowing them enough to fall into the Atlantic Ocean where they were retrieved by 2 NASA ships and then fully refurbished and reused.  The SRBs for SLS will not be recovered, they will become relics of the deep.  As such, the foundry which produced the special spec high quality steel for the SSPs SRB cases was shut down in the 00's, and once shut down, this special kiln cannot be restarted.  It was literally heated continuously from the 1970's in to the early 2000's.  As such, there is a limited number of these special high strength 1/2 thick steel segments left in the inventory at Orbital/ATK(the old Thiokol company).  I've heard rumours that there are enough cases for either ten, 5 segment SRBs or ten pairs of 5 segment SRBs.  After these SRB case are used up, a new type of SRB will be needed.  Originally there was a design that would have used 2 F-1B engines in each booster for a total of 2 F1-B engines per SLS launch, but the costs associated with converting the Mobile Launch Platforms and the pad 39-B itself would be too costly.  At least that's the story I heard.  And yes, the new 5 segment SRBs will be shipped via rail across the country from Utah to KSC Florida.
One issue that the Shuttle SRBs faced that the SLS SRBs wont have to face, is to have the flexible field joints be exposed to the "Twang" effects of the Shuttle thrusting off center.  The SLS will have no twang, therefore the O-ring seals wont be exposed to that load at least.
Here is the Shuttle stack "twang" effect. The liquid engines on the Shuttle ignite at T minus 6.6 seconds and the throttle up to 100% RPL, because the Orbiter is mounted off center, hung on the side of the  External tank and the Orbiter and External Tank is supported entirely by the 2 SRBs and the SRBs are bolted firmly to the Mobile Launch Platform, the only device that is allowing for this "twang" motion is the joints in the SRB cases.
Launch engineers start the Orbiters engines and their off center thrust causes the stack deflect or "twang" then after maximum deflection, the stack begins to move back in a pendulum effect.  As soon as the stack returns back to its original position after the deflection, the SRB nuts explode thus releasing their hold-down of the SRBs while simultaneously igniting the SRB which kicks the stack off the MLP.  In this video you can see the off center thrusting of the Orbiters 3 RS25 engines causing the entire stack to "sideslip" across the frame towards the left of frame.


And this is just one part of what is happening at NASA.  The entire budget of NASA since 1957 to now(60 years) is less than what the US spends on its military for a single year.  All the Voyagers, Mariners, Space Shuttle, Space Stations, mars rovers, Hubble telescopes etc etc etc, all for less than 1/2 a penny on each Federal budget dollar. There is the thinking that NASA takes up 20-30% of the budget, far from true.

Lotsa good stuff going on at NASA, and in the Spaceflight industry in general.

peace
Hog

Re: The Spaceflight Thread
« Reply #1 on: October 26, 2017, 10:18:39 AM »
STS 41D was the first time the RSLS shut down an actual launch. The main engines were started and shut down before the SRBs were ignited. I was at that launch attempt in June, 1984. Pretty scary.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-41-D

Re: The Spaceflight Thread
« Reply #2 on: October 26, 2017, 10:20:37 AM »
STS 41D was the first time the RSLS shut down an actual launch and the only time the main engines were started and shut down before the SRBs were ignited. I was at that launch attempt in June, 1984. Pretty scary.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-41-D

Were you still there in the early 90s?  ???


Re: The Spaceflight Thread
« Reply #3 on: October 26, 2017, 10:26:48 AM »
Were you still there in the early 90s?  ???

Yes. I worked Shuttle FSW until 93 and then moved over to Spaceflight Training and the simulators.

Re: The Spaceflight Thread
« Reply #4 on: October 26, 2017, 11:01:46 AM »
Yes. I worked Shuttle FSW until 93 and then moved over to Spaceflight Training and the simulators.

Right, so that's when a lot of the UFO stuff that would occasionally get caught on NASAs own cameras started leaking. Did you guys get to see it?

