space shuttle atlantis

[marcof]

apart from the subject, which I had not seen so in detail during the "tolettatura", ... great beautiful photos, some decidedly spectacular and among all for composition I have 24 and 32!
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/05/first_of_the_last_space_shuttl.htmlinteresting the 5 where you see the white splashes on the heat coating that start from the edges of the various tiles where I presume the greater turbulence emphasizes the combustion effects of the refractory and that indicate the angle of planata during the warm phase of the return. practically vien down spanned!

 

[cacciatorino]

apart from the subject, which I had not seen so in detail during the "tolettatura", ... great beautiful photos, some decidedly spectacular and among all for composition I have 24 and 32!
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/05/first_of_the_last_space_shuttl.htmlinteresting the 5 where you see the white splashes on the heat coating that start from the edges of the various tiles where I presume the greater turbulence emphasizes the combustion effects of the refractory and that indicate the angle of planata during the warm phase of the return. practically vien down spanned!

It's a machine of an incredible complexity, I can only be admired in the face of the vision of those who launched the project and the mastery of those who made it. . .

 

[marcof]

It's a machine of an incredible complexity, I can only be admired in the face of the vision of those who launched the project and the mastery of those who made it. . .

have you seen in 10 those two green linear actuators, with the spherical joint that serve to correct the orientation of the motor during the various phases of the launch? the idea that each of those 3 species of hydrovore that burn 1300 liters per second of "mixed" and generate a thrust of 137 tons, be attached each to two of those so more a third that will be fixed puts me a little anxiety, and I do not even have to climb, on the shuttle :redface:
then look at what kind of pipe for the supply of hydrogen (or oxygen) liquids, to which is supported the smiling guy....
I've been reading the numbers about those engines every now and then, but I never end up surprised. .

 

[Exatem]

beautiful pictures.

 

[Er Presidente]

beautiful link!

p.s.: stolen and put on faisbuc!
:smile:

 

[TheMik]

Beautiful! both for the subject and for the quality of the photos. to stay open for the complexity of some onboard plants and the structure of 'recurrence'.

... great beautiful photos, some decidedly spectacular and among all for composition I have 24 and 32!

It's the charm of the wide corner!! !

 

[GP.]

photo 22, what does rough duty make us? :biggrin:

 

[marcof]

... great beautiful photos, some decidedly spectacular and among all for composition I have 24 and 32! http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/05/first_of_the_last_space_shuttl.html

It's the charm of the wide corner!! !

we say that it is the charm of the wide angle when in hand someone has it able to use it and with a sense of composition not indifferent, otherwise you want to wideangoleggiare :smile:

 

[Ritberger]

The shuttle is a fascinating car, and if it wasn't so maybe I wouldn't be found doing the engineer.
Whereas the specification was that of a cheap reusable vehicle, in the end it was a failure. not to mention the big problems of reliability.
if today there was no soyoz in service from far '64 the crews of the iss would be to "foot".

the rocket a-2, which singes the soyouz, was designed in the '50s, there were no cad, fem and so, and in fact it had not yet understood much on the rocket drive, however it still flies, it does well, has a reliability from envy to a sedan and above all it is still commercially suitable to send satellites to geo. This is a project with counterfeit.

 

[Meccbell]

A-2 rocket, which singes soyouz, was designed in the 1950s, non c'erano cad, fem and via dicendo, and in fact it had not yet understood much about the rocket drive, however it still flies, it does well, it has a reliability from envy to a sedan and above all it is still commercially attractive to send satellites to geo. This is a project with counterfeit.

over 35 years ago (sigh...), in a time when these electronic-informatic chincaglierie were making their shy appearance in the so-called "real" world, my drawing prof. told us:
"boys, what matters is not having the last model tecnigraph or even one of those so there (cad). what matters is to have talent"

and then there is to say that in one way or another the Russians (in fact, the Soviets) already at the time had a very advanced and efficient working method, especially if related to the resources and especially to the working conditions of their Western colleagues.

