timothym@tekigm.UUCP (Timothy D Margeson) (02/03/86)
Hi, To anyone in a position to answer the following questions, I request your assistance. I have a question concerning the Challenger's last payload. I have heard from an uncertain source that the Hubble telescope was aboard. Is this true? If so, why no mention of this great loss? Second, the latest video tape images of the shuttles right engine show what appears to be fire (flame) coming from above the main nozzle, about where you would expect to see the nozzle join the booster body. Is this a correct assumption? Third, what is the shape if the fuel vessels within the external tank shell? How far towards the nose of the tank does the fuel extend? Fourth, if the fuel does not extend to the topmost area of the external tank, what occupies the space from whence came the brightest of the flashes preceding the fireball? Last, which fuel is on top. The oxygen or hydrogen? Thanks for all the responses in advance, and please, feel free to post the answers as I think everyone on the net would appreciate hearing this also. E-Mail is fine also.
gottlieb@alliant.UUCP (Bob Gottlieb) (02/05/86)
In article <661@tekigm.UUCP> (Timothy D Margeson) writes: >I have a question concerning the Challenger's last payload. I >have heard from an uncertain source that the Hubble telescope was >aboard. Is this true? If so, why no mention of this great loss? According to Aviation Leak, the Challenger was carrying a Tracking and Data Relay Satellite/Inertial Upper Stage payload as primary payload. The Hubble Telescope was not in the payload, but it needs 2 TDRS satellites in to work properly. No other payload was mentioned. Argument is now underway as to whether we should build a new shuttle (2-4 years to complete), or start the TAV (Trans-Atmospheric Vehicle). I think both - It'll take 5-8 years to build the first TAV. -- -- Bob Gottlieb UUCP: ...!linus!alliant!gottlieb Mail: Alliant Computer Systems Corp, 42 Nagog Park, Acton, MA 01720 Phone: (617) 263-9110 Foot: "You can't get there from here". --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I don't know what I'm doing, and Alliant isn't responsible either, so there!"
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (02/05/86)
> ...I have heard from an uncertain source that the Hubble telescope was > aboard. Is this true?... Fortunately, no. The payload was the second Tracking and Data Relay Satellite, plus assorted odds and ends. Losing a TDRS is a considerable pain, but nothing like losing the space telescope would be. The Hubble telescope was originally set to fly late this summer. > Second, the latest video tape images of the shuttles right engine > show what appears to be fire (flame) coming from above the main > nozzle, about where you would expect to see the nozzle join the > booster body. Is this a correct assumption? Actually it seems to be about at a joint between two of the booster segments, which is extremely suspicious. > Third, what is the shape if the fuel vessels within the external > tank shell? How far towards the nose of the tank does the fuel > extend? ... The tank is essentially full, with only minor unused volumes. The oxygen tank is in the nose, and is almost spherical. The rest of the tank is hydrogen. (Liquid hydrogen has a very low density and hence is very bulky.) -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
andrew@cadomin.UUCP (Andrew Folkins) (02/05/86)
In article <661@tekigm.UUCP> timothym@tekigm.UUCP (Timothy D Margeson) writes: >Hi, > >To anyone in a position to answer the following questions, I >request your assistance. > >I have a question concerning the Challenger's last payload. I >have heard from an uncertain source that the Hubble telescope was >aboard. Is this true? If so, why no mention of this great loss? The major payload was TDRS-B, the second tracking and data relay satellite. TDRS-C is not finished yet, and I believe there is a backup so NASA may still get a full system. The HST and the Galileo Jupiter probe were scheduled to be launched in the next six months, what is going to happen to them is not known (especially as Galileo, if not launched on schedule, will have to wait more than a year for the next launch window). >Second, the latest video tape images of the shuttles right engine >show what appears to be fire (flame) coming from above the main >nozzle, about where you would expect to see the nozzle join the >booster body. Is this a correct assumption? That's what I saw. >Third, what is the shape if the fuel vessels within the external >tank shell? How far towards the nose of the tank does the fuel >extend? The two tanks are ovoids, with the larger LH2 tank on the bottom and LOX tank on top, extending just about to the top of the ET. The only space is underneath the shroud on top of the ET used to streamline the tank, about all this contains is plumbing. >Fourth, if the fuel does not extend to the topmost area of the >external tank, what occupies the space from whence came the >brightest