SPACE

PVB · Post by **PVB** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 12:52 am 0

All three main engines performing at 104%.

PVB · Post by **PVB** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 12:54 am 0

Just jettisoned the main tank.

CharlieF · Post by **CharlieF** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 12:54 am 0

Seems to have gone perfectly

PVB · Post by **PVB** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 12:58 am 0

Kennedy just complained that the Shuttle commander was muddled (mumbling).

He told them he'd speak clearer.

CharlieF · Post by **CharlieF** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 12:59 am 0

PVB wrote:Kennedy just complained that the Shuttle commander was muddled (mumbling).

Yeah, I heard that

PVB · Post by **PVB** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 1:01 am 0

Nasa TV is now just showing replays.

axel000 · Post by **axel000** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 1:02 am 0

Great launch. That pitch maneuver came really quick after they left the tower, must have been because the launch was delayed a few days. Favorite part was the view from the tank as it dropped away, seeing the maneuvering jets firing.

CharlieF · Post by **CharlieF** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 1:03 am 0

PVB wrote:Nasa TV is now just showing replays.

Yeah, no need to watch them. We saw the real deal.

Well, a transmission of the real deal

RedOktober · Post by **RedOktober** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 1:03 am 0

Interesting that during the final phase they run the main engines at 104%. Who wrote the operating manual for them, Scotty?

CharlieF · Post by **CharlieF** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 1:05 am 0

RedOktober wrote:Interesting that during the final phase they run the main engines at 104%. Who wrote the operating manual for them, Scotty?

I was wondering that. I mean, they presumably get the job done at 100%.
Why would they risk going in excess of that?

Yak · Post by **Yak** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 1:06 am 0

They run at 104% from just before SRB sep. Official explanation of the figure:

q:
Since there usually is no such thing as greater than 100 percent how can the shuttle's main engines withstand 104 percent power up just before SRB separation? Doesn't this cause undue stress to the engines? What would be the difference if they were powered up to only 100 percent? Especially considering the density of the air at that altitude.

a:
That's a pretty good question. The engines were originally rated for a certain power level, a certain amount of thrust. Over the years we've done some upgrades and improvements. And now they can perform at -- surprise -- a 104 percent of their original design value. And that sounds pretty good when you say that you can do something at 104 percent so we just leave the number there. If we were to use them at their regular rate of 100 percent level, we would not get the performance we are looking for out of the engines and therefore we would have to burn the engines longer or rate them up again, which is what we do. So that is why we do that. It is 104 percent but was originally 100 percent.

CharlieF · Post by **CharlieF** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 1:09 am 0

Ahh. So it's like an improvement rating.

beerman · Post by **beerman** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 12:33 pm 0

I've now got a mental image of a NASA engineer pointing at the engine and saying "These go to 11"

merman · Post by **merman** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 12:54 pm 0

Saw a piece on DMAX the other day about testing the Shuttle engines between flights... very interesting.

F-ZeroOne · Post by **F-ZeroOne** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:57 pm 0

Heroic Revolutionary Cosmonaut Explorers of Glorious Republics of Former Soviet States Plan... er... Glorious Heroic Return to Moon in Advance of Capitalist NASA Plot, Comrade!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7946689.stm

YakYak

SPACE

Re: SPACE

Re: SPACE

Re: SPACE

Re: SPACE

Re: SPACE

Re: SPACE

Re: SPACE

Re: SPACE

Re: SPACE

Re: SPACE

Re: SPACE

Re: SPACE

Re: SPACE

Re: SPACE

Re: SPACE