Jump to content

Kerbin Dallas Multipass

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    251

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Kerbin Dallas Multipass

    Live launch: NASA’s Tracking and Data Relay Satellite TDRS-L

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    Rocket is an Atlas V 401 w/ Centaur upper stage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V

    More Links:

    http://blogs.nasa.gov/tdrs-l

    For more information on TDRS, visit:

    http://www.nasa.gov/tdrs

    For more information on NASA’s Space Communications and Navigation program, visit:

    www.nasa.gov/scan

    Join the conversation and follow the TDRS-L mission online by using the #TDRS on Twitter and Facebook at:

    http://www.twitter.com/NASA_TDRS

    https://www.facebook.com/NASA.TDRS

    The NASA Kennedy Twitter and Facebook accounts will continuously be updated throughout the launch countdown at:

    http://www.twitter.com/NASAKennedy

    https://www.facebook.com/NASAKennedy

    Throughout the launch countdown, the NASA LSP Twitter and Facebook accounts will be continuously updated throughout the launch countdown at:

    http://www.twitter.com/NASA_LSP

    https://www.facebook.com/NASALSP

    Here is a timeline of the TDRS-L launch and ascent milestones.

    Thursday, Jan. 23

    EST EVENT

    2:05 p.m. Clocks Start at T-6:20 & Counting

    2:05 p.m. Apply Atlas and Centaur Power

    2:55 p.m. Weather Briefing

    3:10 p.m. Start Flight Termination Closed Loop Test

    4 p.m. Start Flight Control Operational Test

    4 p.m. Start Atlas Liquid Oxygen Storage Area Chilldown

    4:05 p.m. Start C-Band Open Loop Test

    4:05 p.m. Start S-Band Open Loop Test

    4:45 p.m. Start ECS Gaseous Nitrogen Chilldown

    5:30 p.m. Initiate Gaseous Nitrogen Flow To Vehicle

    6:05 p.m. Weather Briefing

    6:10 p.m. Clear The Complex

    6:25 p.m. T- 2 Hours - Begin 30-Minute Built-In Hold

    6:30 p.m. TDRS-L Launch Coverage Begins on NASA Television

    6:44 p.m. Cryogenic Load Readiness Poll by NASA Launch Manager

    6:55 p.m. T-2 Hours and Counting - End Of 30 Minute Built-In Hold

    Pressurize Centaur Liquid Oxygen Storage Tank To Chilldown Level

    Start Atlas Liquid Oxygen Ground Chilldown

    Start Centaur Bottle Pressurization To Flight Level

    Pressurize Atlas RP-1 Tank To Step II

    7:05 p.m. Start Centaur Liquid Oxygen Transfer Line Chilldown

    7:12 p.m. Start Centaur Liquid Oxygen Tanking

    7:25 p.m. Start Atlas Liquid Oxygen Tanking Operations

    7:30 p.m. Start Centaur Liquid Hydrogen Transfer Line Chilldown

    7:45 p.m. Initiate Centaur Engine Chilldown

    8 p.m. Start Flight Control Final Preps

    8:27 p.m. Start Flight Open Loop Flight Termination Test

    8:35 p.m. Weather Briefing

    8:39 p.m. Initiate Fuel Fill Sequence

    8:45 p.m. TDRS-L Terminal Count Readiness Poll

    8:49 p.m. Terminal Count Readiness Poll

    8:51 p.m. T- 4 Minutes - Begin 10 Minute Built-In Hold

    8:52 p.m. Terminal Count Readiness Poll

    8:53 p.m. Clear To Launch Poll

    8:56 p.m. Spacecraft To Internal

    8:57 p.m. Launch Director Status Check For Continuing Count

    8:58 p.m. Launch Conductor Status Check For Continuing Count (3 Minutes Prior To End Of Hold)

    8:58 p.m. Range Clear To Launch

    9:00:30 p.m. NASA Launch Director Conducts Go/No Go Poll For Launch

    9:01 p.m. T-4 Minutes And Counting - End Of 10 Minute Built In Hold

    9:04:57 p.m. Atlas Rd-180 Engine Ignition

    9:05 p.m. Launch

    9:05:17 p.m. Atlas Begins Pitch/Yaw Roll Maneuver

    9:06:31 p.m. Maximum Dynamic Pressure

    9:09:02 p.m. Atlas Booster Engine Cutoff (BECO)

    9:09:08 p.m. Atlas Booster/Centaur Separation

    9:09:17 p.m. Centaur First Main Engine Start (MES1)

    9:09:26 p.m. Payload Fairing Jettison

    9:23:13 p.m. Centaur First Main Engine Cutoff (MECO1)

    10:45:07 p.m. Centaur Second Main Engine Start (MES2)

    10:46:10 p.m. Centaur Second Main Engine Cutoff (MECO2)

    10:50:56 p.m. TDRS-L Spacecraft Separation

    Live launch: NASA’s Tracking and Data Relay Satellite TDRS-L

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    Launch in approximately 2+ hours

    NASA TV: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html#.UuGp6xA1jRY

    14+-+1

    The TDRS-L spacecraft is the second of three new satellites designed to ensure vital operational continuity for NASA by expanding the lifespan of the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) fleet, which consists of eight satellites in geosynchronous orbit. The spacecraft provide tracking, telemetry, command and high bandwidth data return services for numerous science and human exploration missions orbiting Earth.

