Author Topic: The all-eventful STS-93 launch (Read 75609 times)

Chris Bergin · « **on:** 09/08/2005 02:17 am »

Please read through all of this thread for additional videos and information.

STS-114 Commander Eileen Collins' STS-93...on Columbia. Very eventful.

First the scrub right before main engine start:

CLICK HERE FOR VIDEO DOWNLOAD

And then the launch video. You can hear what's been said back and forth, but I'll post the transcript on the next post.

CLICK HERE FOR VIDEO DOWNLOAD

Video sources spaceflight.nasa.gov

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #1 on:** 09/08/2005 02:26 am »

Many thanks to poster Stardust for the help with this transcript.

Comm = Commentary
Collins = Lt. Col Eileen Collins (now a Col)
Unknown = Either Houston or Pilot Jeff Ashby
Houston = CAPCOM Scott "Scooter" Altman

Comm: Zero. We have booster ignition and lift-off of Columbia, reaching new heights for women and X-ray astronomy.

Collins: This is Columbia, we're in the roll, we've got a fuel cell (glitch) level one.

Houston: Roger roll Columbia, we're looking at.

Houston: Columbia, Houston, We'd like AC Bus sensors off, we're evaluating the fuel cell.

Pilot: And that's config, scooter - is given.

Pilot & H: Roger that Columbia. Looks like we had a transient on AC-1

Comm: Columbia had now heading down-range altitude of 3.8 mile and as we hear, all systems errr ok - throttling down at 67 per cent.

Houston: Columbia, Houston. We are critical to AC-2 on the centre engine, AC-3 on the right. We've lost DCU A on the centre and DCU B on the right.

Pilot: Copy that.

Houston: And Columbia, Houston, you are go with throttle up.

Collins: Columbia, go with throttle up.

Comm: All 3 engines are back at full throttle. Columbia is now 8 mile down range, altitude 14 mile.

Comm: Flight control team monitoring the electrical systems on board - again all three seem to be healthy, as are the hydraulic systems. We're approaching 1 minute 50 seconds into the flight. Standing by for burn out separation of the solid rocket boosters on the Orbiter. Columbia now has burned more than 2 million lbs of fuel (he said fuel!!) and weighs half of what she did at launch.

Comm: SRB separation is confirmed.

Houston: Columbia - Houston. Performance nominal.

Collins: Performance nominal.

Comm:............ and that reports that the performance of the launch has been as expected, again the electrical system officer at mission control reports that all electrical systems in good shape. Columbia is now 50 mile away from Kennedy Space Center at an altitude of 40 mile. Now travelling at 3200 mph.

Comm: Approaching 3 minutes into the flight, the next call will be shortly after 3 minutes, which will be a 2 engine call for the Transatlantic Abort Site at Benguerra in Morocco. Again all systems healthy, electrical systems, hydraulic systems and the 3 engines - are all at full throttle. There are no issues being tracked and all electrical systems are healthy aboard the Orbiter.

Houston: Columbia - Houston two engine Ben.

Collins: Two Engine Ben

Comm: Columbia can reach Benguerra in the event of a single engine failure, all three engines are still at full throttle. No issues are being reported by the flight control team, all is quiet. It appears that the electrical issue of earlier, appears to have been a sensor. All systems are healthy. Columbia is now 116 miles away from the Kennedy Space Center, at an altitude of 58 miles. Travelling now at almost 4500 mph.

Space101 · « **Reply #2 on:** 09/08/2005 06:18 am »

Wow, I've not seen or heard of this before. I don't really understand what happened or how bad it was. Can anyone help on that?

Tahii · « **Reply #3 on:** 09/08/2005 10:06 am »

With that first video, they seemed to get the Orbiter Access Arm back to the orbiter very quickly - did they nearly evacuate Columbia?

Stardust9906 · « **Reply #4 on:** 09/08/2005 10:08 am »

Quote

Space101 - 8/9/2005 7:18 AM

Wow, I've not seen or heard of this before. I don't really understand what happened or how bad it was. Can anyone help on that?

They lost engine controllers on two different engines due to a short circuit. Since each engine has a primary and backup controller they were one failure away from loosing either of those engines. This was also the flight that had a slightly early Main Engine Cut Off due to a fuel leak so it was a pretty eventful flight.

Flightstar · « **Reply #5 on:** 09/08/2005 12:48 pm »

Quote

Tahii - 8/9/2005 5:06 AM

With that first video, they seemed to get the Orbiter Access Arm back to the orbiter very quickly - did they nearly evacuate Columbia?

No, but as safing is in works, that moves in place very fast in case the crew do have to bail.