Re: The Spaceflight Thread
« Reply #5 on: October 26, 2017, 11:39:00 AM »
There were four more on pad aborts in addition to STS-41D where the SSME's shut down early before SRB ignition; STS-51F, STS-51, STS-55 and STS-68. There was one mission where a SSME shut down after the SRBs were jettisoned in flight STS-51F resulting in the first and only Abort to Orbit (ATO).

Re: The Spaceflight Thread
« Reply #6 on: October 26, 2017, 11:52:41 AM »
Right, so that's when a lot of the UFO stuff that would occasionally get caught on NASAs own cameras started leaking. Did you guys get to see it?
The question that I have not dared to ask Gravity or other insiders is: Were there any prosaic explanations offered by the PAO that those on the inside did not think were credible (i.e. distant satellites, booster stages, ice crystals, lightening)

Re: The Spaceflight Thread
« Reply #7 on: October 26, 2017, 11:58:50 AM »
The question that I have not dared to ask Gravity or other insiders is: Were there any prosaic explanations offered by the PAO that those on the inside did not think were credible (i.e. distant satellites, booster stages, ice crystals, lightening)

I never heard or saw anything that led me to believe we had any type of alien encounter.

But then I believe we actually went to the moon.

Re: The Spaceflight Thread
« Reply #8 on: October 26, 2017, 12:02:56 PM »
Right, so that's when a lot of the UFO stuff that would occasionally get caught on NASAs own cameras started leaking. Did you guys get to see it?

I saw what was broadcast on NASA TV. There were times I was in MCC and they just showed the same feed that was going out to the public.

I remember several times that the controllers had to remind the crew they were being broadcast live. Like when they were “testy” from breathing monkey shit on one of the spacelab missions. That might have been STS-9 but I didn’t go back and look it up.

Re: The Spaceflight Thread
« Reply #9 on: October 26, 2017, 12:11:02 PM »
I saw what was broadcast on NASA TV. There were times I was in MCC and they just showed the same feed that was going out to the public.

I remember several times that the controllers had to remind the crew they were being broadcast live. Like when they were “testy” from breathing monkey shit on one of the spacelab missions. That might have been STS-9 but I didn’t go back and look it up.
Spacelab-3 in 1985. I can imagine inhaling a monkey pellet would induce a gag followed by colorful language.

Re: The Spaceflight Thread
« Reply #10 on: October 26, 2017, 12:11:13 PM »
I never heard or saw anything that led me to believe we had any type of alien encounter.

But then I believe we actually went to the moon.


Re: The Spaceflight Thread
« Reply #11 on: October 26, 2017, 12:22:01 PM »

Re: The Spaceflight Thread
« Reply #12 on: October 26, 2017, 12:25:22 PM »
Spacelab-3 in 1985. I can imagine inhaling a monkey pellet would induce a gag followed by colorful language.


There was supposed to be positive air flow into the spacelab to keep stuff like that from happening. I guess some must have stuck to their flightsuits. Trouble was it wasn’t pellets. More like flakes and small particles they were inhaling, and not just while they were awake. They weren’t too happy.

Re: The Spaceflight Thread
« Reply #13 on: October 26, 2017, 12:32:45 PM »


I remember STS-75 because I programmed some FSW called PCS to control the thrusters on the TSS if it began swaying once the tether was extended. Actually wrote it for STS-46. I was on a kind of temporary duty assisting lawyers for my company on a lawsuit during STS-75 so I didn’t follow the mission live except the launch. I don’t know what the little amoeba looking things are. Never heard anyone discuss yhem. Or why the tether looked so wide.

Re: The Spaceflight Thread
« Reply #14 on: October 26, 2017, 12:37:47 PM »
I remember STS-75 because I programmed some FSW called PCS to control the thrusters on the TSS if it began swaying once the tether was extended. Actually wrote it for STS-46. I was on a kind of temporary duty assisting lawyers for my company on a lawsuit during STS-75 so I didn’t follow the mission live except the launch. I don’t know what the little amoeba looking things are. Never heard anyone discuss yhem. Or why the tether looked so wide.

