|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
All ET PAL Ramps to be removed from flight tanks
We have a story from the source about the ET PAL Ramp decision and the
current road block to it. usspacenews.com Cheers! Editor |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
All ET PAL Ramps to be removed from flight tanks
We have a story from the source about the ET PAL Ramp decision and the
current road block to it. There's a longer story at: http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts121/051208palramp/ Seems like the PAL Ramp was added not before STS-1, and it has never really been clear whether it was needed. Until foam shedding came to the fore, it didn't seem like it was harming anything. Now they want to analyze it more (not just repeating the analysis from 1979, but also dealing with all the changes since 1979 in the shuttle design). The http://www.usspacenews.com/ site has some nice images. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
All ET PAL Ramps to be removed from flight tanks
"Jim Kingdon" wrote in message news We have a story from the source about the ET PAL Ramp decision and the current road block to it. There's a longer story at: http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts121/051208palramp/ Seems like the PAL Ramp was added not before STS-1, and it has never really been clear whether it was needed. Until foam shedding came to the fore, it didn't seem like it was harming anything. Now they want to analyze it more (not just repeating the analysis from 1979, but also dealing with all the changes since 1979 in the shuttle design). The http://www.usspacenews.com/ site has some nice images. Actually, the Spaceflight Now article says: "It's interesting, we went back to the history, we dug into the history of how they got on (the tank)," Hale said. "They were actually a late addition before STS-1. And it came in because some of the wind tunnel testing was not as conclusive as they wanted it to be and it was put on, in the words of the report I have in my hand, to ensure that we have margin structurally. Once they put 'em on, and it was cheap and it took care of the problem, we just kind of kept doing it. So there has always been a question from the first flight whether or not they were actually necessary. So they were there before STS-1, but it was a late addition to the design and NASA never got back to evaluating if it was really necessary to keep that particular late addition. Jeff -- Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA PDF - Apollo Experience Reports - 114 reports | Rusty | History | 1 | July 27th 05 03:52 AM |
Return To Flight Launch Countdown Begins July 10 For Space Shuttle Discovery | Jacques van Oene | Space Shuttle | 0 | July 7th 05 04:11 AM |
STS-114: Space Shuttle Return to Flight: For NASA's Jody Terek, 'Technical Conscience' Equals Shuttle Safety | Jacques van Oene | Space Shuttle | 0 | April 19th 05 10:00 PM |
Private Rocket SpaceShipOne Makes Third Rocket-Powered Flight | Rusty B | Space Shuttle | 10 | May 16th 04 02:39 AM |
NASA acknowledges historic space flight | Jacques van Oene | Space Shuttle | 2 | April 14th 04 05:55 PM |