Next STS to carry rocketcam
James Oberg
Jason A. Ciastko
news:CO8e9.196223$eK6.5...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> At last! There'll be an ET-mounted rocketcam on the next shuttle launch!
>
But the video will be classified........
Sorry, I'm in a poor mood today.
Jason
Dan Foster
James Oberg <james...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>At last! There'll be an ET-mounted rocketcam on the next shuttle launch!
That is indeed *great* news! Thanks for passing along the word.
How would the pictures from it come down? As a live video feed? Or as
a series of photographs? Assuming video, would it share some of (say)
Ku band? Presume it would have to be a live transmission rather than
stored for later transmission, as the ET gets a little 'hot' on its
way down not too long afterwards ;)
This is one thing I'm looking *very* much forward to! Now all I wonder
about is when the video will be made available -- on NASA TV during the
launch? Couple hours afterwards? Couple days or weeks, via web site?
Inquiring minds certainly are curious! ;)
It'd probably be a nice little fun touch if either the CDR or PLT waved
at sometime prior to the launch for the benefit of the ET cam, in the off
chance their wave might be seen by it, but that's probably a bit much to
ask. One can dream, however. ;)
Other than being of some incredibly nice PR stuff for NASA, any specific
engineering objectives in mind for use of the returned video data?
One of those cases where a picture truly is worth a thousand words, and
a way for the average person to instantly connect to what NASA does.
-Dan
Doug Ellison
"James Oberg" <james...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:CO8e9.196223$eK6.5...@twister.austin.rr.com...
In light of all the delays etc - this is the perfect time to pull this one
out the bag for a bit of OO factor.
Pity that as the most famous launch system in the world -it's been beated by
Delta 2, and Atlas 2 / 3 / 5 a dozen times in this respect
Should make stunning footage. Do we know what orientation it will be in?
Doug
James Oberg
ride, most of the field of view is blocked -- it's live fast-scan video and
should still be spectacular.
"Doug Ellison" <mai...@SPAMTRAPdouglasellison.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6v9e9.3783$571.341572@wards...
Doug Ellison
> Looking down from above towards the ORB/ET interface, so for much of the
> ride, most of the field of view is blocked -- it's live fast-scan video
and
> should still be spectacular.
>
iirc - the ET seperates in a way that we'd end up seing the orbiter come
into from from above !
THAT would be spectacular
Doug
JF Mezei
If they mount it on the top of the tank, pointing down towards the shuttle,
could it provide a view of both the cockpit windows as well as the scenery
below, or would the shuttle obscure all of its view ?
Brian Thorn
<mai...@SPAMTRAPdouglasellison.co.uk> wrote:
>> Looking down from above towards the ORB/ET interface, so for much of the
>> ride, most of the field of view is blocked -- it's live fast-scan video
>> and should still be spectacular.
>iirc - the ET seperates in a way that we'd end up seing the orbiter come
>into from from above !
>
>THAT would be spectacular
Once the ET goes, so will the power and signal for the camera.
Brian
Doug Ellison
> Looking down from above towards the ORB/ET interface, so for much of the
> ride, most of the field of view is blocked -- it's live fast-scan video
and
> should still be spectacular.
A bit like this?
http://www.djellison.plus.com/sts_cam_fp.jpg
VERY un scientific - botched from free models off the web in 5 minutes
Doug
Jon Berndt
> Where on the ET would the camera be mounted and pointing where ?
IIRC, it would be mounted on the forward fairing of the LO2 line.
Jon
Jason A. Ciastko
> > ride, most of the field of view is blocked -- it's live fast-scan video
> and
> > should still be spectacular.
>
>
> A bit like this?
>
> http://www.djellison.plus.com/sts_cam_fp.jpg
>
> VERY un scientific - botched from free models off the web in 5 minutes
>
> Doug
Still will be a cool shot.
JC
Kim Keller
> If they mount it on the top of the tank, pointing down towards the
shuttle,
> could it provide a view of both the cockpit windows as well as the scenery
> below, or would the shuttle obscure all of its view ?
As I recall, it's just about impossible to see the ET from the cockpit, so a
camera view from the top of the et wouldn't show it. I never had the seat
cranked the whole way up, but I still think it would've been out of view.
Just guessing, I'd say the camera would be mounted on the ET intertank
structure.
-Kim-
Jon Berndt
> news:Wy9e9.410441$q53.14...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> > Looking down from above towards the ORB/ET interface, so for much of the
> > ride, most of the field of view is blocked -- it's live fast-scan video
and
> > should still be spectacular.
>
>
> A bit like this?