of the flashes preceding the fireball? Sorry about another net.i.know.what.happened, but the explosion seemed to occur when the flames reached the bulkhead separating the LH2 and LOX tanks. When the LOX tank ruptured, well, we all know what happened. >Last, which fuel is on top. The oxygen or hydrogen? See above. >Thanks for all the responses in advance, and please, feel free to >post the answers as I think everyone on the net would appreciate >hearing this also. E-Mail is fine also. You're welcome for the response, but I really wish I was talking about a less depressing subject. -- Andrew Folkins ...ihnp4!alberta!andrew "We humans think of ourselves as being rather good at reasoning, but at best we perform about a hundred logical inferences a second. We're talking about future expert systems that will be doing ten million inferences a second. What will it be like to put a hundred years thought in every decision? Knowledge is power." - Edward A. Feigenbaum
paul@axiom.UUCP (Paul O`Shaughnessy) (02/05/86)
In reply to some of the recent questions: The Challenger's payload was a large NASA communications sattelite to be used when the shuttles were out of good range of ground based stations. The Hubble telescope was not on board, and had been scheduled in one of the February or March flights. Cutaway diagrams of the external liquid fuel tank reveal that the liquid hydrogen is in a tank extending from the base to about 1/3 from the nose and the liquid oxygen is in a tank occupying the remainder of the nose. There is some open space between the tanks, and the point of the cone is also not filled. This is because the tanks themselved are cylindrically shaped with round ends. I assume that the most severely explosive area would be between those tanks, but the stiffness and strength of the tanks are largely provided by the pressurized liquid inside them. Once breached, they might come apart very quickly under the stress of flight. I don't know anything about how these materials would mix or explode under these conditions, so it's difficult to make much sense of the flashes coming from the external tank just before the explosion. What does seem much more obvious is that the starboard solid rocket booster had a burn-through or crack near its base some seconds before the explosion. If the plume was on a surface facing the liquid tank, then the flames could have breached the hydrogen tank.
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (02/06/86)
In article <661@tekigm.UUCP> timothym@tekigm.UUCP (Timothy D Margeson) writes: >Hi, > >To anyone in a position to answer the following questions, I >request your assistance. > >I have a question concerning the Challenger's last payload. I >have heard from an uncertain source that the Hubble telescope was >aboard. Is this true? If so, why no mention of this great loss? False, it did have the only device the US was sending up to view Halley's Comet though. So that is the end of *that*. > >Second, the latest video tape images of the shuttles right engine >show what appears to be fire (flame) coming from above the main >nozzle, about where you would expect to see the nozzle join the >booster body. Is this a correct assumption? Actually, I think it was a little higher up than that. > -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
wls@astrovax.UUCP (William L. Sebok) (02/07/86)
In article <158@axiom.UUCP> paul@axiom.UUCP (Paul O`Shaughnessy) writes: >The Hubble telescope was not on board, and had been scheduled in one of >the February or March flights. No, it was due to fly in October this year. Many people had expected it to slip further (it was originally scheduled) for August. Now it certainly will do so. -- Bill Sebok Princeton University, Astrophysics {allegra,akgua,cbosgd,decvax,ihnp4,noao,philabs,princeton,vax135}!astrovax!wls
ins_aeas@jhunix.UUCP (Earle A .Sugar) (02/08/86)
> > The Challenger's payload was a large NASA communications sattelite to > be used when the shuttles were out of good range of ground based stations. > The Hubble telescope was not on board, and had been scheduled in one of > the February or March flights. Actually, the Space Telescope (whose command and data analysis center, the Space Telescope Institute is here at JHU) was scheduled to go up on the last launch in October of this year. There was to be another set of data collection devices set to go up on the first flight in March of this year, which contains the Hopkins U.V. Telescope (HUT). This is probably what you were thinking of. -- ______________________________________________________________________________ Earle A. Sugar Disclaimer:"I doubt anyone else here agrees with me." USENET: ...!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!aplcen!jhunix!ins_aeas CSNET:ins_aeas@jhunix.csnet ARPA:ins_aeas%jhunix.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa BITNET: INS_BEAS@JHUVMS (as a last resort) "If you don't expect anything, you'll never be dissappointed." or call 301-889-0815 after 6 P.M. EST