Ohh my! Why did I do this to my atari?

[OmegaMan]

 

YOU EXPECT ME TO ORGASM TO THIS?!

 

.....I just DID!! The combination of the SYLAB FRAGMENT THEFT story and the image of the Norfin Troll pushed me over the EDGE!

 

Regards

[Jacob Rose]

As a side note, SciFi fans may be interested to know that Skylab is the source of the floor grills often seen in television shows like Star Trek: TNG. Skylab was so large that it required a Saturn V to boost it. Unfortuantely, all the Saturn V's were allocated to other projects. So the engineers came up with a design that involved making part of the space station out of the fuel tanks for a S-IVB stage of a Saturn II rocket. The space station would actually be filled with fuel during launch, thus acting as part of the rocket. Once in orbit, the remaining fuel would be vented.

 

This plan required that the internal sections of the craft be porous so that the fuel could easily pass through to the engines. As a result, the floors were designed as a metal grills rather than solid plates. However, the cancellation of the Apollo program resulted in a spare Saturn V becoming available. This was used to boost Skylab in a dry configuration, and the flooring became nothing more than a curiosity. There's a picture here where you can clearly see Skylab's unique flooring.

 

Wow, thanks for all the SkyLab trivia. Cool stuff!

[jbanes]

Wow, thanks for all the SkyLab trivia. Cool stuff!

No problem. Space travel is a side interest of mine, so I've got all kinds of useless knowledge bouncing around. You wouldn't believe all the uber-powerful engines we're sitting on, none of which ever got used because Nixon shut down the space program. Thanks to the new CEV program, though, we may start seeing a *few* of the cooler ones pop up. This engine, for example, has a very real chance of being included on the LEO -> Moon craft, as well as the Manned Mars Mission that's currently on the roadmap.

[RickHarrisMaine]

When I read the dude's post about doing weird stuff to his Atari's, all I could think of was that kid "Sid" from Toy Story.

[stop_rebel_scum]

so what exactly is the deal with activision's space shuttle? I've read a little bit about it being so good that it was used as a trainer? is this true?

 

I also read another post which discussed how someone figured out that some kind of auxilliary engines or thrusters could be used to land the shuttle, something that could also bear out in real life that NASA hadn't considered?

[Bakasama]

At least the museum 'skylab' story was a nice touch. When was the last time you heard that old space station brought up? I forgot all about that thing.

 

I'm sure he stores his skylab fragment on the shelf next to his assortment of sasquatch butt hairs.

 

Don't forget his stacks of Susan B. Anthony coins and his cans of Tab and Bubble Up.

[homerwannabee]

Keetah, if you keep on repeating the same story over and over again now, I am going to hate to see what your like when your 80.

[NovaXpress]

No problem. Space travel is a side interest of mine, so I've got all kinds of useless knowledge bouncing around

Do women make inefficient astronauts because of the menstrual products that they haul around? Or do they take a pill to prevent it from occurring?

[Zonie]

These I will have put in a lucite block along with my hand-picked skylab fragment. Yeh, when I was a kid my gramma took me to the museum and she distracted the guard while I snuck under the tense-a-barrier (like in the theaters) and ripped off a piece. I found that near the chips. Wow!! That’s like 30 years old! Too!

 

So you and your Gramma felt that you were more entitled to a piece of our nations history then the rest of us, eh?

 

It's all about you.

[Zonie]

 

This plan required that the internal sections of the craft be porous so that the fuel could easily pass through to the engines. As a result, the floors were designed as a metal grills rather than solid plates. However, the cancellation of the Apollo program resulted in a spare Saturn V becoming available. This was used to boost Skylab in a dry configuration, and the flooring became nothing more than a curiosity. There's a picture here where you can clearly see Skylab's unique flooring.

 

 

The skylab overhead view kinda looks like the inside of the Mellinium Falcon Playset.

 

I betcha Keatah had one of those too.

 

 

Saturn V. Best damn thing ever built by man.

Edited May 4, 2006 by Zonie

[jbanes]

so what exactly is the deal with activision's space shuttle? I've read a little bit about it being so good that it was used as a trainer? is this true?