>
> http://www.djellison.plus.com/sts_cam_fp.jpg
Probably more like this:
http://www.hal-pc.org/~jsb/shuttlecam.jpg
I haven't had time to model the attach hardware - nor the plumes and smoke,
etc.
Enjoy.
Jon
Doug Ellison
"Jon Berndt" <a@b.c> wrote in message news:alh36o$3tm$1...@news.hal-pc.org...
I've got that texture somewhere - used it for an anim of a Delta II launch
Doug
Malcolm Street
>>iirc - the ET seperates in a way that we'd end up seing the orbiter come
>>into from from above !
>>
>>THAT would be spectacular
>
> Once the ET goes, so will the power and signal for the camera.
>
It would be easy enough to put a small power source and transmitter on the
ET. Does anyone know if this is the case?
Malcolm
Jon Berndt
They'll have some residual LO2 and LH2 (you know, some of that thar
hypergolic stuff). How about a fuel cell? ;-)
<snicker>
Jon
Tom of Bunyon
I saw a press release that said the video would continue for about 10
minutes after sep.
Remember, they have to power the timers for the tank depress valves and
such.
Jon Berndt
> Remember, they have to power the timers for the tank depress valves and
> such.
They'll be rolled heads up at sep, right?
Reed Snellenberger
> It would be easy enough to put a small power source and transmitter on the
> ET. Does anyone know if this is the case?
>
> Malcolm
>
It's the case... see http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=480
-- in particular, the "Background information" link at the bottom
contains pictures of the communications equipment that'll be placed in
the intertank area, and shows a bunch of batteries as well as the
electronics.
--
Reed
James
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/station/sts112/020912shuttlecam/
Looks even better than I imagined.
James.
"Jon Berndt" <a@b.c> wrote in message news:<alh36o$3tm$1...@news.hal-pc.org>...
> Probably more like this:
john_thomas_maxson
>
> Remember, they have to power the timers for the tank depress
> valves and such.
What do you understand to be the primary reason for tank
depressurization at that point, if this is what you're implying?
JTM
Derek Lyons
The ETcam is entirely independent of other flight systems.
Brian Thorn
<malcolm...@canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>> Once the ET goes, so will the power and signal for the camera.
>It would be easy enough to put a small power source and transmitter on the
>ET. Does anyone know if this is the case?
Yes it is, I stand happily corrected.
Brian
Kim Keller
"Tom of Bunyon" <t2...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:N2eg9.97077$2L.48...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...
> such.
? I can find no reference to any onboard power source in my ET manual. Why
would there be a need for timers and tank depress after separation?
-Kim-
Jon Berndt
>
> ? I can find no reference to any onboard power source in my ET manual. Why
> would there be a need for timers and tank depress after separation?
IIRC one of the tanks vents at a particular time in order to set up a tumble
and improve the entry disintegration. Is that true?
Jon
Jorge R. Frank
The earlier tanks had a tumble valve on the LOX tank, but I believe this
has been removed. Residual ET propellant is still vented through a relief
port in the intertank area.
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
Tom of Bunyon
I can remember one reference to an observation as the tank passed over
England trailing the Orbiter - he said that he observed the ET venting at
that time.
The ET venting is part of the ET tumble operation to ensure the ET breaks up
upon reentry. Obviously they're not doing this with a fuse. The valve to
open the ET tanks must be electrically operated. Hence, the need for power
in the ET.
At this web page -
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/srb.html#srb-safe
ty - under the paragraph "RANGE SAFETY SYSTEM", it says:
Electrical power from the RSS battery in each SRB is routed to RSS system A.
The recovery battery in each SRB is used to power RSS system B as well as
the recovery system in the SRB. The SRB RSS is powered down during the
separation sequence, and the SRB recovery system is powered up. Electrical
power for the ET RSS system A and system B is independently supplied by two
RSS batteries on the ET.
So there's at least two batteries on the ET that's not mentioned in your
manual.
Jorge R. Frank
> I can remember one reference to an observation as the tank passed over
> England trailing the Orbiter - he said that he observed the ET venting
> at that time.
If it's a recent observation, it's most likely from the intertank relief
port, not the tumble valve.
> The ET venting is part of the ET tumble operation to ensure the ET
> breaks up upon reentry.
As I search for sources, I'm becoming more confident that we need to be
referring to the ET tumble system in the past tense. I believe it's no
longer installed on the ET.
> Obviously they're not doing this with a fuse.
> The valve to open the ET tanks must be electrically operated. Hence,
> the need for power in the ET.
Actually, the valve was pyrotechnically operated, and it was fired by
computer command from the orbiter *prior* to ET sep (see
<http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/events/2stage/>).