The debunking video gives a pretty likely explanation.  ;)

Re: The Spaceflight Thread
« Reply #15 on: October 26, 2017, 12:42:20 PM »
I remember STS-75 because I programmed some FSW called PCS to control the thrusters on the TSS if it began swaying once the tether was extended. Actually wrote it for STS-46. I was on a kind of temporary duty assisting lawyers for my company on a lawsuit during STS-75 so I didn’t follow the mission live except the launch. I don’t know what the little amoeba looking things are. Never heard anyone discuss yhem. Or why the tether looked so wide.

p.s.  if I remember correctly that mission phase was controlled out of the POCC at MSFC. That is probably another reason I never heard it discussed. I don’t know what canera feed that was.

Re: The Spaceflight Thread
« Reply #16 on: October 26, 2017, 12:42:30 PM »
The debunking video gives a pretty likely explanation.  ;)

HOLD UP!  You believe Gravity is a SPECI-MAN, but don't believe I banged 3 chicks at one time? WTF!?

Re: The Spaceflight Thread
« Reply #17 on: October 27, 2017, 08:53:02 PM »
There were four more on pad aborts in addition to STS-41D where the SSME's shut down early before SRB ignition; STS-51F, STS-51, STS-55 and STS-68. There was one mission where a SSME shut down after the SRBs were jettisoned in flight STS-51F resulting in the first and only Abort to Orbit (ATO).
Yes, the only Ascent Abort was an Abort To Orbit(ATO) during STS-51F Challenger. A primary sensor on the center engine went down at 3:31MET, then at 5:43MET its backup failed automatically shutting down the center engine.
At  Mission Elapsed Time(MET) of 8 minutes, Booster Systems Officer Jenny Howard, noticed the right SSME was nearing redline for an automatic shutdown and made the call to set "limits to inhibit" basically removing the auto shutdown capabilities for the right engine.  Her quick reaction was said to have helped to avoid a different abort which may have resulted in Loss of Vehicle/Loss of Crew.(LV/LC)  She was sitting "in the trenches" meaning she wouldn't have been sitting in the main Flight Control Center of the Mission Control Center where the Flight Director works
You can hear her, the only female voice IIRC.
 0:46 video time is where the center engine is lost and ATO is declared.
2:04 video time "Limits to Enable" command given
3:39 video time, you can hear Ms. Howard say "???? to go inhibit I know we are at single engine capability"(meaning they can still make their TAL site(Transoceanic Abort Landing site, where a basic advanced team is setup and awaiting for an aborting Shuttle launch)- for a landing in Europe with the single SSME functioning)

 


Here is a pic of the Abort Panel selector in the ATO position. The Commander Gordon Fullerton would have "clocked' the selector to ATO and then pressed the button to its immediate right.  Later versions of the Abort Panel didn't require the button push and had the aborts in a different order.


Another scary one was STS-93-Columbia when Eileen Collins was commander,  and they finally launched (after 3 scrubs)and a Hydrogen leak in the right engine caused by a gold blockoff pin being ejected from the injector and striking and rupturing 3 coolant tubes in the right engines nozzle. The leaking hydrogen didn't violate launch commit criteria, so the countdown and launch proceeded(SSMEs "start" 6.6 seconds before liftoff. The computers thought that the engine was underperforming, so it attempts to increase output it changed the normal 6;1 fuel/oxidizer ratio to a hotter 8:1 oxidizer/fuel ratio, this increase in Oxygen consumption caused a LOX Low Level Cutoff resulting in a 15 ft/second underspeed.  They were launching the super heavy Chandra X ray observatory, along with its heavy Inertial Upper Stage booster. The combo weighed over 50,000 lbs.  IIRC it was the heaviest payload delivered by STS. Basically the engines shutdown because the tank had run dry.  Low LOX cutoffs are very hard on the engines as the combustion chamber houses temps that exceed the boiling point of iron.

