| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Space - Shuttle Forum » Shuttle APU Replacements
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| maxson@mission51l.com |
 Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 4:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
NASA says the life of an orbiter APU is rather short (still only in
the neighborhood of 75 hours, if I recall correctly).
Some research in this forum suggests that the APU flames seen on the
STS-123 landing may have been caused by overheated ammonia in the APU
exhaust. Here's an elementary lab report:
<http://tinyurl.com/4jr8y5>
"... ammonia gas can be burned ... in an atmosphere of oxygen, the
ammonia gas will not only flame but will burn steadily ... the gas
will flame and glow slightly as it burns."
To me, the obvious question now becomes one of whether NASA management
has once again permissively allowed Lockheed to cut corners -- this
time by delaying APU replacement.
I know first-hand that both NASA and Lockheed management looked the
other way while Lockheed rat-holed shuttle-hardware funds urgently
needed for the first launches from Pad B and VLS.
JTM |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 5:21 am |
|
|
|
|
On Apr 7, 10:14 am, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com>
wrote:
Quote: NASA says the life of an orbiter APU is rather short (still only in
the neighborhood of 75 hours, if I recall correctly).
Some research in this forum suggests that the APU flames seen on the
STS-123 landing may have been caused by overheated ammonia in the APU
exhaust. Here's an elementary lab report:
"... ammonia gas can be burned ... in an atmosphere of oxygen, the
ammonia gas will not only flame but will burn steadily ... the gas
will flame and glow slightly as it burns."
To me, the obvious question now becomes one of whether NASA management
has once again permissively allowed Lockheed to cut corners -- this
time by delaying APU replacement.
To me, the obvious question is how you ever became involved in the
space program. Your lack of knowledge and concepts boggles the mind.
1. There is no issue with the APU flames/fire. It is not out of the
ordinary, nor does it mean anything is wrong.
2. APU replacement is NASA's call. NASA canceled all upgrades after
Columbia
3. Lockheed is not involve with orbiter upgrades, that would be
Boeing
Quote:
I know first-hand that both NASA and Lockheed management looked the
other way while Lockheed rat-holed shuttle-hardware funds urgently
needed for the first launches from Pad B and VLS.
Why do you have a hardon for lockheed? Lockheed doesn't have anything
to do with the orbiters. Not even as part of USA. And again,
clueless, Lockheed couldn't "rathole" money. VLS and Pad B weren't
built by Lockeed. Martin did VLS. How to you know "first hand", when
both your hands are on your member. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| maxson@mission51l.com |
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 6:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 7, 10:21 am, charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote:
1. There is no issue with the APU flames/fire. It is not out of the
ordinary, nor does it mean anything is wrong.
Wow, I thought you'd NEVER admit there was an APU fire on STS-123.
I't's sure great to see you back-pedal on that.
"Not out of the ordinary?" You'll have to eat those words too!
Quote: 2. APU replacement is NASA's call. NASA canceled all upgrades after
Columbia
Right, that's what I said. You simply twisted what I said, so you'd
have a (phony) talking point.
Quote: 3. Lockheed is not involve with orbiter upgrades, that would be
Boeing
Lockheed IS involved with orbiter O&M however, which is what I said.
Quote: Why do you have a hardon for lockheed? Lockheed doesn't have anything
to do with the orbiters. Not even as part of USA.
That's absolute BS. Sadly for our nation, Lockheed is still the
Shuttle Processing Contractor.
,
Quote: Lockheed couldn't "rathole" money.
It not only could have, but it indeed did.
Quote: How to you know "first hand"
I reported it -- first to my Lockheed management, next to NASA, the
Air Force, and the NASA IG, and then to the U. S. Senate. It was my
job at the time to do so.
JTM |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| maxson@mission51l.com |
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 7:26 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 7, 10:21 am, charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote:
3. Lockheed is not involve with orbiter upgrades, that would be
Boeing
I never said any differently. Also, APU usage is not limited to the
orbiters. The SRBs use them as well. After all its shuttle
malfeasance, Lockheed remains today an integral and very expensive
part of NASA's shuttle processing.
