NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
NASA Shuttle Specific Sections => Atlantis (Post STS-135, T&R) => Topic started by: Chris Bergin on 06/25/2009 01:23 am
-
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/06/window-damage-on-atlantis-threatens-six-month-delay-to-sts-129/
We've been discussing it for most of the day on L2. Basically, the hope is the knob will come out without creating damage, and the current damage is acceptable...otherwise there's a big schedule hit.
-
Good article Chris. Thanks for the summary of those great presentations on L2.
-
Granted that you can only go by what's officially said, but I think an orbiter swap is more likely than a simple delay. A six month slip moves Atlantis' next mission from November 2009 to May 2010. Endeavour and Discovery are both scheduled to fly between those times.
ULF3 moves to February on Endeavour, 20A moves to March on Discovery, Atlantis re-enters the rotation and picks up 19A in May. ULF4 moves to Endeavour in the July timeframe, ULF5 or ULF6 on Discovery in September the other launches on Atlantis in November and LON to Endeavour in early 2011.
But those are just my thoughts. IANAE.
-
Agreed "The-Hammer."
But what concerns me more is the one note about what the worst-case fallout could be.
-
Quoting the article: "As far as unacceptable window damage criteria, ding depth greater than 0.0015” and/or coating scratches with a width greater or equal to 0.050” are listed”
For those not used to dealing with such small measurements, a standard piece of copier paper (~20# weight) has a thickness of between 0.003" to 0.004". 0.0015" depth is really tiny.
-
Good article Chris. Thanks for the summary of those great presentations on L2.
Thanks much :)
A six month slip moves Atlantis' next mission from November 2009 to May 2010. Endeavour and Discovery are both scheduled to fly between those times.
ULF3 moves to February on Endeavour, 20A moves to March on Discovery, Atlantis re-enters the rotation and picks up 19A in May. ULF4 moves to Endeavour in the July timeframe, ULF5 or ULF6 on Discovery in September the other launches on Atlantis in November and LON to Endeavour in early 2011.
But those are just my thoughts. IANAE.
You need "next flight" LON based on CSCS. Taking an orbiter out of the mix stretches the next flight, and LON as a result. You'd need to have the other two orbiters manifested where they can support each other on LON.
-
Can somebody please explain the function of this work light knob? Is it supposed to separate from the rest of the work light, or am I misinterpreting the images/description?
So this object must have floated into that corner while on orbit or perhaps during reentry and got wedged when the corner contracted under atmospheric pressure.
Is this human error? Should the knob have been properly stowed by the crew during deorbit preparations? Did the crew report the knob being stuck or missing at any point? Did the pilot see the knob wedged in the window right in front of his eyes while landing?
Did the ground crew at Edwards notice the knob? Did the problem not occur until the shuttle carrier flight back to KSC?
This is certainly one of the most carefully inspected machines in the world. How could "they" (whoever that is) miss a bright yellow knob in a window? Surely it didn't take weeks to discover...
-
You need "next flight" LON based on CSCS. Taking an orbiter out of the mix stretches the next flight, and LON as a result. You'd need to have the other two orbiters manifested where they can support each other on LON.
I think, if I'm doing the math right here, the manifest would not be affected greatly in terms of LON date consideration.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong here: (NOTE: This assumes STS-127 goes on July 11 or thereabouts)
-- Endeavour (STS-127): July 11
-- Discovery (STS-128): late-August/early-September
-- Endeavour (LON for STS-128): early December (based on a quick OPF turnaround and relaunch in 5 months if LON is called up -- we know this timeline for OPF processing is possible)
-- Endeavour (STS-129): February 4, 2010 based on Beta angle constraints
-- Discovery (STS-130): Mid-March
-- Atlantis (STS-131): May 2010
-- Endeavour (STS-132): July 2010
-- Discovery (STS-134): September 2010
-- Atlantis (STS-133): November 2010
-- Endeavour (STS-135 LON support for STS-133): December 2010/January 2011.
Now, if Atlantis is deemed un-flightworthy something like this could play out.
-- Endeavour (STS-127): July 2009
-- Discovery (STS-128): mid-October/early November
-- Endeavour (STS-129): February 2010
-- Discovery (STS-130): late April/early May
-- Endeavour (STS-131): August
-- Discovery (STS-132): November
-- Endeavour (STS-134): February 2011
-- Discovery (STS-133): May
-- Endeavour (STS-135 LON support for STS-133): July 2011.
Again, just my math for the LON support requirement for the two options that MIGHT (emphasize MIGHT) happen.
-
Good discussion as I'm going back on what I was told about running the manifest with two orbiters (when Atlantis was due to retire after 125 anyway), the flight rate isn't sustainable....
....anyway, in terms of what will happen:
1) Damage isn't bad, can fly as is - hopefully/likely.
2) Damage is unacceptable - delay - possible, but hopefully not, mitigated by good removal of knob.
3) Retire Atlantis - ultimate worst case - unlikely and only mentioned it in the article as it came from one of the guys working this, speaking in relation of the trade off between over six months of repairs they've never conducted at KSC, and that not being worth it.
-
Can somebody please explain the function of this work light knob? Is it supposed to separate from the rest of the work light, or am I misinterpreting the images/description?
So this object must have floated into that corner while on orbit or perhaps during reentry and got wedged when the corner contracted under atmospheric pressure.