I've never played it before, but I doubt it. The orbital mechanics are probably fine (hell, the Space Shuttle's dinky 64K computer can track them, can't it?), but the atmospheric flight and myriad of controls that make up the Shuttle are very tricky to simulate correctly. I used to have the Shuttle Simulator from Virgin Interactive. Now THAT is a simulator. You could not only look out every window, but each control panel had its own view so you could scroll around and flip all the switches. (Oh look, here's the switch to vent the OMS fuel. *click* Whoops.) You could even perform maneuvers with the Shuttle arm to rescue Satellites.

 

The game was so realistic that you actually were on the REAL mission clock. Yep, you heard me. Each mission could take several days of real time. Thankfully, a time accelerator was included. When under acceleration, the shuttle would perform the correct manuevers according to the mission. (The missions were taken from NASA's actual logs.) This would allow you to skip to any part of the mission that you wanted to practice. Suck at landings? Go right to it. Want to manually do a reentry (What are you, nuts? Just punch the program code into the Shuttle's computer!), you can jump right to that part.

 

It was an incredibly impressive program for its time, and could have easily been used to train budding astronauts. However, I doubt that NASA would have much use for it. Not only do they have their own (much better) simulator with full motion simulation, all their pilots are air force pilots with thousands of hours of flight time. They tend to already have the basics down, and really need to learn more of the nuances of the Shuttle. Something a naive simulation like Virgin's can't provide.

 

I also read another post which discussed how someone figured out that some kind of auxilliary engines or thrusters could be used to land the shuttle, something that could also bear out in real life that NASA hadn't considered?

You'll probably need to look it up for more info. Here's what I know. The Space Shuttle is equipped with four different engines:

 

1. The 3 SSMEs, the most powerful LHOx (Liquid Hydrogen/Liquid Oxygen) engines ever developed. These are capable of burning a swimming pool worth of fuel per second and provide 400,000 pounds of thrust each. The engines are gimballed (i.e. allowed to swivel) to compensate for any leaning of the shuttle on liftoff. They are fueled by the LH and LOx tanks located in the ET. (External Tank - the large brown section underneath the shuttle itself.) These engines are no longer useful after the External Tank is jettisoned.

 

2. The 2 SRBs (Solid Rocket Boosters), the heavy lifting part of the shuttle. These engines provide 2.8 million pounds of thrust each, making up about 83% of the shuttle's thrust on liftoff. Without these engines, the Shuttle would be too heavy to get off the ground. However, once MaxQ is reached (the maximum velocity the shuttle structure can reasonably take), the SRBs are throttled back and eventually ejected via explosive bolts. The throttling is not actually a true throttling, in that the solid fuel is actually shaped so that less will burn after X amount of time. As a result, the Shuttle's liftoff profile is somewhat on a fixed schedule. Once the SRBs are ejected, the SSMEs become the engines responsible for obtaining the desired orbit.

 

3. The 2 OMS (Orbital Manuevering System) thrusters, the small engines used to change the Shuttle's orbit. These are the small bells located next the Shuttle Main Engines at the back. Each of these puts out about 6,000 pounds of thrust, and are used to circularize the orbit, move to a higher orbit, and moving to a lower or retrograde orbit.

 

4. The RCS (Reaction Control System), a set of small thrusters used to spin the shuttle on its axis. These don't have much power at all, and are only useful for changing the yaw, pitch, and roll of the Shuttle.

 

As you can see, none of the engines used in orbit are all that powerful, making it unlikely that they'd be used for a powered reentry. Even both OMS together wouldn't be enough to keep the Shuttle airborne, assuming that it is even safe to fire them in the atmosphere. What some may be considering is the fact that the SSMEs are still attached, and that the cargo bay is usually fairly empty. Theoretically, the bay could be loaded with extra fuel tanks and the SSMEs restarted. However! (Here come the big BUT.) The SSMEs are not designed for in-flight restart. They are normally only started on the pad, after they're thoroughly checked. They're also started prior to the SRBs so that the launch can be aborted if they fail to light. Making the SSMEs reliably light in-flight would require some redesign. NASA looked at the possibility for the CEV program, but has decided to go with the less-powerful (but more reliable) J-2 engines from the Saturn V/Apollo program.