Right after liftoff, 2 engines were in danger of going down, any engine outs from liftoff to +2:20MET when the SRBs separate must be "rode out", this area of 1st stage ascent used to be a black zone before Challenger, but a 1st stage 2 engine out is certainly a contingency Abort.  The issue was tracked down to wiring that had rubbed on a sharp screw head.

Here is the excellent audio from that launch including and illustrating the ground and flight loops.


Wayne Hales excellent blog on STS-93
http://waynehale.wordpress.com/2014/10/26/sts-93-we-dont-need-any-more-of-those/

peace
Hog

Re: The Spaceflight Thread
« Reply #18 on: October 27, 2017, 09:16:25 PM »
STS 41D was the first time the RSLS shut down an actual launch. The main engines were started and shut down before the SRBs were ignited. I was at that launch attempt in June, 1984. Pretty scary.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-41-D
Wasn't there some fire on some part of the aft? 

Here's the  RSLS abort that you witnessed.


Talk about Launchus Interruptus.

peace
Hog

Re: The Spaceflight Thread
« Reply #19 on: October 27, 2017, 09:28:10 PM »
Wasn't there some fire on some part of the aft? 

Here's the  RSLS abort that you witnessed.


Talk about Launchus Interruptus.

peace
Hog

Yes I was launch honoree so I was in the original VIP viewing area with the families. It was scary. You couldn't see the stack because of all the exhaust, they were calling out that there was main engine shutdown and a fire on the pad, and we had not realized the sound from the main engines hadn't got there yet. When it did everyone thought it had blown up. This was before Challenger so the viewing area was closer and there was no emergency crew egress system (the basket with the cable).

It was a nervous couple of hours. They  began evacuating the VIP area before they could safe the vehicle and get the crew out. Several of the families were panicking and in tears. Very tense. NASA did have escorts for the families that did their best to comfort everyone. I can't imagine that same VIP area during Challenger.

Re: The Spaceflight Thread
« Reply #20 on: October 28, 2017, 09:43:13 AM »


There are comments here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-41-D
that the normal emergency egress would have the crew cross the access arms to the slidewire baskets.  Apparently"launch controllers were reluctant to order the crew to evacuate during the STS-41-D abort, as the slidewire had not been ridden by a human."
So Charlie Bolden became the first human to ride a slidewire basket.

The 41-D RSLS abort made the Fire-Ex water automatic, as hydrogen fires in air are invisible. The water for 41-D had to commanded  on.
Apparently if the crew did evacuate to the slide wire baskets, they would have stepped out into a hydrogen fire, their blue flight suits meant for a shirt sleeves environment would have done nothing so far as protection from fire.  Apparently as they climbed across the access arm, the Fire ex water curtain soaked them down.
Comment?

Your personal experiences are awesome Gravity.  I was at home watching "NASA Select" on the Big Ugly Dish, a 10ft C-band unit.

peace
Hog

Re: The Spaceflight Thread
« Reply #21 on: October 28, 2017, 11:18:17 AM »


There are comments here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-41-D
that the normal emergency egress would have the crew cross the access arms to the slidewire baskets.  Apparently"launch controllers were reluctant to order the crew to evacuate during the STS-41-D abort, as the slidewire had not been ridden by a human."
So Charlie Bolden became the first human to ride a slidewire basket.

The 41-D RSLS abort made the Fire-Ex water automatic, as hydrogen fires in air are invisible. The water for 41-D had to commanded  on.
Apparently if the crew did evacuate to the slide wire baskets, they would have stepped out into a hydrogen fire, their blue flight suits meant for a shirt sleeves environment would have done nothing so far as protection from fire.  Apparently as they climbed across the access arm, the Fire ex water curtain soaked them down.
Comment?

Your personal experiences are awesome Gravity.  I was at home watching "NASA Select" on the Big Ugly Dish, a 10ft C-band unit.

peace
Hog

I guess I need to stop trying to do these posts from memory. I was thinking the egress basket was installed after Challenger.