JTM |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Alan Erskine |
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<charliexmurphy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b54b6a6b-3829-4711-a11f-ed697c71c885@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Quote: To me, the obvious question is how you ever became involved in the
space program. Your lack of knowledge and concepts boggles the mind.
What boggles my mind is the fact that you even respond to Maxson. You know
he's not going to change his 'mind' (or lack thereof), so why try? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 2:22 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Apr 7, 1:26 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com>
wrote:
Quote: Lockheed remains today an integral and very expensive
part of NASA's shuttle processing.
Wrong again. It is USA. Lockheed has nothing to do with the day to
day management of USA |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Alan Erskine |
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 9:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<charliexmurphy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d71b5f55-e44f-4672-acab-b9cc0096c9d7@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Quote: On Apr 7, 1:26 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com
wrote:
Lockheed remains today an integral and very expensive
part of NASA's shuttle processing.
Wrong again. It is USA. Lockheed has nothing to do with the day to
day management of USA
Why do you keep responding to Maxson? You know he's not going to change his
mind, so why keep going? Are you a 'troll's troll' perhaps? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| maxson@mission51l.com |
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:33 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 7, 7:22 pm, charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote: On Apr 7, 1:26 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com
wrote:
Lockheed remains today an integral and very expensive
part of NASA's shuttle processing.
Wrong again.
I think not. It's true that thanks to the Bush dynasty, Lockheed's
ultra-extravagant military contract in Ft. Worth now dwarfs it's
"civilian" space shuttle business at Houston, Kennedy, and the other
NASA centers/facilities. Nevertheless, here's a fairly recent example
of just one of the shuttle tentacles on monopolistic Lockheed's
gargantuan octopus. This page even describes the large role of the
military in one of today's shuttle landings:
<http://tinyurl.com/569wtf>
"The bulk of shuttle workers assigned to Dryden are employees of
Lockheed Martin. They maintain and operate vehicles and equipment
required when the shuttle lands here, said Lance Dykhoff, Lockheed
Martin site manager for shuttle operations.
The 750-million-candle-power Xenon lighting that guides the shuttle to
Edwards was the most visible evidence of Lockheed's work on the recent
landing. In addition to a number of landing-light systems, employees
also operate and maintain two Microwave Scanning Beam Landing systems,
one on Runway 22 and the other on Runway 04, which are navigational
aides that provide precision and final approach information to the
shuttle pilot. That system provides the space shuttle with the
capability to land automatically if pilots cannot see the runway due
to weather.
Lockheed employees also maintain 50 generators used to power shuttle
equipment, several vehicles - including a truck that refuels the
convoy on the runway - and the NASA convoy command vehicle. In
addition, they are responsible for maintenance of the MDD."
Quote: It is USA.Lockheed has nothing to do with the day to
day management of USA
Oh, so it's just one big non-competitive collusion now, all buddy-
buddied and lobbied for collectively by the Aerospace Industries
Association? The right hand doesn't even know how much the left hand
gets?
GIVE US A BREAK! Lockheed is now so big into armed security and
executive protection that it's become scary. What's next, monopolized
cloning systems?
JTM |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:24 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Apr 8, 12:14�pm, "Alan Erskine" <alan.ersk...@bigpond.com> wrote:
Quote: charliexmur...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d71b5f55-e44f-4672-acab-b9cc0096c9d7@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 7, 1:26 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com
wrote:
�>Lockheed remains today an integral and very expensive
part of NASA's shuttle processing.
Wrong again. �It is USA. �Lockheed has nothing to do with the day to
day management of USA
Why do you keep responding to Maxson? �You know he's not going to change his
mind, so why keep going? �Are you a 'troll's troll' perhaps?
Gee; that's really good but you are the TROLL |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| maxson@mission51l.com |
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 7, 7:22 pm, charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote: On Apr 7, 1:26 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com
wrote:
Lockheed remains today an integral and very expensive
part of NASA's shuttle processing.
Wrong again. It is USA. Lockheed has nothing to do with the day to
day management of USA
You're way out of line, as usual:
<http://tinyurl.com/3vflsu>
"USA is part of the Lockheed Martin team that is designing and
developing the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle."