    Space Shuttle Gravity Turn

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted · Edited by Kerbin Dallas Multipass

    So the question is why Space Shuttle isn't doing gravity turns like we do in KSP.

    My original question is not about KSP. But talking about KSP on a KSP forum is absolutely fine, too! :)

    And about Saturn V again: Saturn V was not designed to have quick and easy manuevers like Shuttle was so if it were start turning too early, either it would lose control or the external material would brake apart due to high resistive force in the air. Instead, it just got high enough for itself to have an easier manuever, and then fire horizontal.

    Wikipedia states the opposite

    " The pitchover should also be carried out while the vertical velocity is small to avoid large aerodynamic loads on the vehicle during the maneuver."

    Makes sense to me. Flipping a rocket sideways near mach 1 in dense atmosphere sounds like much more stress than doing it at racecar speed just above the launchpad.

    They turned the Saturn V between mach .75 - mach 1 at the altitudes I quoted above, so I would assume the very early shuttle turn is to reduce forces.

    Even at some point of the burning sequence, there is a part where one of the stages burn towards closer towards earth to gain horizontal velocity and drag apogee back to wanted altitude.

    You mean accelerating towards a point below the horizon? Got a citation for that?

    Propose your ISS extensions here!

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    I was wondering.. Would it make sense to have a telescope array on a space station?

    Hubble underwent 4 servicing missions by the Space Shuttle, so there seems to be demand to do stuff. Some (infrared) telescopes die because they run out of cooling agent, which could in theory be refilled easily. Telescopes might be much lighter and cheaper if they could draw power from the main space station.

    On the other hand: Would orienting and re-orienting of those telescope perhaps distort the microgravity onboard the ISS, interfering with zero gravity experiments? Or vice versa... would ISS stationkeeping interfere with long time exposures of the telescopes?

    What do you think about Japanese whaling

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    Whales are highly evolved mammals.

    Well so are pigs and bacon is tasty.

    But seriously:

    I don't understand why they do it.

    Whale meat is sold in Japan but it's not very popular I hear. They had to eat it in WW2 because they had nothing else, supposedly it really doesnt taste good because it has a very high concentration of oxygen which reacts with the meat.

    Could it be the fishing lobby that's pushing this because whale populations eat fish that could otherwise be sold?

    If anyone has a convincing answer for the why I'd appreciate it. I'm sure they don't do it because they're evil people :)

    Was the Space Shuttle an inherently bad idea?

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    Even if SRBs are more reliable than liquid engines, they make the design unsafer. They cant be shut down and cant be jettisoned until they decide to burn out. This makes it impossible to incorporate redundancy or abort modes into the design.

    Any propulsion system has a certain failure rate, this makes it a foreseeable failure. A designer takes this into account by either redundancy (typical in civil aviation) or escape systems (typical in military aviation). The shuttle system had neither.

    I don't find it important whether human error, environmental influences or material flaws cause such an engine failure - It's just a question of time when it happens, and a question of quality of design how that problem is handled.

    @Firov No, I'm not saying they put wings on the thing just to fool people. But don't they make the thing look super awesome? Was that super awesome look perhaps one of the many reasons why this particular design was chosen? And since you mention the Air Force: They might have liked the fact that every mission required an experienced pilot on board to get this thing back home? Thats like reserving a seat :)

    @PakledHostage

    Yea, I think I see your point. Back in the days they thought it would be nice to have square windows on airliners just to realize that it was not such a clever idea a few hundred deaths later.

    I still don't think you can compare something like the shuttle to a civilian airliner, comparing it to an experimental military plane would be more appropriate. On the latter you expect failures and unforeseen events and try your best to counterbalance them with ejection seats and safety systems.

    Was the Space Shuttle an inherently bad idea?

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    @PakledHostage

    Don't fool yourself. The SS system was not an aircraft just because one part had wings. I rather believe it had wings so that people would belive it was as reliable as a 747.

    It wasnt safe. SRBs are fireworks. The whole system was complex and its creators knew that there was a certain failure rate, somewhere in the 1% range. They ignored it and did not design ANY safety systems for the first few minutes of flight.

    A cilvil airliner counts as a death trap if 1 in 1,000,000 flights crash. The shuttle blew up after ~50 flights (1% preicted SRB failure times 2 SRBs, what a coincidence) welcome to rocketry. This is what I called a foreseeable problem earlier, problems in civil aviation aircrafts were all unforeseeable.

×
×
  • Create New...