Is this human error? Should the knob have been properly stowed by the crew during deorbit preparations? Did the crew report the knob being stuck or missing at any point? Did the pilot see the knob wedged in the window right in front of his eyes while landing?
Did the ground crew at Edwards notice the knob? Did the problem not occur until the shuttle carrier flight back to KSC?
This is certainly one of the most carefully inspected machines in the world. How could "they" (whoever that is) miss a bright yellow knob in a window? Surely it didn't take weeks to discover...
Probably will be expanded on as the information flows. Remember the presentations only arrived on L2 this morning, dated today, so they would have only discussed those presentations later in the day.
If it helps, there's a ton of images, and I only those that fitted the article. Here's some bigger images, and some additional....if it helps...
To me, it looks like it's the other end of the mount, used to secure the object. Once the light was stowed, the knob probably found its way into the area it's currently embedded. Atlantis returned to Earth, pressure lowered, CM contracted, knob was jammed into place.
There's also references to the ferry flight pressures.
-
Good discussion as I'm going back on what I was told about running the manifest with two orbiters (when Atlantis was due to retire after 125 anyway), the flight rate isn't sustainable....
I think -- and this is going back some time now into the memory vault -- that the concern about flight sustainability was before the PRCB extension of OMDP ops. In that case, I believe Discovery would have been due for OMDP before she and Endeavour could fly out the manifest in the event of Atlantis' retirement after STS-125 in August/September 2008.
Since the PRCB approved an extension to the OMDP rule and 125 didn't fly until May 2009 -- allowing 126 and 119 to fly before it -- the large concerns about flying out the manifest with two orbiters have all but disappeared.
-
Yep, but the PRCB approved change to the OMDP timeline was related to the OMDP extension (and thus keep Atlantis flying past "2008" as previously worked for post-125), mini OMDP priority work was added to the flows between flights (thus additional work during the flows).
Ultimately, the question is (again a moot point on Atlantis status at this point):
"-- Endeavour (STS-127): July 2009
-- Discovery (STS-128): mid-October/early November
-- Endeavour (STS-129): February 2010"
Off the top of my head that schedule would not support CSCS timelines,thus the "next flight" LON doesn't work on the above?
In fact, for STS-127, CSCS was:
"STS-127 Rescued in 54 days
CSCS consumables support 74 days (CO2 Removal Limited)
CSCS Assumptions
Total CSCS crew is 13 (7 SSP & 6 ISS)"
So your next flight LON has to be ready to launch within that period, resulting in the flight rate bunching two flights closer to each other, and a buffer period inbetween to make up for only two orbiters = manifest stretch.
I may be wrong! :D
Screenshot the CSCS page from the 127 FRR presentations:
-
Can somebody please explain the function of this work light knob? Is it supposed to separate from the rest of the work light, or am I misinterpreting the images/description?
So this object must have floated into that corner while on orbit or perhaps during reentry and got wedged when the corner contracted under atmospheric pressure.
Is this human error? Should the knob have been properly stowed by the crew during deorbit preparations? Did the crew report the knob being stuck or missing at any point? Did the pilot see the knob wedged in the window right in front of his eyes while landing?
Apparently you are unfamiliar with the layout of the orbiter flight deck.
The "eyebrow panel" obstructs the bottom portion of the window frame; the PLT would have had to wedge his head between the eyebrow panel and the window in order to see the knob.
This is certainly one of the most carefully inspected machines in the world. How could "they" (whoever that is) miss a bright yellow knob in a window? Surely it didn't take weeks to discover...
I have no problem believing it went undetected until the orbiter was in the OPF.
-
Yep, but the PRCB approved change to the OMDP timeline was related to the OMDP extension (and thus keep Atlantis flying past "2008" as previously worked for post-125), mini OMDP priority work was added to the flows between flights (thus additional work during the flows).
Ultimately, the question is (again a moot point on Atlantis status at this point):
"-- Endeavour (STS-127): July 2009
-- Discovery (STS-128): mid-October/early November
-- Endeavour (STS-129): February 2010"
Off the top of my head that schedule would not support CSCS timelines,thus the "next flight" LON doesn't work on the above?
In fact, for STS-127, CSCS was:
"STS-127 Rescued in 54 days
CSCS consumables support 74 days (CO2 Removal Limited)
CSCS Assumptions
Total CSCS crew is 13 (7 SSP & 6 ISS)"
So your next flight LON has to be ready to launch within that period, resulting in the flight rate bunching two flights closer to each other, and a buffer period inbetween to make up for only two orbiters = manifest stretch.
I may be wrong! :D
Screenshot the CSCS page from the 127 FRR presentations:
Yeah... I get what you're saying. Fly-the-next-flight wouldn't work for the first three. I was assuming (although I didn't state it) a STS-329 type scenario where Endeavour -- based on OPF flow time -- could be launched in December 2009 for LON support for STS-128 assuming that mission flew in late-September/early-October. Also, I guess I was also going off long-range projections (the extension studies) that a three month spacing between flights was doable for LON support with 13 people on ISS.
I don't know how the two upcoming Soyuz resupply flights would change the current CSCS timetable for STS-127 and subsequent flights.
Although, as you said... it's all really moot until a forward plan with Atlantis is identified and adopted.
-
Are there any photos showing the expansion of the cockpit (or the rest of the crew cabin) while on orbit?
An on-ground vs. on-orbit comparison would be interesting.