STS-41D eventually launched in the fall of that year, but with the same crew but a different mix of payloads in the cargo bay. When I got back to work, I had to work July 4th weekend to manually edit all of the payload reconfiguration data that was used in the flight software. Earlier that year I had developed some software (Auto-Level-C) that would translate payload and systems management requirements into the data tables required by flight software. It wasn’t rocket science code but it automated a manual process and cut 30 days and 8 full time equivalents (FTE) out of the schedule for getting the FSW compiled and tested. That is why I was a launch honoree. And also why I had to work July 4th. I had to create a special version of my software’s job stream to merge the two sets of payloads that eventually flew on STS-41D. That software was first used in production for STS-9. It was supposed to be a temporary “system” that was to be replaced by IBM later. Due to budget issues, it was never rewritten and was used for everything mission after STS-9.

While designing that software I had to basically design the entire reconfiguration process for Spacelab missions. That WAS rocket science. Almost anyways.

I didn’t get to go back to watch the launch but since I was working for McDonnell Douglas at the time, I got to fly up to St Louis for the astronaut debrief. Charlie Walker was a MacDac employee and the first commercial astronaut. A mid-deck experiment called Electrophoresis Operations in Space (EOS) was designed and patented by a MacDac team that included Walker.

I remember Sandy McDonnell making fun of Judy Resnik’s hair and she blasted him for not recognizing her as an accomplished scientist and how sick and tired she was of having people only discuss her hair.



EOS (also called CFES) had microgravity applications because they could process a “thicker” mix of materials through the device. In 1g the material had to be thinned down and as the different maloecules seperated in the column they had a tendency to collapse on themselves under their own weight. I never learned what McDonnell Douglas was trying to extract, but rumors were it was some type of protein molecule that would be used to treat arthritis. I didn’t go read any wiki articles to see if they ever discussed what it was.

Judy Resnik was one of the astronauts that died on Challenger. She was the second American woman to fly in space and the first Jewish American. One of the Soviet Cosmonauts was Jewish.

Re: The Spaceflight Thread
« Reply #22 on: October 28, 2017, 03:15:56 PM »
Awesome stories! Thanks for sharing. Makes me miss our manned space program.

Re: The Spaceflight Thread
« Reply #23 on: October 30, 2017, 12:10:33 PM »
Looks like the best case scenario for the launch of SLS is no earlier than December 15, 2019 and there is talk of a "risk informed" launch date in the 2nd quarter of 2020.

The area in which the Solid Rocket Booster segments are assembled at KSC Florida is now active. NASA is having difficulty in getting experienced workers to come back to work since being laid off prior to the space shuttle being retired in 2011.  The Solid Rocket Boosters(SRBs) contain the Solid Rocket Motors(SRMs), these are the most powerful engines ever built by mankind.  The newer 5 segment SRBs to be used for SLS (Shuttle used 4 segment SRBs) will have the new segment inserted in the middle of the existing 4 segments.

This video is from 2016 taken of the test of Qualification motor #2. This test takes place in Utah where the 1/2 thick steel segments are loaded with solid propellant and then shipped by the segment, to KSC Florida for assembly and launch.



xxxxxxxxxxx

I remember Judy making a comment about her hair, she wanted to wear it out of ponytail as much as possible as to pronounce the fact that there indeed was a female aboard the shuttle while on orbit.


The females of the NASA Astronaut Corps, Ms Resnik is 3rd from the left
[

They are standing in front of a PRE or Personal Escape Enclosure.  The idea of these balls was to zip yourself into them and then you could be relocated from one Shuttle to another. You would have a fully suited Astronaut guiding this PER with an astronaut inside of it.  The PRE had enough Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide scrubber for an hours worth of breathing.

