I know there was some discussion as to why a reboost is no longer planned, but I didn't find the reason stated clearly. Is there simply insufficient OMS prop margin? That's the only real reason I can think of.My understanding is that they want to save the OMS prop for orbit lowering. The lower orbit is required due to MMOD concerns. Additional to that, the rate of decay for HST has been low due to the recent low solar activity, so a reboost is not critical.
I know there was some discussion as to why a reboost is no longer planned, but I didn't find the reason stated clearly. Is there simply insufficient OMS prop margin? That's the only real reason I can think of.My understanding is that they want to save the OMS prop for orbit lowering. The lower orbit is required due to MMOD concerns. Additional to that, the rate of decay for HST has been low due to the recent low solar activity, so a reboost is not critical.
Thanks for the info. That's odd. Just because solar minimum was really calm doesn't mean the upcoming solar maximum (or the climb up to it) won't be really intense. "Past performance is not an indicator of future results"! But, okay, as long as HST's orbit will last until 2015 or later, it's probably fine.Cycle 24 is predicted to be a light one:
Morning guys!
Just a quick question for today's unberth with HST, in the flightplan they're talking about the HST DPY manual for procedures, where can i find this doc? (normally they're working with the rendezvous manual right?)
Thanks!
What time is the deploy window in UTC?
HST DPLY OPEN: 12:53:56 UTC
HST DPLY CLOSE: 13:14:56 UTC
It is confirmed that there will bo no raising orbit of telescope ya?
Asking again if anyone knows why there is a window for deployment instead of just "whenever"
The latter is key.
Even without a reboost, HST's orbit is expected to be good through at least 2020, which is much longer than HST's systems are expected to last. So Goddard did not make reboost a requirement. If they thought that a reboost would add operational lifetime to HST, they would have.
The latter is key.
Even without a reboost, HST's orbit is expected to be good through at least 2020, which is much longer than HST's systems are expected to last. So Goddard did not make reboost a requirement. If they thought that a reboost would add operational lifetime to HST, they would have.
I'm not sure who "expects" 2020 to be much longer than systems are expected to last, but with the upgraded gyros and new batteries what would surprise anybody by being operational in 15 years?
It is a pity there is no visible horizon during telescope translation. With the shuttle in free drift I imagine the telescope is heavy enough to move the shuttle attitude quite significantly.
There would also be a component due to the reaction of the arm pushing on the telescope mass. Telescope moves one way, shuttle the other.
My lone contribution for today, new job
I'm not sure who "expects" 2020 to be much longer than systems are expected to last, but with the upgraded gyros and new batteries what would surprise anybody by being operational in 15 years?
There would also be a component due to the reaction of the arm pushing on the telescope mass. Telescope moves one way, shuttle the other.
I'm not sure who "expects" 2020 to be much longer than systems are expected to last, but with the upgraded gyros and new batteries what would surprise anybody by being operational in 15 years?
It would surprise me. It's taken four very intensive servicing missions to keep HST operational for 19 years. This is IT, folks. The next major failure or combination of failures and it's Game Over.
And I guess that the BSA has indeed been working today, or is that setup still in work?I'm not positive but I believe there has been telescope commanding going on today and I haven't heard any verbal confirmations to indicate lack of communication.
What is that badge like logo on the door the controllers walk through that we keep seeing on NTV?
I promise, I stop after this, because it gets OT: If you have the costless option to keep this opportunity - whatever you rate the probability of HST staying operational - why not use this option?Because it is not costless. If you do the reboost you lose the fuel for orbit lowering. If you don't do the orbit lowering, your MM/OD risk exceeds program requirements. If you look at todays exec pkg, the OMS dV remaining after orbit lowering is only 284 fps. I'm not sure what the dV for de-orbit will be on this mission but I would expect >250 fps.
I promise, I stop after this, because it gets OT: If you have the costless option to keep this opportunity - whatever you rate the probability of HST staying operational - why not use this option?Because it is not costless. If you do the reboost you lose the fuel for orbit lowering. If you don't do the orbit lowering, your MM/OD risk exceeds program requirements. If you look at todays exec pkg, the OMS dV remaining after orbit lowering is only 284 fps. I'm not sure what the dV for de-orbit will be on this mission but I would expect >250 fps.
Looks a bit like how I want my home office to be kitted out ;)
Would that be an R-bar sep manuver?Don't believe so. See image on big screen at right
Must be a song there somewhere... Tip toe down the R bar with me ;D
Now looking forward to a clearance later today on no MMOD damage after the inspection to follow. STS-400 can stand down and the crew can relax for a well-earned rest tomorrow!
Yep, via L2 this morning:Now looking forward to a clearance later today on no MMOD damage after the inspection to follow. STS-400 can stand down and the crew can relax for a well-earned rest tomorrow!
They won't stand down STS-400 until deorbit burn is complete.
OK, good to know! Thanks!Yep, via L2 this morning:Now looking forward to a clearance later today on no MMOD damage after the inspection to follow. STS-400 can stand down and the crew can relax for a well-earned rest tomorrow!
They won't stand down STS-400 until deorbit burn is complete.
"FD9 Late Inspection will drive MMT Go/No-Go direction for PRSD load. A go for PRSD load will indicate possible concern in the TPS Late Inspection. A No-Go decision will result in a 24-hour hold in S0007, and the launch team will remain in a LON posture until completion of the de-orbit burn"
The article I'm soon to publish is concentrating on Late Inspections and the focus on 11R, which might of been hit by MMOD.
The article I'm soon to publish is concentrating on Late Inspections and the focus on 11R, which might of been hit by MMOD.
