Space program

[scoober78]

One of my favorite videos, since we're talking about it.

Here is the accompanying plate:

 

[phrogpilot73]

One of my favorite videos, since we're talking about it.

Here is the accompanying plate:

I like the "Missed Approach: N/A" on the plate.

 

[scoolbubba]

Missed Approach - N/A.

Hah

 

[Jim123]

Better have your PPR# handy when you hit the FAF (just in case they ask for it).

 

[Calculon]

We should admit to ourselves that we're really pulling things completely out of our asses. This is a transitional time for the manned space program. Past experience isn't necessarily a predictor of future results. The demand for new military astronauts has pretty much gone to zero, and while they will eventually need them again, I doubt it will be in the same numbers as before. Low-earth orbit is going to be served by private companies. The ISS is going to mostly be served by mission specialists, not pilots. If we ever go to the moon and Mars, there will probably be some demand, but not enough to plan on. NASA has a very deep bench right now.

If you want to fly, fly, but don't plan your whole life around something that's something of a low probability shot.

In the last 3 NASA classes, we've actually had a fairly even split of civilian to military. However, the key is that is just general military - the days of it being exclusively reserved for pilots are long gone. In the last few classes, we've had a Nuke and a SEAL for example. And in only a few classes earlier, we've had a diver as well. I believe an oceanographer too.

Big thing people need to remember is that it costs a lot of money per pound to send up into LEO, and so if you want to send a human up, you need to be a damn good bang for the buck deal -- which often means that you've got a big brain in some field that NASA wants to have for experiments or whatever else is on their plate (and hence why if you don't have at the very least a degree from engineering/science/some other heavy technical field.... good luck)

 

[helolumpy]

I like the "Missed Approach: N/A" on the plate.

[/quote]

I'm partial to the Alternate Not Available on the approach plate.... You know, in case a couple of cosmonauts had to divert from Kazakhstan due to weather, NASA says "no freakin' way"?

 

[jmcquate]

Maybe we are talking something different, but the NASA T-38's were probably Block 80 or 85, which were the last 2 blocks of T-38's produced. There was no Block 1: the earliest T38's were actually Block 20's.

Attn Naval Flyers: a "Block" is like "Lot". That is your bi-lingual lesson for the day.

About 4 years ago, I went to Edwards and did shuttle approaches to touch-and-go's in the T-38 with one of their instructors. What a blast that was.

That’s what one of the DynCorp maintenance contractors told me (that they were block 1s), but I stand corrected.

 

[yak52driver]

The Shuttle Training Aircraft were actually Gulfstream II's with half the cockpit setup just like the shuttle. They did the approaches with full flaps, main gear down and thrust reversers deployed, pilots and commanders apparently had to do 1000 approaches in an STA.

When I worked at JSC the Director of my division had been heavily involved in the development of the shuttle training aircraft. The CG of the shuttle is behind the tail of the G2, so to get the aircraft act like the CG was where the shuttle's was, they changed how the flaps actuated in shuttle mode which made it behave like the shuttle would when pitch inputs were made. The back of the aircraft was loaded with gear. I always though it was cool that they got it to behave like the shuttle during approachs.

 

[snake020]

If you're looking to book an astronaut speaker, one is available here.

 

[sickboy]

Almost overtorqued a 57 there.

 

[phrogpilot73]

Almost overtorqued a 57 there.

It's not like it's that hard...


<----- Has 3 Overtorques in the TH-57 under his belt. ZERO in the CH-46E, thank you very much...

 

[scoolbubba]

How bad is an over torque? Is it like an over temp, where you do an inspection and call it good, or is it a "pull the motor and put a bullet in her, she's done" kind of bad juju?

 

[Harrier Dude]

ZERO in the CH-46E, thank you very much...

Well....when the aircraft commander never lets you touch the controls........

 

[Gatordev]

How bad is an over torque? Is it like an over temp, where you do an inspection and call it good, or is it a "pull the motor and put a bullet in her, she's done" kind of bad juju?

It depends on the airframe (and therefore the amount of over-torque). For the -60, it's not a good day. You'll have to pull the tranny out, which is not a small or cheap evolution. But to actually get to that point, you have to pull a lot. It's actually easy to do with the newer airframes.

 

[Jim123]

It's possible to overtorque a -57 into Class C territory (rare, but not unheard of), but most overtorques have much lesser consequences. The engine doesn't have any torque or temperature limiting- the (mechanical only) fuel control just does whatever it has to do to maintain 100%rpm. Since the engine is stronger than the transmission (so the engine can produce rated power in hot/high conditions), the engine wins. Then there is the small detail that the transmission is marginal for the aircraft's weight...


edit: aaaaand the helicopter guys have threadjacked a thread about space... hehehe