 

Do women make inefficient astronauts because of the menstrual products that they haul around? Or do they take a pill to prevent it from occurring?

Google is your friend. Learn it, live it, love it.

Edited May 4, 2006 by jbanes

[NovaXpress]

Do women make inefficient astronauts because of the menstrual products that they haul around? Or do they take a pill to prevent it from occurring?

Google is your friend. Learn it, live it, love it.

My mistake was googling the phrase "space tampon."

 

So how will they deal with all the used products when that woman goes up to the ISS? I thought there was already too much garbage crammed into that thing. I thought it would be more sensible to give her some pills to supress her cycle.

[Zonie]

Yeah, It'll be interesting to see what they do with the new version of the J2's. You know they'll want to tweak 'em. Too bad they'll need two in place of one SSME.

 

Oh, Solid rocket boosters are called rocket motors, but that's a whole other topic.

 

The Russians played with some turbojet engines on Buran for atmospheric flight, but that was for testing of the orbiter's flight capabilities only.

Edited May 5, 2006 by Zonie

[jbanes]

Yeah, It'll be interesting to see what they do with the new version of the J2's. You know they'll want to tweak 'em.

 

Considering that they haven't been manufactured since Carter was President, I'd say the engineers will be tweaking them whether NASA likes it or not. The materials used today just aren't the same heavy metal sheets that were popular when the Saturn V was designed. As a result, the engines are likely to be lighter and more efficient based on materials and manufacturing upgrades alone. A bit like the Flashback 2.0.

 

Too bad they'll need two in place of one SSME.

That somewhat concerned me as well, but it all works out in the end. As it so happens, the SSMEs (7000lbs) are just about twice the weight of the J-2s (3600lbs), and just about twice the thrust. The SSMEs win on theoretical fuel efficiency (Isp), but not so much as to make a difference.

 

Oh, Solid rocket boosters are called rocket motors, but that's a whole other topic.

 

I never quite understood this. In my mind a Turbopump is a motor, not a controlled explosive. Alas, thats what they call them on model rockets as well, so go figure.

 

The Russians played with some turbojet engines on Buran for atmospheric flight, but that was for testing of the orbiter's flight capabilities only.

 

Yeah, they really tried their best to get that sucker flightworthy as fast as possible. It's too bad that the program was cancelled after only one successful flight. I could care less about the Shuttle itself (they copied many of the bad features of the American shuttle with only a few excellent corrections, but did so without a contextual reason for doing so), but the Energia was a sight to behold. Still, it's a bit sad that the only Russian shuttle ever to fly has been lost ot history.

[Sayton]

I thought maybe at first someone fried something by accident trying to build a portable. Nope. It's some lame story, with parts actually repeated!

 

$20K of Apple II stuff? Yeah, just like I have 50 factory sealed Quadruns.

[jbanes]

Yeah, just like I have 50 factory sealed Quadruns.

You do? Wow, that's cool! Can I have one?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Michael_]

I have since tried to re-build the collection but found it impractical. Too costly, so, I now have a super collection of emulated games, multiple emulators for many MANY machines running on a dedicated computer complete with a 37" monitor and all the appropriate controls. Its a great setup, hundreds and hundreds of roms (yes I owned them all) for over 20 systems..

 

Heh! I´m not sure "I owned them all" puts you in the clear for emulation purposes.

Impractical? Illegal.

[Zonie]

I never quite understood this. In my mind a Turbopump is a motor, not a controlled explosive. Alas, thats what they call them on model rockets as well, so go figure.

Yeah, Took me a while to stop calling them engines. It's when you graduate beyond the estes stuff that it actually sinks in.

 

Please don't call solid boosters an explosive. Ammonium Perchlorate is not an explosive. The ATF tried to classify it as such after 9-11, but failed.

[super_dos_man]

At least the museum 'skylab' story was a nice touch. When was the last time you heard that old space station brought up? I forgot all about that thing.

 

I'm sure he stores his skylab fragment on the shelf next to his assortment of sasquatch butt hairs.

 

Don't forget his stacks of Susan B. Anthony coins and his cans of Tab and Bubble Up.

 

and don't forget the cans of moxie!

