 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / January 2006Go ____ throttle up
I know this has been discussed ad nauseum here and I know that "AT" is the right work between GO and Throttle. Listening to the challenger reports yesterday, it seemed I heard the following: ground: Go WITH throttle up shuttle: Roger, go AT throttle up. Did I hear wrong ? Hi, they thought the inerertial accelearation would help recorrect the seating of the SRB - against the wind shear. And it only exacerbayeetd ti. > I know this has been discussed ad nauseum here and I know that "AT" is > the right work between GO and Throttle. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Did I hear wrong ? > Hi, > > they thought the inerertial accelearation would help recorrect the > seating of the SRB - against the wind shear. Huh? I'm afraid to ask but... what the hell are you talking about. Go At throttle is a standard radio call and happens on all shuttle missions. It had nothing to in response to anything you mention. > And it only exacerbayeetd ti. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > > Did I hear wrong ? Col. Dick Covey did indeed say, "Challenger, Go at throttle up." Covey kind of had the impression that he was "board" so, it came out as "et" instead of "at." It strikes me as odd that the news media has never asked Covey what he said. Isn't he still associated with NASA, somehow? I know he popped up a few times in the media during the Columbia investigation. BoringGuy > Covey kind of had the impression that he was "board" I can't even spell 'bored' correctly. Boring > I know this has been discussed ad nauseum here and I know that "AT" is > the right work between GO and Throttle. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Did I hear wrong ? Not sure, but I'm not sure what the difference between "with" and "at" would be, anyway? Its not like the pilot or commander is sitting there with his hand on the throttle, waiting for the word to ram it forward. The throttle is computer controlled, is it not? "Go with throttle up" and "Go at throttle up" sound like the exact same thing to me, announced after computers kick the throttle back up and basically just saying, "Hey, the computers just kicked your throttle back up and you are still looking great!", to which the crew replies basically, "Roger that!" Or am I missing something here? -Eric "Eric" wrote in message ... > Not sure, but I'm not sure what the difference between "with" and "at" would > be, anyway? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Or am I missing something here? (adding) Too bad they never release the voice tapes recorded in the cabin during launches. Not the radio traffic, but just stuff said in the cabin between the astronauts on the way up. I bet they'd be fun to listen to (not Challenger), full of all sorts of colorful outbursts. Are there any other transcripts of the in-cabin stuff other than Challenger? As professional as they are, no amount of training can surpress their adrenaline from outbursting "Go, you mother!"-type remarks on the way up. Even after years and years of training, pilot backgrounds, etc, when they are actually rocketing up to orbit it still has to be absolutetly *fun as hell*! >... Are there any other > transcripts of the in-cabin stuff other than Challenger? Don't know about others besides Challenger STS 51-L, but here's the complete transcript of cockpit, ground and intra-cockpit intercom from 51-L: http://cbsnews.cbs.com/network/news/space/51Lchap13timeline.html -- Joe D. > Not sure, but I'm not sure what the difference between "with" and "at" would > be, anyway? Go WITH throttle up: Crew has the go ahead to increase throttle. (specific to throttling) Go AT throttle up: At the moment when computers are throttling up, ground advises crew that all is OK. (general to shuttle's health). >> Not sure, but I'm not sure what the difference between "with" and "at" would >> be, anyway? > > Go WITH throttle up: Crew has the go ahead to increase throttle. > (specific to throttling) You're an idiot, Mezei. The call was (and remains to this day), "Go AT throttle-up" and the crew has nothing to do with it. They are simply along for the ride at this point. Even if for some reason MCC called "[Orbiter] you are NO GO at throttle-up" there's not a thing they could do about it except get ready for an RTLS abort or a levle-flight bailout AFTER SRB burnout and sep. It is simply a status call-out, not a command or directive for the crew to act. > Go AT throttle up: At the moment when computers are throttling up, > ground advises crew that all is OK. (general to shuttle's health). As has been pointed out here many times.  SignatureHerb There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. ~ RAH >>> Not sure, but I'm not sure what the difference between "with" and "at" >>> would be, anyway? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > As has been pointed out here many times. Hi Herb, The command 'Go at throttle up' really IS a command, and also a health check of the orbiter. During the first minute the throttle is reduced to about 60% reduce the structural stress on the entire vehicle in the relative high atmospheric pressure zone. When any problems occure, the crew (pilot/commander) can take over the control of the vehicle, and reduce the throttle or even increase it. Any GPC procedure can be over-ridden by the crew (pilot/commander) in the flight-deck of the oriter. Greets, André Signature73' André, PE1PQX Mijn site: http://pe1pqx.dyndns.org > ...When any problems occure, the crew (pilot/commander) can take over the > control of the vehicle, and reduce the throttle or even increase it. True, however most of the lessened thrust around Max Q isn't from throttling back the SSMEs, but from the SRBs "throttling" back to reduce thrust. Like the SSMEs, after Max Q the SRBs again increase thrust. However the SRB thrust is so much greater than the SSMEs, the SRB "throttling" effect is the predominate difference. IOW the commander could take over manual throttles, maintain SSMEs at 60%, yet the overall thrust would still significantly increase. Obviously the SRB thrust can't be dynamically controlled but varies according to a fixed schedule, determined at manufacturing time by varying the surface area at different burn points. -- Joe D. >> ...When any problems occure, the crew (pilot/commander) can take over the >> control of the vehicle, and reduce the throttle or even increase it. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > -- Joe D. Hi Joe, Thanks for this info. I have missed that the SRB use solid propellant, and the shape of it inside the SRB controlls the amount of throttle. Also I do not know the percentage of power the tree SSME's generate at T-0 (launch) compared to the two SRB's. André Signature73' André, PE1PQX Mijn site: http://pe1pqx.dyndns.org > ...Also I do not know the percentage of power the tree SSME's generate at > T-0 (launch) compared to the two SRB's. Andre, at launch the SRBs generate roughly 85% of the liftoff thrust, In theory the shuttle could lift off without the SSMEs, however there is doubt the orbiter/ET attach struts are strong enough. The SRBs also provide most of the steering authority, since the SRB nozzles gimble similar to the SSME nozzles, yet produce much more thrust. The roll maneuver soon after liftoff is done mostly with SRB steering. Even at SRB separation, the remaining orbiter/ET thrust-to-weight ratio is less than 1:1, which means the vehicle theoretically couldn't hold itself up vertically on thrust alone, However by that point in the ascent, the momentum carries it upward as the SSMEs burn off fuel, finally reaching a 1:1 thrust-to-weight ratio. -- Joe D. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.