I think i saw some photos a few years ago of a Concorde plane while in flight ... Due to high temperatures caused by the mach-2 speed, the expansion inside the cockpit was enormous... a human's arm would nicely fit between the created gaps of the various control panels/monitors. When the temps drop back to normal, the gaps were disappearing.
-
Can't they try liquid nitrogen or helium instead of dry ice to shrink the knob? Rig up a cold finger supplied from a dewar.
-
Chilling it to absolute zero would only reduce its dimensions by about 0.35%. Assuming it's 2" in diameter (I'm guessing since I don't know the dimensions) that's still only a 7 thousandths shrink. I'm not sure that would be enough.
-
So your next flight LON has to be ready to launch within that period, resulting in the flight rate bunching two flights closer to each other, and a buffer period inbetween to make up for only two orbiters = manifest stretch.
But you couldn't bunch the flights as the second flight would have no LON capability. What would have to happen is that each flight would have to wait until the returning orbiter is far enough through the flow to provide LON before launch is allowed. All that you end up with is a slower flow and a greater dependency on the following orbiter for schedule.
-
Chris, in the article you stated, “ferrying Atlantis to Palmdale is obviously no longer an option.” I feel really silly in asking this, but why is this no longer an option? Thanks.
-
The article doesn't say what's "obvious" about not being able to fly to Palmdale. Why isn't that an option? Have all the Shuttle-specific personnel there been laid off?
If Palmdale was an option, how long would it take to replace the window there?
EDIT: Posted at the same time as MarsMethanogen, but I'm leaving the duplicate post as they're important questions. :)
-
So your next flight LON has to be ready to launch within that period, resulting in the flight rate bunching two flights closer to each other, and a buffer period inbetween to make up for only two orbiters = manifest stretch.
But you couldn't bunch the flights as the second flight would have no LON capability. What would have to happen is that each flight would have to wait until the returning orbiter is far enough through the flow to provide LON before launch is allowed. All that you end up with is a slower flow and a greater dependency on the following orbiter for schedule.
It's a dynamic process with multiple variables and adjustments can be made. (For example, 127 - 2J/A is predominantly external hardware and logistics, but 128/17A is mostly internal logistics. They impact CSCS differently.)
There's not enough public information yet to see what the initial impact would be, or what types of "get-wells" there are.
The biggest impact of a delay would likely be to officially push the end of the schedule well into CY 2011, which might influence the rest of this year's budget cycle and perhaps next year's. (Since there's still only a promise of funding for FY 2011, which isn't redeemable for cash.)
-
I'm glad you guys asked the Palmdale question. I didn't want to appear too stupid to not know the obvious ::)
I have full and complete faith in the Shuttle Program. They will get to the bottom of this and all opinions will be openly and thoroughly discussed and sent straight to John Shannon himself.
Danny Deger
-
Chris, in the article you stated, “ferrying Atlantis to Palmdale is obviously no longer an option.” I feel really silly in asking this, but why is this no longer an option? Thanks.
The article doesn't say what's "obvious" about not being able to fly to Palmdale. Why isn't that an option? Have all the Shuttle-specific personnel there been laid off?
If Palmdale was an option, how long would it take to replace the window there?
EDIT: Posted at the same time as MarsMethanogen, but I'm leaving the duplicate post as they're important questions. :)
Because Orbiter Major Modification (OMM) work at Plant 42 at Palmdale was shut down over six years ago. They didn't mothball the orbiter facility there.
-
Wouldn't a delay of 6 months be somewhat similar to STS-125/126.
Couldn't they push forward STS-130 to December and STS-129 to be the opening flight of the year? Again this is all speculation.
-
The article doesn't say what's "obvious" about not being able to fly to Palmdale. Why isn't that an option? Have all the Shuttle-specific personnel there been laid off?
Significant parts of the facilities have been or are being demolished (stuff like this (http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2008/07/space-shuttles.html) ) -- there's no money to maintain them. Maybe not all Shuttle personnel there are gone, but the team needed to do OMDPs out there either moved to KSC or were laid off -- and that was a long time ago, when the decision was made to stop doing OMDPs there in the early part of the decade.
-
The article doesn't say what's "obvious" about not being able to fly to Palmdale. Why isn't that an option? Have all the Shuttle-specific personnel there been laid off?
If Palmdale was an option, how long would it take to replace the window there?
EDIT: Posted at the same time as MarsMethanogen, but I'm leaving the duplicate post as they're important questions. :)
Because Orbiter Major Modification (OMM) work at Plant 42 at Palmdale was shut down over six years ago.
Thanks, Chris. If I could humbly suggest; if you update the article, you might consider parenthetically inserting that in the "Palmdale" sentence.
-
Wouldn't a delay of 6 months be somewhat similar to STS-125/126.
Couldn't they push forward STS-130 to December and STS-129 to be the opening flight of the year? Again this is all speculation.
Correctly tagged as the six months (and they may slice some off that timeline if required) would ONLY be if the damage is beyond the acceptable criteria. We won't know that until they get the knob out.
-
The article doesn't say what's "obvious" about not being able to fly to Palmdale. Why isn't that an option? Have all the Shuttle-specific personnel there been laid off?
If Palmdale was an option, how long would it take to replace the window there?
EDIT: Posted at the same time as MarsMethanogen, but I'm leaving the duplicate post as they're important questions. :)
Because Orbiter Major Modification (OMM) work at Plant 42 at Palmdale was shut down over six years ago.