Judy Resnik had spent 6 fays and 56 minutes in space aboard STS-41D

Here is a pic that shows how Astros were seated during Shuttle flights


Ms. Resnik sat in Seat 5 during ascent and up on the flight deck in seat 3 for the descent/landing.  Only the Flight Deck has windows with 4 seats, up yto 6 seats can be located in the Mid Deck for seats 5 through 10.
As Gravity said, she was 1 of the flight crew aboard STS-41-L Challenger, Astronaut Resnik was 36 years old when she passed away when Challengers crew compartment hit the surface of the ocean at 207 mph with a g loading over 200g.
Here is a pic of the crew compartment shortly after vehicle breakup.


peace
Hog



Re: The Spaceflight Thread
« Reply #24 on: October 30, 2017, 12:41:47 PM »
Here is a video of the plant explosion in Henderson, NV. Yhis is where they made the SRB propellant.




There was another one in a Thiokol plant in Utah in March, 1986 that was much smaller. I always wondered if this was an attempt at destroying evidence from the SRBs used on Challenger.

http://www.nytimes.com/1986/03/26/us/morton-thiokol-rocket-unit-is-destroyed-by-blast-in-utah.html



As I remember, it was a good thing there was a lengthy delay before return to flight or we could not have kept up with the foight rate due to the loss of the fuel plant in Henderson.

Re: The Spaceflight Thread
« Reply #25 on: October 30, 2017, 12:50:00 PM »
Here is a video of the plant explosion in Henderson, NV. Yhis is where they made the SRB propellant.




There was another one in a Thiokol plant in Utah in March, 1986 that was much smaller. I always wondered if this was an attempt at destroying evidence from the SRBs used on Challenger.

http://www.nytimes.com/1986/03/26/us/morton-thiokol-rocket-unit-is-destroyed-by-blast-in-utah.html
That is amazing video. I remember seeing it In the early 90s on some real home videos show. The whole area was developed like 15 years later. Totally crazy. They named the road it was on “marshmallow way”. Now it’s strip malls houses and dealerships.

Re: The Spaceflight Thread
« Reply #26 on: November 07, 2017, 02:43:43 AM »

Re: The Spaceflight Thread
« Reply #27 on: November 13, 2017, 07:23:43 AM »
All analyses say No Earlier Than June 2020 now for first SLS launch. But NASA acting Admin says agency is "protecting/managing" toward a December 2019 flight - 6 months earlier then what the analyses say is realistically possible.

Here is some EM-1 animation.  Look at all the steel that is now supported on the Mobile Launch Platform.  One of the Craler Transporters was rebuilt to handle 18.5 million pounds, for Shuttle it was rated at 12.5 million pounds.  For the even larger SLS rocket, the MLP will weigh over 19 million pounds, so a brand new MLP will be built.



peace
Hog

Re: The Spaceflight Thread
« Reply #28 on: November 13, 2017, 04:00:45 PM »
Beyond A Year in Space: Official Trailer

US PBS Stations:

Airing: 11/15/2017 | 0:00:30 | Promotion
Beyond A Year in Space picks up where A Year in Space left off: Scott Kelly’s last day in space and return to Earth. The special also introduces viewers to the next generation of astronauts training to leave Earth’s orbit and travel into deep space. Part 2 will premiere November 2017. Join the conversation #BeyondYearinSpacePBS

WATCH A YEAR IN SPACE
Wed, Nov 15 @ 8:00 PM | Year In Space
Thu, Nov 16 @ 2:30 AM | Year In Space
Sun, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM | Year In Space

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugl8q8btMAs?t=001

The Kelly brothers Mark and Scott, were both NASA astronauts and were identical twins.
Mark Kelly retired in 2011 after he was Commander of STS-134 his wife Gabriell Giffords who was shot in the head, attended the launch at Kennedy Space Center(KSR) in Florida.
Scott Kelly retired from NASA in April 2016 after his long duration mission(1 year) aboard the International Space Station(ISS) was completed in March 2016.  Kelly’s 11 months in space included 5,440 orbits around the Earth and he conducted three spacewalks before returning home in March 2016.

NASA conducted experiments to see how a year in space impacted the human body while being able to compare these effects to a genetically identical human who was experiencing gravity on the surface of the Earth.  Quite a unique and interesting experiment.

Mark Kelly and Scott Kelly are the only siblings to have ever travelled in space been in space.


peace
Hog