Edited May 6, 2006 by super_dos_man

[Zwackery]

Don't forget his stacks of Susan B. Anthony coins and his cans of Tab and Bubble Up.

AFAIK, you can still buy Tab and Bubble Up (although the formulas may have changed over the years). I personally miss Apple Slice soda pop. And the Smithsonian and other museums have expanded their offerings in the "freeze dried" products category - no longer are you restricted to Neapolitan ice cream.

[Brad2600]

Now I know why some people are fed up with others on here.

[Rob Mitchell]

Saturn V. Best damn thing ever built by man.

 

You know what pisses me off? They dumped all the blueprints for the Saturn V and Apollo craft in the mid 70's!

 

Q: Ok .. something I have wondered about all my life .. what's up with the Saturn V paint scheme? I imagine that it is for filming the launch .. and to monitor guidance .. but a patch here and there? What's the logic?

 

Rob Mitchell, Atlanta, Ga

(off to google Saturn V paint scheme)

Edited May 13, 2006 by Rob Mitchell

[jbanes]

You know what pisses me off? They dumped all the blueprints for the Saturn V and Apollo craft in the mid 70's!

 

Gah! Won't this urban legend just die? The blueprints are safe and sound. The reason why the Saturn V can't be rebuilt is that American industry has moved away from heavy metals, analog computer, and slow electronic switches toward plastics, composites, alloys, and hyperfast microprocessors. You know how many compatibility problems were in the FB2 just because of newer manufacturing techniques? Imagine if these types of problems were across an entire rocket. It would be faster to design a new rocket than blow up a few dozen remanufactures just to work the bugs back out.

 

Don't worry though. We're still flying a machine more powerful than the Saturn V. The Space Shuttle lifts about 129 metric tonnes (give or take depending on how you figure). The problem is that 104 metric tonnes of that is the Space Shuttle itself. In the Saturn V design, the craft was whatever you wanted to pop on top of the stack. It could be a human-carrying craft, or it could be pure cargo. It didn't matter. The Space Shuttle took all that away when the most powerful engines known to man were forever tied to a massive dump truck for space.

 

The CLV (part of the CEV program), however, will finally give us the engines without any extra baggage to go along with it. It will be significantly more powerful than the Saturn V, but it will use the engine technology from the shuttle program.

[Rob Mitchell]

Gah! Won't this urban legend just die? The blueprints are safe and sound.

 

Ok .. they're safe and sound. Then why has NASA continued to update and flying all those one use rockets .. and abandon the Saturn IB and V?

 

Remember that the Space Shuttle is a mid 70's design (so much for modern components). I was calling the SS a flying brick back in 1981!

 

Back to my question .. what's up with the Saturn paint scheme? A patch of black here and there? The engineers and the archivists must have forgotten.

 

Rob Mitchell, Atlanta, GA

[jbanes]

Ok .. they're safe and sound. Then why has NASA continued to update and flying all those one use rockets .. and abandon the Saturn IB and V?

I'm not sure how this logically ties back to anything, but the answer is fairly simple: Presidential order.

 

The Saturns were part of the Apollo program, and Nixon told NASA to shut it down. In fact, he told them to shut down everything including most secondary rocket launches. The military continued to fly the Titans, and non-NASA agencies (Boeing, Lockheed, etc.) were allowed to fly commercial rockets. Since NASA owned all the IP on the Saturns, they were not available for remanufacture. Even if they were, what commercial entity had the money to spend on a 100+ tonne to orbit rocket? And why bother manufacturing a IB when both the Titan and Space Shuttle could carry similar loads?

 

Remember that the Space Shuttle is a mid 70's design (so much for modern components).

You think the Space Shuttle is made from the same materials and technologies as the Saturn V?

 

Oh, and the Saturn V is a "mid-1950's design". Both contained technologies WAY ahead of their respective times.

 

Back to my question .. what's up with the Saturn paint scheme? A patch of black here and there? The engineers and the archivists must have forgotten.

Have you considered that you might get a better answer to this over on Space.com or some other rocket-focused forum? But if you really want a guess, it's probably for visual tracking purposes. The black/white paint is high contrast, ensuring that the craft can be seen no matter which background it's against, and the alternating pattern would allow visual tracking to verify if the craft were improperly spinning.