Thanks, Chris. If I could humbly suggest; if you update the article, you might consider parenthetically inserting that in the "Palmdale" sentence.
I did on the first draft, but the para was too wordy....I'll put my thinking hat on ;)
-
Wouldn't a delay of 6 months be somewhat similar to STS-125/126.
Couldn't they push forward STS-130 to December and STS-129 to be the opening flight of the year? Again this is all speculation.
Correctly tagged as the six months (and they may slice some off that timeline if required) would ONLY be if the damage is beyond the acceptable criteria. We won't know that until they get the knob out.
Thanks Chris, I guess we'll have to get word from NASA for us to know.
-
Wouldn't a delay of 6 months be somewhat similar to STS-125/126.
'Somewhat' being the key -- the program still has to operate under the assumption that they only have until the end of next year to finish the manifest. There's less time to absorb a big schedule hit. Hypothetically taking OV-104 out of the rotation for six months has a different effect with 18 months left vs. the 27 months left at the time of the SIC&DH delay last fall.
-
Thanks for the responses, all. Good answers. :)
Still curious about my second question. ;) I get the impression Palmdale could do it faster than six months.
-
Wouldn't a delay of 6 months be somewhat similar to STS-125/126.
'Somewhat' being the key -- the program still has to operate under the assumption that they only have until the end of next year to finish the manifest. There's less time to absorb a big schedule hit. Hypothetically taking OV-104 out of the rotation for six months has a different effect with 18 months left vs. the 27 months left at the time of the SIC&DH delay last fall.
And this is why Senator Nelson needs to get an official OK to move the manifest to fiscal year 2011 if needed. We don't need the program getting in a rush and waiving things like how much damage is OK and how big can the hydrogen leak be!!!
Danny Deger
-
Thanks for the responses, all. Good answers. :)
Still curious about my second question. ;) I get the impression Palmdale could do it faster than six months.
Probably, maybe, but not an option so not important, and hopefully not relevant if the damage is acceptable.
-
Still curious about my second question. ;) I get the impression Palmdale could do it faster than six months.
Based on what?
Maybe Palmdale could have done it faster or did it faster when the facility was still online, but its capability to do orbiter maintenance no longer exists. Even given the money at this point, it's not like flipping a switch -- it could take six months or more to assemble staff, certify equipment (which may no longer exist), etc.
-
Thanks for the responses, all. Good answers. :)
Still curious about my second question. ;) I get the impression Palmdale could do it faster than six months.
A lot of Palmdale folks went to work at KSC for USA so i don't really see your point, its the people not the facility that makes the difference.
We have all seen what the men and women of the OPF can do, i hate to sound like a Bob the builder advert but if they can't fix it then it can't be fixed.
-
Based on what?
Maybe Palmdale could have done it faster or did it faster when the facility was still online, but its capability to do orbiter maintenance no longer exists. Even given the money at this point, it's not like flipping a switch -- it could take six months or more to assemble staff, certify equipment (which may no longer exist), etc.
Please don't be snarky. I'm well aware that you can't simply flip a switch or pour money on the problem and have it be fixed. I was asking more for curiosity's sake. Let's say this happened to Atlantis in the mid-90s, and it was immediately shipped to Palmdale. That's the hypothetical scenario I have in mind.
DansSLK answer is sufficient -- I thought the Palmdale people all got laid off, but if they moved to KSC, that partially answers my question. And I've definitely seen the KSC guys pull off miracles before; I'm not worried that the worst-case-scenario will happen.
-
Based on what?
Maybe Palmdale could have done it faster or did it faster when the facility was still online, but its capability to do orbiter maintenance no longer exists. Even given the money at this point, it's not like flipping a switch -- it could take six months or more to assemble staff, certify equipment (which may no longer exist), etc.
Please don't be snarky. I'm well aware that you can't simply flip a switch or pour money on the problem and have it be fixed. I was asking more for curiosity's sake. Let's say this happened to Atlantis in the mid-90s, and it was immediately shipped to Palmdale. That's the hypothetical scenario I have in mind.
Sorry, but your use of tense can be inferred as saying that Palmdale could do it faster now. (It's ambiguous to me whether you meant past or present, and I read it as the latter.) If you had written "Palmdale could have done it faster," that's easier to believe.
DansSLK answer is sufficient -- I thought the Palmdale people all got laid off, but if they moved to KSC, that partially answers my question. And I've definitely seen the KSC guys pull off miracles before; I'm not worried that the worst-case-scenario will happen.
The orbiter maintenance workforce at Palmdale probably did all of that (layoffs and relocations) in the 90s. Some of them were laid off after Endeavour was completed in 1991 and probably more after the OMDP on Columbia in the same timeframe. Were it not for George Brown, I'm not sure OMDPs would have come back to Palmdale in the mid-90s.
-
Does anyone know if there is even a spare window somewhere?
Danny Deger
-
Sorry, but your use of tense can be inferred as saying that Palmdale could do it faster now. (It's ambiguous to me whether you meant past or present, and I read it as the latter.) If you had written "Palmdale could have done it faster," that's easier to believe.
Well, in my earlier post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17611.msg426626#msg426626), I did qualify it by saying "if Palmdale was an option". But if you missed that I could see how the other post could have been misinterpreted. I'll try to phrase it more carefully next time.