 

[marcof]

.
Whereas the specification was that of a cheap reusable vehicle, in the end it was a failure.

The "low cost" specifications are used to get approved project and funding from the congress so that half work could not pull back:wink:. the nasa knew well in what kind of mess they were going to chase.

not to mention the big problems of reliability.

It is interesting to read what Feynman wrote, a member of the investigation committee for the first shuttle accident, about the risk assessment criteria and the probability of failure.
How do you calibrate numbers you engineers can't do anyone? :tongue:

the rocket a-2, which singes the soyouz, was designed in the '50s, there were no cad, fem and so, and in fact it had not yet understood much on the rocket drive, however it still flies, it does well, has a reliability from envy to a sedan and above all it is still commercially suitable to send satellites to geo. This is a project with counterfeit.

It forgives, but compares a "to lose" rocket that has to work only once for a few minutes (5-6?) with the shuttle, with all the defects that the latter can have (I would not want us for example...) seems so sensible as to subtract meters to kilograms :wink:

 

[Ritberger]

spacecraft soyuz is intended for manned flights, can lead up to three cosmonauts and made the first flight in '67 and over the years has evolved without overturns of the original project now with the retirement of space is the only way to the world (if we exclude the Chinese, who among other things copied the soyuz) to send a crew in orbit or to bring new crews to the iss.
the soyuz rocket of the r-7 family is direct descendant of the Russian icbm missiles that sent in orbit the sputnik in the far '57.
has a capacity to orbit about 3000kg in geostationary transfer orbit while the shuttle could enter about 3700 kg, it could because in the specifications it had to work also as a commercial carrier, automatically, what ever happened.
it worked as a manned commercial carrier, but almost always for scientific and military missions in fact being manned the payload hardly can choose the parameters of the orbit.
the carrier soyuz is still on the market and is the most demand for its average size and for its high degree of reliability. so much that now it will start to throw through the space air.
the cost per kg is comparable to the shuttle, indeed perhaps the soyuz costs less, perhaps the shuttle has an advantage in terms of volume and form available allowing more complicated forms to be launched more easily.
how much of each vehicle of the shuttle program is reusable, but at what price?
it is not a plane that lands and departs, after each mission must be disassembled up to the last bolt, you have to revise a lot of things, recover the boosters etc. etc. In short, it is not really reusable vs. to lose according to me.
have 20-25 years of difference, which may seem few but are not, in '57 almost nothing was known about space technology, you did not know on which axis could be or could not stabilize to spin a satellite, you could not even estimate in atmospheric cd for return.
In short, programmes which are profoundly different but at least commercially intended for the same market, at least from a commercial point of view are comparable.
one was a commercial success the other in fact no, besides having led to several deaths.

this of course is my opinion, from deep admirer of the head proggettist korolev.

 

[FlatSix]

last year I visited the kennedy space center, I had arranged the trip to attend the launch of the shuttle last August, but unfortunately a few days before the launch they sent :frown:

the hangar, the landing track, the road traveled from the track to take the shuttle from the construction hangar to the launch ramp, everything is huge.
when I visited the center they were washing the track that you see in photos 31 and 32 in a square very close to the road that travel the visitors buses: Awesome!

from photo 32 you can have an idea of the size of the launch ramp, comparing it with the cars.
but this is half bigger than the new ramp they are building for future missions of the next 10/20 years.
they told us that one of the projects they are working on is the return on the moon and if the new carrier is proportioned to the new launch ramp, it must be something monstrous

even the size of the saturn v of the Apollo missions are not less.
the vision of that exhibited in the museum along with its engines (100% reliability, as evidenced in the descriptive plate of the museum...), the lem, the rover, the capsule of amalgam, made me remember my emotion as a child during the allunaggio of Apollo 11.
and think that they controlled the saturn v with a computer of the computing capacity of a commodore 64