> At this web page -
> http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/srb.html#srb
> -safe ty - under the paragraph "RANGE SAFETY SYSTEM", it says:
>
> Electrical power from the RSS battery in each SRB is routed to RSS
> system A. The recovery battery in each SRB is used to power RSS system
> B as well as the recovery system in the SRB. The SRB RSS is powered
> down during the separation sequence, and the SRB recovery system is
> powered up. Electrical power for the ET RSS system A and system B is
> independently supplied by two RSS batteries on the ET.
That page (and the one from spaceflight.nasa.gov I referenced above) are
from the 1988 STS News Reference, which can be expected to be out-of-date
if the tumble system were indeed removed. Incidentally, the ET RSS system
was also removed, eliminating the need for those two batteries. So I
wouldn't be surprised if they were removed as well, but I can currently
find no reference stating either way.
Kim Keller
"Jorge R. Frank" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote in message
news:Xns928A6FB9...@204.52.135.10...
> "Tom of Bunyon" <t2...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
> news:m%Wg9.29612$AY5.7...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com:
> referring to the ET tumble system in the past tense. I believe it's no
> longer installed on the ET.
The tumble valve was indeed removed from the design back in the '80s when it
was found to be unnecessary. The lightweight tanks were the first to be
built without them (not to be confused with the supwer-lightweight tanks of
today).
-Kim-
Kim Keller
> I can remember one reference to an observation as the tank passed over
> England trailing the Orbiter - he said that he observed the ET venting at
> that time.
>
> The ET venting is part of the ET tumble operation to ensure the ET breaks
up
> upon reentry. Obviously they're not doing this with a fuse. The valve to
> open the ET tanks must be electrically operated. Hence, the need for power
> in the ET.
As answered by Jorge, this is not the case anymore. Any venting must be
occurring because of the vent valves reaching cracking pressure. Page 3-6 of
the SLWT system definition manual says the following regarding ET venting
after separation: "The vent system relieves if LO2 tank pressure increases
to 30-32 psig, but its nearly nonpropulsive design limits thrust to less
than 50 pounds. The LH2 tank tank may vent after separation if the tank
reaches a pressure of 35-37 psig".
The vent valves are non-powered devices. They are mechanically set to vent
or "crack" at a certain pressure. This requires no timers, actuators or
power and is elegant in its simplicity.
> At this web page -
>
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/srb.html#srb-safe
> ty - under the paragraph "RANGE SAFETY SYSTEM", it says:
>
> Electrical power from the RSS battery in each SRB is routed to RSS system
A.
> The recovery battery in each SRB is used to power RSS system B as well as
> the recovery system in the SRB. The SRB RSS is powered down during the
> separation sequence, and the SRB recovery system is powered up. Electrical
> power for the ET RSS system A and system B is independently supplied by
two
> RSS batteries on the ET.
>
> So there's at least two batteries on the ET that's not mentioned in your
> manual.
Also answered by Jorge, this news reference manual is hopelessly out of
date. The ET no longer contains an RSS package. My system manual (published
in 1997 by tank builder Lockheed Martin) details the latest iteration of the
ET build. It's description of the electrical system clearly shows that all
power is provided by the orbiter. That power is required solely for
operating sensors and heaters (in the bipod). No batteries are carried by
the ET in its normal configuration (excluding the current ET-cam
installation, which is self-contained).
-Kim-
Henry Spencer
Tom of Bunyon <t2...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>The ET venting is part of the ET tumble operation to ensure the ET breaks up
>upon reentry. Obviously they're not doing this with a fuse.
They're not doing it at all, any more. They decided that it tumbled well
enough by itself, and deleted the tumble vent.
>The valve to
>open the ET tanks must be electrically operated. Hence, the need for power
>in the ET.
I don't remember how this used to be done, but bear in mind that the
forces involved were small and it would have been perfectly feasible to
just open the valve before separation.
>... under the paragraph "RANGE SAFETY SYSTEM", it says: ...Electrical
>power for the ET RSS system A and system B is independently supplied by two
>RSS batteries on the ET.
>So there's at least two batteries on the ET that's not mentioned in your
>manual.
Nope, Kim's manual (unsurprisingly) is more up to date. The ET no longer
has a range safety (destruct) system. In response to a recommendation
from the Rogers Commission, they decided that having a destruct system on
the ET was superfluous -- the ET is relatively fragile and the sorts of
events that would make you want to destroy it are likely to accomplish
that themselves without help.
(And before anyone gets excited :-), no, the ET destruct charges were not
involved in the Challenger accident. They were such an obvious suspect
that considerable effort was made to find them. They were recovered,
intact and unfired, from the seabed.)