The orbiter maintenance workforce at Palmdale probably did all of that (layoffs and relocations) in the 90s. Some of them were laid off after Endeavour was completed in 1991 and probably more after the OMDP on Columbia in the same timeframe. Were it not for George Brown, I'm not sure OMDPs would have come back to Palmdale in the mid-90s.
Okay, good to know. Interesting information.
-
Updating the article, as they've decided to pressurized the cabin to 3 PSIG and apply dry ice again (as listed as one of the options). "Probably" won't be enough to remove the knob, but certainly the right decision to attempt the mitigation options from the least 'damaging' to the window, upwards.
-
Updating the article, as they've decided to pressurized the cabin to 3 PSIG and apply dry ice again (as listed as one of the options). "Probably" won't be enough to remove the knob, but certainly the right decision to attempt the mitigation options from the least 'damaging' to the window, upwards.
Is there any reason they don't pump up to 1.47 psi?
Danny Deger
-
Is there any reason they don't pump up to 1.47 psi?
Danny Deger
1.47 = 14.7?
Apparantly thats a no-can-do at this time mate, if you have a butchers at the presentation on L2 they do mention why but my memory fail's me.
-
The Orbiter Lifting Frame at Palmdale has been scrapped and same goes for all the access GSE which is similar to the OPF platforms. So as far as the shuttle is concerned, Palmdale does not exist.
-
I wonder if this combination could be of use to remove the knob :
1/ mount the orbiter on the SCA
2/ fly SCA+Atlantis at highest altitude possible
3/ in flight, apply some extra internal pressurization in the cabin and
4/ apply dry ice on the knob
-
I wonder if this combination could be of use to remove the knob :
1/ mount the orbiter on the SCA
2/ fly SCA+Atlantis at highest altitude possible
3/ in flight, apply some extra internal pressurization in the cabin and
4/ apply dry ice on the knob
I had the same thought about the SCA, problem is this is a health and safety world.
-
Health = staying alive, Safety = doing something that won't hurt the hardware.
Good idea not to try the SCA route ;)
-
Is there any reason they don't pump up to 1.47 psi?
Danny Deger
(Assuming 14.7)
Well, you want that to be the difference between inside and outside. But to do that right now you either need a huge vacuum chamber, or you make the inside really 29.4 absolute. I can imagine there's a lot of equipment inside the orbiter for which that is outside of spec.
--
Darren
-
Health = staying alive, Safety = doing something that won't hurt the hardware.
Good idea not to try the SCA route ;)
haha, Oh i don't disagree the folks in hi-viz jackets generally do a lot of good, sometimes i think they kill too many trees to get all the paperwork printed up but what ya' gonna do?
In this particular case it wont hurt the hardware and the CM would be pressurized so staying alive shouldn't be too hard either, provided things go to plan and thats the question isn't it, do you take the risk of putting folks in the orbiter with no simple means of escape should things not go to plan simply to remove a knob, i suspect the answer is no and for valid reasons, even if it would be cool and it so would be!
-
Health = staying alive, Safety = doing something that won't hurt the hardware.
Good idea not to try the SCA route ;)
haha, Oh i don't disagree the folks in hi-viz jackets generally do a lot of good, sometimes i think they kill too many trees to get all the paperwork printed up but what ya' gonna do?
In this particular case it wont hurt the hardware and the CM would be pressurized so staying alive shouldn't be too hard either, provided things go to plan and thats the question isn't it, do you take the risk of putting folks in the orbiter with no simple means of escape should things not go to plan simply to remove a knob, i suspect the answer is no and for valid reasons, even if it would be cool and it so would be!
It is not even safety that is an issue, there is a thing called reality that gets in the way.
1. No way to power up the orbiter for life support systems
2. No way to pressurized the orbiter
3. No way to monitored the above
-
It is not even safety that is an issue, there is a thing called reality that gets in the way.
1. No way to power up the orbiter for life support systems
2. No way to pressurized the orbiter
3. No way to monitored the above
It's a carry on from the chat in L2 Jim mate, the entire idea is very much tounge in cheek, i do forget that the way words are said and the look on a person's face does not carry over the internet, take it with the pinch of salt that it was meant.
I know you simply didn't read my post in the way it was meant and that is my fault but i suppose i could be difficult i could say -
1) Apart from the safety issues (buzz word again ;) ) involved in loading cryo's into an orbiter that will then be put on top of a 747 nothing is stopping them powering the orbiter up.
2) It is at 14.7 when the hatch is closed, with no active ECLSS it will bleed down over time but how long? with the vehicle powered it is a non-issue.
3) No need to monitor a passive system and with the vehicle powered it becomes irellivent.
Again i am just answering because i can, i'm not going to get into a debate with you over a situation that will never come to being, basically it is a safety thing, nobody will put lives at risk to remove this offending object, it just ain't worth it.
-
It is not even safety that is an issue, there is a thing called reality that gets in the way.
1. No way to power up the orbiter for life support systems
2. No way to pressurized the orbiter
3. No way to monitored the above
OK I admit the de-knob-ing by ferry flight is not practical, but let's explore the concept a bit further.
The orbiter could be inert like in a regular ferry flight yet the job could be attempted by placing autonomous systems in the cockpit.
Autonomous living systems like two guys breathing from oxygen masks.
Autonomous power like from batteries.