Flightstar · « **Reply #6 on:** 09/08/2005 12:51 pm »

Quote

Stardust9906 - 8/9/2005 5:08 AM

Quote
Space101 - 8/9/2005 7:18 AM

Wow, I've not seen or heard of this before. I don't really understand what happened or how bad it was. Can anyone help on that?

They lost engine controllers on two different engines due to a short circuit. Since each engine has a primary and backup controller they were one failure away from loosing either of those engines. This was also the flight that had a slightly early Main Engine Cut Off due to a fuel leak so it was a pretty eventful flight.

It was very close to a RTSL Abort.

Stardust9906 · « **Reply #7 on:** 09/08/2005 09:52 pm »

Here are the screencaps for this one.

SRBseparama · « **Reply #8 on:** 09/09/2005 02:54 am »

I've heard about this a few times but never seen or heard the video. Many thanks for this!

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #9 on:** 09/29/2005 09:22 pm »

Soe extra videos:

CLICK HERE FOR VIDEO DOWNLOAD - For multiple angle views.

CLICK HERE FOR VIDEO DOWNLOAD - for superior sound quality of the events.

Justin Space · « **Reply #10 on:** 11/16/2005 11:26 am »

Sorry I'm not posting much, just can't stop going through these videos!

Was this as dangerous as it sounds, was there a danger of the engine actually blowing up?

Flightstar · « **Reply #11 on:** 11/16/2005 03:32 pm »

Quote

Justin Space - 16/11/2005 6:26 AM

Sorry I'm not posting much, just can't stop going through these videos!

Was this as dangerous as it sounds, was there a danger of the engine actually blowing up?

There's always that danger on any launch, but in this case the danger was the SSMEs shutting down, or the need to do so. Given the stage of the ascent it would have been a RTSL Abort.

DaveS · « **Reply #12 on:** 11/16/2005 04:33 pm »

Quote

Flightstar - 16/11/2005 5:32 PM

Given the stage of the ascent it would have been a RTSL Abort.

RTLS on an single engine? They were in the danger of losing two engines. I don't think that's possible since you have zero bank control on the vehicle after SRB seperation. I think that for the crew's own safety, ditching the orbiter would have preferred. Sure, it would have total loss of vehicle and payload but crew would still have been alive. Ditching the orbiter would have been much safer than trying a totally untested abort in the least optimal conditions.

But I could be wrong on the true capabilities of the shuttle system.

Flightstar · « **Reply #13 on:** 11/16/2005 04:39 pm »

Quote

DaveS - 16/11/2005 11:33 AM

Quote
Flightstar - 16/11/2005 5:32 PM

Given the stage of the ascent it would have been a RTSL Abort.

RTLS on an single engine? They were in the danger of losing two engines. I don't think that's possible since you have zero bank control on the vehicle after SRB seperation. I think that for the crew's own safety, ditching the orbiter would have preferred. Sure, it would have total loss of vehicle and payload but crew would still have been alive. Ditching the orbiter would have been much safer than trying a totally untested abort in the least optimal conditions.

But I could be wrong on the true capabilities of the shuttle system.

The issue was with one engine, if memory serves, with potentially a second engine. To ditch you have to perform the RTLS Abort and configure from there. You don't have to land, although if possible that is preferable.

Justin Space · « **Reply #14 on:** 11/17/2005 04:45 pm »

Thank you for your answers. Very interesting and also sobering.

Orbiter Obvious · « **Reply #15 on:** 12/07/2005 05:06 am »

Bump, as this got a mention on the O2 leak being looked into on Discovery's STS-114. The mention was that Columbia did have a leak?

DaveS · « **Reply #16 on:** 12/07/2005 06:53 am »

Quote

Orbiter Obvious - 7/12/2005 7:06 AM

Bump, as this got a mention on the O2 leak being looked into on Discovery's STS-114. The mention was that Columbia did have a leak?

Columbia did not have LH2 leak in the aft engine compartment. It was determined that it was a bad sensor that registered bad data.

Rocket Guy · « **Reply #17 on:** 12/07/2005 01:12 pm »

Quote

Columbia did not have LH2 leak in the aft engine compartment. It was determined that it was a bad sensor that registered bad data.

I believe you are thinking of the aborted first launch attempt at T-7 seconds due to hydrogen in the aft, which was a sensor problem. There was indeed a LH leak during ascent. It left Columbia 11 miles short of its target orbit.

DaveS · « **Reply #18 on:** 12/07/2005 01:52 pm »

Ben: You're right. I was referring to the first launch attempt.

STS Tony · « **Reply #19 on:** 12/07/2005 02:36 pm »

Anyone know how much of a leak, like was it anywhere close to the 100,000 scm? I ask as if it was then Discovery wasn't short, so the reading of a leak might be wrong?