--
Socialists always tell us they're going to | Henry Spencer
do better next time. -- Ed Wright | he...@spsystems.net
john_thomas_maxson
>
> "Tom of Bunyon" <t2...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:m%Wg9.29612$AY5.7...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
> >
> > Electrical power from the RSS battery in each SRB is routed to RSS
> > system A.
> > The recovery battery in each SRB is used to power RSS system B as
> > well as the recovery system in the SRB. The SRB RSS is powered
> > down during the separation sequence, and the SRB recovery system
> > is powered up. Electrical power for the ET RSS system A and system
> > B is independently supplied by two RSS batteries on the ET.
> >
> > So there's at least two batteries on the ET that's not mentioned in your
> > manual.
>
> Also answered by Jorge, this news reference manual is hopelessly out
> of date. The ET no longer contains an RSS package. My system manual
> (published in 1997 by tank builder Lockheed Martin) details the latest
> iteration of the ET build. It's description of the electrical system
clearly
> shows that all power is provided by the orbiter. That power is required
> solely for operating sensors and heaters (in the bipod). No batteries are
> carried by the ET in its normal configuration (excluding the current
> ET-cam installation, which is self-contained).
From your use of the word "hopelessly" and from what you've said
previously about the foibles of NASA's PAO, I guess we can assume
that Tom's well-intended reference is typical of the credibility we
should currently give to NASA's web pages.
I wonder if NASA PAO might have an opening for you, Kim?
JTM
john_thomas_maxson
message news:H2HJ4...@spsystems.net...
> In article <m%Wg9.29612$AY5.7...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com>,
> Tom of Bunyon <t2...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >The valve to open the ET tanks must be electrically operated.
> >Hence, the need for power in the ET.
>
> I don't remember how this used to be done,
Did you ever know?
> >So there's at least two batteries on the ET that's not
> >mentioned in your manual.
<snip>
> (And before anyone gets excited :-), no, the ET destruct
> charges were not involved in the Challenger accident.
The only one getting excited appears to be you, and rather
redundantly at that.
JTM
JF Mezei
> Aerodynamic studies determined that there was the possibility that the
> ET could "skip" on re-entry rather then break up and miss the impact
> point and they put in a tumble valve.
Considering that the ET is separated before the Shuttle achieves a good orbit,
wouldn't the ET be left in a very elliptical orbit that goes pretty deep in
the atmosphere (low perigee ) ?
If so, could suych an object really "skip", especially considering the flimsy
nature of the ET ? Wouldn't it just break up upon impact with air instead of
skip ?
Jon Krocker
"James Oberg" <james...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> At last! There'll be an ET-mounted rocketcam on the next shuttle launch!
>
>
>
>
Obvious question, will the uncut video be available because I know that
the launch will only show bits and chunks of the launch sequence. They
will inevitably cut to the latest soap opera as soon as it appears that
nothing is happening.
--
Jon Krocker http://www.total.net/~jkrocker
Aus des Weltalls Ferne, Funken Radiosterne, Quasare und Pulsare
-Kraftwerk
Reed Snellenberger
> Obvious question, will the uncut video be available because I know that
> the launch will only show bits and chunks of the launch sequence. They
> will inevitably cut to the latest soap opera as soon as it appears that
> nothing is happening.
>
With any luck, this shot will be included in the "Launch Video Playback"
that NASA-TV runs after the actual launch, when they show all of the
video from each of the cameras that is running during the launch
(there's a similar sequence on landing -- probably no ET video for that
one.. ;-> )
--
Reed
Tom of Bunyon
> > Considering that the ET is separated before the Shuttle achieves a
> > good orbit, wouldn't the ET be left in a very elliptical orbit that
> > goes pretty deep in the atmosphere (low perigee ) ?
> >
> > If so, could suych an object really "skip", especially considering
> > the flimsy nature of the ET ? Wouldn't it just break up upon impact
> > with air instead of skip ?
>
> peer-reviewed by engineers in that field and published in a well
> respected journal. So, I would assume that the claim made in the paper
> is credible, for the knowledge, analytical and simulation tools, and
> models available at the time and will not attempt to guess at a better
> answer. For more information, you may wish to consult the actual
> studies. The author doesn't give a specific reference for the study but
> notes that the work was done under NASA Contract NAS 830300; this should
> give you a lead on tracking down the information you seek.
There's been cases of empty pressure tanks surviving reentry intact because
their surface area-to-weight ration meant that they heated to just below
melting point and that's why they didn't break up. They might have
determined that for a certain geometry circumstance, it was possible for the
ET to barely avoid breaking up and achieve one skip.