Autonomous comm like radio waves going through the windows (the windows are penetrable to radio waves, no ?).
Pressure control for an extra few psi - that could be tricky. I could see a valve releasing gas from a small tank; I don't know if the pressure could be reduced by venting - if venting is needed in flight and could only be accomplished with some systems of the orbiter powered up.
What's the big risk , the window pane breaking ?
That's not unsurvivable for humans, even with civil airliners. Uncontrollable drag ? I don't think so.
Structural failure of the orbiter from depress ?
Damage to equipment in the cabin ?
-
Health = staying alive, Safety = doing something that won't hurt the hardware.
Good idea not to try the SCA route ;)
haha, Oh i don't disagree the folks in hi-viz jackets generally do a lot of good, sometimes i think they kill too many trees to get all the paperwork printed up but what ya' gonna do?
In this particular case it wont hurt the hardware and the CM would be pressurized so staying alive shouldn't be too hard either, provided things go to plan and thats the question isn't it, do you take the risk of putting folks in the orbiter with no simple means of escape should things not go to plan simply to remove a knob, i suspect the answer is no and for valid reasons, even if it would be cool and it so would be!
It is not even safety that is an issue, there is a thing called reality that gets in the way.
1. No way to power up the orbiter for life support systems
2. No way to pressurized the orbiter
3. No way to monitored the above
Was Enterprise battery powered and unpressurized for the ALT tests?
It seems like there must be a way to cut the knob. They mention vibrations from a dental drill as a problem, but if you make the teeth small enough it might be ok. Or if it's made of aluminum, it might even be possible to gradually dissolve it with drops of hydrochloric acid from the end of a syringe or something.
It's an interesting problem.
-
Was Enterprise battery powered and unpressurized for the ALT tests?
It seems like there must be a way to cut the knob. They mention vibrations from a dental drill as a problem, but if you make the teeth small enough it might be ok. Or if it's made of aluminum, it might even be possible to gradually dissolve it with drops of hydrochloric acid from the end of a syringe or something.
It's an interesting problem.
She had fuel cells (for sure) but powered by reactant's stored as gas, not liquid as the flight articles do (i think they where HP gas anyway).
I'm not sure on active ECLSS but she would have been pressurized yes.
They don't need to use a drill (as you point out but i can't comment on if acid would work or not since i'm not smart enough), i'm sure just about every tool in the NASA arsenal is on the options list at the minute.
-
As far as the SCA option goes, the main challenge is probably getting the techs into the orbiter at the last possible moment, which should be straightforward with a cherry-picker arm. The Orbiter is pressure-tight enough (come on, it must be) that a small bank of cylinders can keep it pressurized to 18psi or so and the techs can have radio comms and breathing gear if needed. One or two hour flight and get them cherry-picked off again.
If there was a good chance it'd work, it should certainly be on list to do once quicker options were done. The probability of success might be altered by the other trials of course. The main blocker is that it would take say two weeks of work by a lot of people to put the orbiter on the SCA and take it off again.
As far as risking lives is concerned: I don't see that there is any increase in the risk compared to a normal SCA-Orbiter transfer flight that "risks" the SCA crew, under any credible problem scenario. I don't see it as a laughably impossible suggestion - just one that takes a lot of time and effort.
-
sorry for my english!
You can simply cut it with a metal saw. It may take very long using manpower, but hey, after 2 days it will be splitted in 2 parts. Problem solved.
Or with laser or sandblast to avoid vibrations...
-
Or a diamond cutting disk on a dremel tool with good vacuum dust pickup. You just need to cut the knob knurl opposite the window.
-
The hand-saw bit probably wouldn't work. There would be a lot of vibrations going into the window.
You want as little vibrations into the window as possible to minimize damage. Not sure about sand blasting, but a dremel is a very high RPM tool which would put a LOT of motion into the window..
-
You want as little vibrations into the window as possible to minimize damage. Not sure about sand blasting, but a dremel is a very high RPM tool which would put a LOT of motion into the window..
Other way around. High RPM = low motion as is correctly pointed out in Chris' article: "...via cutting the knob with a high rpm/low amplitude dental drill,...". When frequency goes up, amplitude goes down. Since fatigue is non-linear biased towards high amplitude, increasing the cycle count while lowering the amplitude (linearly) greatly reduces fatigue damage.
-
Yep, as Ford says, and I wrote (some people are commenting without reading the article!) you've got to be careful with the vibrations transfering to the window pane. There is one related option for cutting it, but that's lower down the list of options.
Let's avoid silly posts on "why don't they try this...." unless you have a complete understanding of both the location of the knob, the associated hardware, and effects on the pane (avoiding the creation of additional damage).
So that'd be a request to avoid "how about a blow torch!" posts ;)
-
1) Apart from the safety issues (buzz word again ;) ) involved in loading cryo's into an orbiter that will then be put on top of a 747 nothing is stopping them powering the orbiter up.
2) It is at 14.7 when the hatch is closed, with no active ECLSS it will bleed down over time but how long? with the vehicle powered it is a non-issue.
3) No need to monitor a passive system and with the vehicle powered it becomes irellivent.
It still has nothing to do with safety.