Chris, documentation on this in L2?
curious,
for the burn..will they lower the orbit to a smaller circular orbit to reduce the heat of re-entry when they do the de-orbit burn or is it not that much of an issue being a few hundred kilometers higher up.
jb
Will this be an OMS engine burn or thrusters?
The article I'm soon to publish is concentrating on Late Inspections and the focus on 11R, which might of been hit by MMOD.
Chris, documentation on this in L2?
If you haven't found it by now, go to the STS-125 L2 section. First page, should be something called "Potential MMOD Damage (OPO and MMT Presentations)", that'll have it for you.
Coming up on a OA burn, that will decrease Atlantis' altitude. So from now, til Moon landings, NO human beeing will venture out that far away (300 nm) from planet earth,...
Updated OA maneuver pad about to be read up...PAO (Orbit 1, Kyle Herring) notes delta-V of 234.8 fps.
Two-OMS burn, TIG at MET 7/20:55:40
Coming up on a OA burn, that will decrease Atlantis' altitude. So from now, til Moon landings, NO human beeing will venture out that far away (300 nm) from planet earth,...
Coming up on a OA burn, that will decrease Atlantis' altitude. So from now, til Moon landings, NO human beeing will venture out that far away (300 nm) from planet earth,...
Er? Unless I've missed something, the apogee will still be around HST altitude, won't it? It's just lowering one side.
I don't have the flight plan in front of me, but I suspect there will be a burn to circularize the orbit at the lower altitude.No, they will de-orbit from the resulting orbit after this burn.
I don't have the flight plan in front of me, but I suspect there will be a burn to circularize the orbit at the lower altitude.No, they will de-orbit from the resulting orbit after this burn.
Coming up on a OA burn, that will decrease Atlantis' altitude. So from now, til Moon landings, NO human beeing will venture out that far away (300 nm) from planet earth,...
IIRC the HST is at pretty much the max altitude for the fuel and mission. If it went up just for an alititude hoorah I guess it could go higher with enough cryo to get it back.Coming up on a OA burn, that will decrease Atlantis' altitude. So from now, til Moon landings, NO human beeing will venture out that far away (300 nm) from planet earth,...
Anyone know how high the Shuttle could theoretically go if called upon ?
Frequently asked question...Coming up on a OA burn, that will decrease Atlantis' altitude. So from now, til Moon landings, NO human beeing will venture out that far away (300 nm) from planet earth,...
Anyone know how high the Shuttle could theoretically go if called upon ?
Latest article:Context was well written and no need to yell the sky is falling. But we know someone will at the MSB
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/05/hst-farewell-late-inspections-panel-11r-interest/
Tried to make a point that the potential MMOD strike is nothing to be scared of, so used the Columbia example....which I hate doing for obvious reasons. I hope you understand why I used her as context.
Latest article:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/05/hst-farewell-late-inspections-panel-11r-interest/
Tried to make a point that the potential MMOD strike is nothing to be scared of, so used the Columbia example....which I hate doing for obvious reasons. I hope you understand why I used her as context.
Latest article:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/05/hst-farewell-late-inspections-panel-11r-interest/
Tried to make a point that the potential MMOD strike is nothing to be scared of, so used the Columbia example....which I hate doing for obvious reasons. I hope you understand why I used her as context.
We all know that if Columbia's loss has a bright side (poor choice of words, I know) it is that she is helping to make every shuttle flight that much safer. I think it is this context of furthering our knowledge that your article looks at, and that's always fine by me! Besides, when people look for a baseline to compare RCC impacts, the first that jumps to mind will always be Columbia.
Is MSB still scheduled at the bottom of the hour?
Tony calm about the status of 11R, that they'll look at it, but it isn't likely to be anything worrying as we know.
I think Dave Hubble has annoyed some people .Real honesty phew!
I expect that his retirement papers will be waiting on his desk when he returns.
Maybe Dave Hubble is a DIRECT fan.
Thinking perhaps of Orion/Hubble SM5?
I think Dave Hubble has annoyed some people .Real honesty phew!
Being in a position where you can retire at any time can be a bit liberating.
I expect that his retirement papers will be waiting on his desk when he returns.
Maybe Dave Hubble is a DIRECT fan.
Thinking perhaps of Orion/Hubble SM5?
Had nothing to do with what he was saying. He said it wasn't do with with another servicing mission and is upset Orion isn't being developed for any science.
I didn't know Direct was? (It isn't, being rhetorical)
Who switches from camera to camera, someone on the Orbiter, or someone in Houston?
Those aboard the shuttle can switch at will, but I believe PAO shows us what they would like at any given time. So the answer I believe is both, but PAO determines which view we look at.
I meant to post this yesterday, got too busy to actually push the button! Now seems like as good a time as any, particularly if it derails the budding launch systems discussion:Who switches from camera to camera, someone on the Orbiter, or someone in Houston?Those aboard the shuttle can switch at will, but I believe PAO shows us what they would like at any given time. So the answer I believe is both, but PAO determines which view we look at.
I don't think that's quite right, or at least it's misleading. NASA only has one video path coming down (maybe two, correct me), certainly not all cameras simultaneously, so they do need to switch it on orbit. MCC has the ability to control that from the ground. PAO takes whatever is coming down. Perhaps PAO can request something from MCC but I seriously doubt they have their own shuttle video router output and downlink path to command.
Last few for me for a while.. heading out..
Last few for me for a while.. heading out..
Thanks for posting all those great screenshots!
No video replay today of the Hubble release. Maybe tomorrow. Apparently the Gene Cernan Apollo 10 Show pre-empted what video they did send down.
Update 7:27 PM ET: Sounds like the crew is pressing MCC to provide a KU opportunity tonight to downlink the Hubble video.
Crew video of HST release being run on NASA TV now...was on Media Channel earlier...