More:
"We are intensely proud of our Space Shuttle heritage, and our top
priority is completion of the remaining Shuttle missions safely and
successfully," said Richard Covey, USA's Chief Executive Officer. "But
our
business focus extends beyond one vehicle. This aligns our brand with
the
new directions and future priorities of our customers."
Still more:
"As NASA's prime Space Shuttle contractor since 1996, USA is uniquely
positioned to apply its broad experience and proven performance in
space
operations to the challenges and requirements that lie beyond Shuttle
and
the International Space Station."
How typical of Lockheed this all sounds -- especially Covey in the USA
top spot, with his hollow comment (Mission 51-L, STS-107) "intensely
proud of our Space Shuttle heritage."
JTM |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Bash |
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: Gee; that's really good but you are the TROLL
Google JTM posting history and decide for yourself....... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| maxson@mission51l.com |
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 2:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 7, 10:21 am, charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote:
1. There is no issue with the APU flames/fire. It is not out of the
ordinary, nor does it mean anything is wrong.
I believe NASA referred to it as "normal," thus implying that little
or no "APU flames/fire" is abnormal. Has it now become practical and
desirable at landing to burn off (rather than blow off) any ammonia
fumes that would be hazardous to the crew?
BTW, has anyone ever seen ammonia being burned from a flare stack? You
know, something similar to what NASA uses prelaunch to burn off vented
gaseous hydrogen? I'd sure appreciate a link to a photo of such
ammonia burn-off, for comparison with this one from STS-123:
<http://www.mission51l.com/photos/STS-123.jpg>
JTM |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| maxson@mission51l.com |
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 3:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 10, 7:42 am, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com>
wrote:
Quote:
BTW, has anyone ever seen ammonia being burned from a flare stack? You
know, something similar to what NASA uses prelaunch to burn off vented
gaseous hydrogen? I'd sure appreciate a link to a photo of such
ammonia burn-off, for comparison with this one from STS-123:
http://www.mission51l.com/photos/STS-123.jpg
I'm now hearing that at the Purgit page linked to below, the flare-
stack photos with the whiter flames provide a relevant signature for
burning ammonia, since they indicate fairly complete (colorless)
burning of the gas added for purging.
<http://www.purgit.com/ammonia/ammonia.html>
Is what I'm being told more or less on point?
JTM |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dave Mayes |
| Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 11:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 11, 6:50 am, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com>
wrote:
Quote: On Apr 10, 7:42 am, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com
wrote:
BTW, has anyone ever seen ammonia being burned from a flare stack? You
know, something similar to what NASA uses prelaunch to burn off vented
gaseous hydrogen? I'd sure appreciate a link to a photo of such
ammonia burn-off, for comparison with this one from STS-123:
http://www.mission51l.com/photos/STS-123.jpg
I'm now hearing that at the Purgit page linked to below, the flare-
stack photos with the whiter flames provide a relevant signature for
burning ammonia, since they indicate fairly complete (colorless)
burning of the gas added for purging.
http://www.purgit.com/ammonia/ammonia.html
Is what I'm being told more or less on point?
JTM
Great photos. Yes ammonia burns white, but it looks to me like what
you
have in the Purgit photos is some incomplete combustion of the methane
which
gives it that characteristic yellow color which is particularly
notable in
the night photograph. As you can see in the photograph at the link
below,
ammonia burns white. The X-15 burned anhydrous ammonia and oxygen.
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/X-15/Medium/EC88-0180-1.jpg
Dave |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| maxson@mission51l.com |
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 5:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 17, 4:46 pm, Dave Mayes <dmaye...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote:
Great photos. Yes ammonia burns white, but it looks to me
like what you have in the Purgit photos is some incomplete
combustion of the methane which gives it that characteristic
yellow color which is particularly notable in the night photograph.
As you can see in the photograph at the link below, ammonia
burns white. The X-15 burned anhydrous ammonia and oxygen.
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/X-15/Medium/EC88-0180-1.jpg
Thanks for the link. That X-15 photo sure looks pertinent to this
discussion.
I've.heard that NOX and/or NO2 fumes might contribute some peripheral
color to a fire such as the APU fire seen on the STS-123 landing.
JTM |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Aug 29, 2008 7:45 pm
|
|