1. Even if there were cryos on board, it still can't powered. There is no way to provide cooling to the orbiter
2. no way to pressurize the vehicle above 14.7 on the SCA
3. It is not a passive system, the vehicle is powered
-
As far as the SCA option goes, the main challenge is probably getting the techs into the orbiter at the last possible moment, which should be straightforward with a cherry-picker arm. The Orbiter is pressure-tight enough (come on, it must be) that a small bank of cylinders can keep it pressurized to 18psi or so and the techs can have radio comms and breathing gear if needed.
What bank of bottles? and where are they? and how are they controlled and monitored.
This is just nonsense.
-
The orbiter could be inert like in a regular ferry flight yet the job could be attempted by placing autonomous systems in the cockpit.
.
Autonomous power like from batteries.
Autonomous comm like radio waves going through the windows (the windows are penetrable to radio waves, no ?).
Pressure control for an extra few psi - that could be tricky. I could see a valve releasing gas from a small tank; I don't know if the pressure could be reduced by venting - if venting is needed in flight and could only be accomplished with some systems of the orbiter powered up.
What autonomous systems? The orbiter doesn't have a autonomous pressure control system. Having crew inside with comm and O2 masks doesn't do squat.
-
So that'd be a request to avoid "how about a blow torch!" posts ;)
C4 might be better.
Have they already tried something like dish soap? It's sort of amazing how good that stuff works at getting things unstuck by making them slip'n'slide instead of stick.
-
If the knob is made out of aluminum, it will be highly susceptible to mercury amalgamation. Remove the knob by taping off the area to prevent excess mercury from escaping, then paint some on and wait for it to oxidize the aluminum away, weakening the part until it can be removed. The glass won't care one bit about having the mercury in it.
I'm sure that overall the small amount of hazmat would not be an issue to clean up.
Aaron
-
If I can add into the flight to Palmdale (I know it's a dead issue, but simply to add): If there is physical contact of the knob against the pane now, the CHANGE in pressure during flight could create excessive stresses against the glass. The only other possibility using SCA is in-flight removal. However, if it fails, you have risk to the crew on board. Both are non-starters.
I like the mercury amalgamation idea Aaron, neat. Unfortunately the spill control for a conductive fluid in the orbiter, especially mercury which would create a serious outgassing effect on orbit, or a later SCA flight post-landing, may disqualify it with reduced cabin pressure.
-
I think you could use the mercury reaction under open atmospheric conditions - the reaction is very fast. Build an impromptu fume hood to extract the mercury vapor, and pipe it out the door.
The total amount of mercury required to complete the amalgamation would be very small.
(edit)
Depending on how much it is wedged, you'd only need to dissolve one or two of the knurls on the knob, which would require a pea sized or smaller drop of the material. It's an exothermic reaction, but it would be slow enough to not be any risk to the glass at all.
If I can add into the flight to Palmdale (I know it's a dead issue, but simply to add): If there is physical contact of the knob against the pane now, the CHANGE in pressure during flight could create excessive stresses against the glass. The only other possibility using SCA is in-flight removal. However, if it fails, you have risk to the crew on board. Both are non-starters.
I like the mercury amalgamation idea Aaron, neat. Unfortunately the spill control for a conductive fluid in the orbiter, especially mercury which would create a serious outgassing effect on orbit, or a later SCA flight post-landing, may disqualify it with reduced cabin pressure.
-
Yep, as Ford says, and I wrote (some people are commenting without reading the article!) you've got to be careful with the vibrations transfering to the window pane. There is one related option for cutting it, but that's lower down the list of options.
I read the article (and the presentation) mate just like always and i was left impressed, again just like always.
Jim mate this could go on for a while since i have data in front of me now, don't wan't to clutter up Chris's thread and take it OT.
-
I also like the amalgamation idea, though this depends on the knob really being aluminium, and since there are likely more aluminium parts in the shuttle that you wish no harm to, the mercury would really have to be handled with great care. However, my first thought was to use aqua regia.
You would need a concentric double cannula, perhaps made from teflon. The smaller cannula in the centre would very slowly bring some aqua regia to the tip, and the outer cannula would be connected to a sufficiently high powered vacuum pump with a trap for the liquid. I'd like to dub this a "chemical saw". Some tests would be needed to find the optimum shape of the tip, especially how much the outer cannula should be longer than the inner, in order to minimize spillage.
Trace amounts of spillage could be detected in a suitable test environment through decolouring of some organic colours that are sensitive to oxidation. A critical point is when the "saw" first gets through the thickness to create a hole. I assume that the pressure will bend the disk before that, though, if a straight line is etched. The point of bending may also be critical, if it happens too violently.
-
The orbiter could be inert like in a regular ferry flight yet the job could be attempted by placing autonomous systems in the cockpit.
.
Autonomous power like from batteries.
Autonomous comm like radio waves going through the windows (the windows are penetrable to radio waves, no ?).
Pressure control for an extra few psi - that could be tricky. I could see a valve releasing gas from a small tank; I don't know if the pressure could be reduced by venting - if venting is needed in flight and could only be accomplished with some systems of the orbiter powered up.
What autonomous systems? The orbiter doesn't have a autonomous pressure control system. Having crew inside with comm and O2 masks doesn't do squat.
i think he means air pressure control, and that (in my mind) means taking a bottle of compressed air in the orbiter with a pressure gauge for the ambient air pressure (to monitor overpressing the cabin). You pressurize the cabin gradually-same as any pneumatic system-until the knob's either free, or ambient pressure is approaching limits.
