|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
What is involved in 'safing' a shuttle?
http://www.space-travel.com/reports/...les _999.html
Talks about making the shuttle safe for disposal, what does that involve? Also wasn't there a plan to add one more shuttle flight to add the AMS to the station? Also how much flight ready station hardware is there that won't make it to the station? Or anything that was deleted from the final design was never completed? Just curious Keith W AKA Space Cadet |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
What is involved in 'safing' a shuttle?
On 2/23/2010 6:24 AM, Space Cadet wrote:
Also how much flight ready station hardware is there that won't make it to the station? Or anything that was deleted from the final design was never completed? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...celled_modules As far as safing the Shuttle for museum display, they have a series of articles here about getting a SR-71 ready, and it would probably be quite a bit like that: http://www.vam.smv.org/aircraft/week_1.asp One thing they will obviously have to do is carefully flush out all the propellant tanks and plumbing that had hydrazine or nitrogen tetroxide in them, due to the high toxicity of those two chemicals (hydrazine also gets used in the APUs). Pat |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
What is involved in 'safing' a shuttle?
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 06:24:15 -0800 (PST), Space Cadet
wrote: http://www.space-travel.com/reports/...les _999.html Talks about making the shuttle safe for disposal, what does that involve? Draining propellants, removing pressure vessels, etc. Also wasn't there a plan to add one more shuttle flight to add the AMS to the station? Yes, and approved as STS-134, which will fly in July between STS-132 and STS-133. STS-134 will take up AMS and more spare parts. Also how much flight ready station hardware is there that won't make it to the station? Just the Multipurpose Logistics Module "Donatello", which was built to haul cargo to and from the Station aboard the Shuttle. The third MPLM will now never fly. MPLM 1 Leonardo and MPLM 2 Rafaello have both flown repeatedly. (Leonardo will be outfitted to become a permanent part of the Space Station, called the Presurized Multipurpose Module, and installed on STS-133.) Or anything that was deleted from the final design was never completed? Lots. Hab module, Centrifuge module, Crew Return Vehicle. All cancelled in 2001. That's just on the US side. The Russian side lost most of its additional modules. Brian |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
What is involved in 'safing' a shuttle?
Brian Thorn wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 06:24:15 -0800 (PST), Space Cadet wrote: http://www.space-travel.com/reports/...les _999.html Talks about making the shuttle safe for disposal, what does that involve? Draining propellants, removing pressure vessels, etc. And removing pyros, etc. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
What is involved in 'safing' a shuttle?
"Brian Thorn" wrote in message ... On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 06:24:15 -0800 (PST), Space Cadet wrote: http://www.space-travel.com/reports/...les _999.html Talks about making the shuttle safe for disposal, what does that involve? Draining propellants, removing pressure vessels, etc. Specifically, the OMS/RCS propellants and the APU fuel are extremely toxic and hazardous. One upon a time there was a plan/proposal to refit the shuttle with non-toxic propellants and electric APU's. Never happened. It would be very nice if follow-on spacecraft (especially if they are to be reusable) don't have toxic propellants. Jeff -- "Take heart amid the deepening gloom that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National Lampoon |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
What is involved in 'safing' a shuttle?
Jeff Findley wrote:
Specifically, the OMS/RCS propellants and the APU fuel are extremely toxic and hazardous. One upon a time there was a plan/proposal to refit the shuttle with non-toxic propellants and electric APU's. Never happened. It would be very nice if follow-on spacecraft (especially if they are to be reusable) don't have toxic propellants. Ayup. There's a number of "upgrades" that I think would have made the shuttle a much more viable vehicle. Those alone would have greatly simplified ground processing. Jeff -- Greg Moore Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
What is involved in 'safing' a shuttle?
On Feb 23, 9:31*pm, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
Brian Thorn wrote: On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 06:24:15 -0800 (PST), Space Cadet wrote: http://www.space-travel.com/reports/...For_Displaying.... Talks about making the shuttle safe for disposal, *what does that involve? Draining propellants, removing pressure vessels, etc. And removing pyros, etc. Replacing good electronic devices with mock-ups. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
What is involved in 'safing' a shuttle?
On Feb 24, 3:10�pm, Eric Chomko wrote:
On Feb 23, 9:31�pm, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote: Brian Thorn wrote: On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 06:24:15 -0800 (PST), Space Cadet wrote: http://www.space-travel.com/reports/...For_Displaying.... Talks about making the shuttle safe for disposal, �what does that involve? Draining propellants, removing pressure vessels, etc. And removing pyros, etc. Replacing good electronic devices with mock-ups. so what onboard electronics can be used elsewhere? besides as historical articles ideally they would be preserved intact as much as possible |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
What is involved in 'safing' a shuttle?
On 2/24/2010 7:18 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
One upon a time there was a plan/proposal to refit the shuttle with non-toxic propellants and electric APU's. Never happened. It would be very nice if follow-on spacecraft (especially if they are to be reusable) don't have toxic propellants. The problem is that if you run your RCS on LOX/kerosene, you need some sort of igniter system that has to work on every start of the thrusters. Russia did get this to work on Buran, but it was not supposed to have been simple to design by any stretch of the imagination. There's some photos of their RCS engines he http://www.buran.ru/htm/vsu.htm ....looking far more complex than those on the Shuttle. As far as the APU's go, ditch the hydrazine system and then you end up with heavy batteries or some sort of H2O2 driven turbine. Pat |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
What is involved in 'safing' a shuttle?
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message m... Jeff Findley wrote: Specifically, the OMS/RCS propellants and the APU fuel are extremely toxic and hazardous. One upon a time there was a plan/proposal to refit the shuttle with non-toxic propellants and electric APU's. Never happened. It would be very nice if follow-on spacecraft (especially if they are to be reusable) don't have toxic propellants. Ayup. There's a number of "upgrades" that I think would have made the shuttle a much more viable vehicle. Those alone would have greatly simplified ground processing. Somewhat. The above mentioned upgrades would have been very nice to have. But some of the proposed upgrades were really "pie in the sky" like liquid fly-back rocket boosters and had essentially zero chance of ever being funded. Jeff -- "Take heart amid the deepening gloom that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National Lampoon |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Money involved in rescuing astronauts | Buck | Space Shuttle | 15 | July 18th 05 08:17 AM |
Good luck tomorrow to all involved. | John H. | Space Shuttle | 1 | July 13th 05 02:25 PM |
Do you want to get involved in real astronomical research? | Martin Nicholson | UK Astronomy | 0 | January 21st 05 01:38 PM |
earth-sun distance and heat involved | Beto | Science | 5 | October 2nd 03 05:43 AM |