I'd think that the engineers wearing pumpkin suits (or equivalent) with their own air supply, monitoring the air pressure in the cabin, and working to remove the knob would work. They pressure test aircraft on the ground all the time.
-
Pressurization set for next Monday. Keep your fingers and toes crossed.
-
My uncle told me once they used liquid propane to shrink the valve seats of big propane engines so they could install them in the engine heads. They didn't bother to use a Dewar, they just poured it in a bucket. Liquid propane is probably not a good idea to use in the cockpit, but liquid nitrogen might be worth a try. I am thinking a cold liquid would have much better heat transfer than the solid dry ice. But, it might run a higher risk of cracking the window though.
Who would think such a tiny thing could give the shuttle program so much trouble. But, I guess in the world of machines, even the little pieces are important.
Danny Deger
-
Already tried cooling it down to shrink it.
-
To answer a question earlier in the thread, they do have a spare pressure pane.
-
i think he means air pressure control, and that (in my mind) means taking a bottle of compressed air in the orbiter with a pressure gauge for the ambient air pressure (to monitor overpressing the cabin).
Which they would never do.
-
snip
The orbiter doesn't have a autonomous pressure control system. Having crew inside with comm and O2 masks doesn't do squat.
I think we have a failure to communicate. How does the orbiter control its pressure on orbit? I am pretty sure the system requires electrical power, but there might be manual back-up to dump oxygen and nitrogen into the cabin (I wasn't a system instructor); however, I think it could be characterized at autonomous.
Danny Deger
-
Already tried cooling it down to shrink it.
Try something colder. Don't stop until you have tried liquid helium. No doubt NASA can get a Dewar of this stuff from somewhere.
Good luck to the guys working this one. My stupid nozzle on the end of my garden hose has been stuck for about 6 months. This effort has motivated me to get the darn thing off. And I did not use liquid propane from my grill ;D
Glad to hear they have a spare pane. I know the guys and gals at KSC can get it installed if they need to. From what I can tell, one of the best run shops in the world.
Danny Deger
-
If the knob is made out of aluminum, it will be highly susceptible to mercury amalgamation. Remove the knob by taping off the area to prevent excess mercury from escaping, then paint some on and wait for it to oxidize the aluminum away, weakening the part until it can be removed. The glass won't care one bit about having the mercury in it.
I'm sure that overall the small amount of hazmat would not be an issue to clean up.
Aaron
I don't know squat about metallurgy, but this doesn't sound like a bad idea. Can someone at KSC send this one up the chain at NASA?
Heck, you could just open the doors and turn off the AC. The sea breeze will eat the knob up in just a few short years. That what it does to aluminum storm doors down there.
Danny Deger
-
What is the window made of? And why is it so susceptical to vibration damage, I would have thought that it might be made of Lexan which shouldn't have too much of a problem with vibrations, right?
And why exactly can't they launch with the knob where it is? Is it also due to vibration damage?
This would lead me to believe that the knob is now so dangerous for the window that the reenrty with it stuck (which they didn't know of course) was quite dangerous as well.
-
What is the window made of? And why is it so susceptical to vibration damage, I would have thought that it might be made of Lexan which shouldn't have too much of a problem with vibrations, right?
And why exactly can't they launch with the knob where it is? Is it also due to vibration damage?
This would lead me to believe that the knob is now so dangerous for the window that the reenrty with it stuck (which they didn't know of course) was quite dangerous as well.
Tempered glass and it is damaged.
If they launch now and the damage is of a critical size then the pane can fail, throw in the vibration from the SRB's and even if it is not critical at this point it soon could be, if the pane fails then the feeling is the stress on the redundant pane will be too much (check out Chris's article for quotes from the presentation) and it could also fail leading to a loss of cabin pressure (thermal pane not designed to hold pressure).
I don't know if i would call the reentry dangerous because of it, i don't think they know at what point it became stuck and the stress on the window from this increased as they desended so i suspect a failure would be more likely closer to touchdown when a loss of cabin pressure is not as catastrophic, plus they should all be buttoned up in the suit.
-
I see that sounds quite hard to solve, why wasn't it considered in the design that a dynamic failure of the inner pressure pane will likely make the redundant outer one fail as well, makes it sound like it isn't actually that redundant, especially since tempered glass tends to fail completely when it fails.
Why does the Shuttle use glass instead of high strength plastics? is it because of its age?
-
I see that sounds quite hard to solve, why wasn't it considered in the design that a dynamic failure of the inner pressure pane will likely make the redundant outer one fail as well, makes it sound like it isn't actually that redundant, especially since tempered glass tends to fail completely when it fails.
Why does the Shuttle use glass instead of high strength plastics? is it because of its age?
It isn't just normal tempered glass, it's made of an aluminosilicate compound that was chosen for its high mechanical strength. The inner pane is only 5/8 of an inch thick but the middle pane is 1.3 inches thick. It might be damaged in a blowout but would probably hold. The reports that are saying that it would fail are being a bit alarmist. Plastics like polycarbonate wouldn't withstand the thermal conditions of reentry. Don't worry, the guys who designed this knew what they were doing.
-
If the knob is made out of aluminum, it will be highly susceptible to mercury amalgamation. Remove the knob by taping off the area to prevent excess mercury from escaping, then paint some on and wait for it to oxidize the aluminum away, weakening the part until it can be removed. The glass won't care one bit about having the mercury in it.
I'm sure that overall the small amount of hazmat would not be an issue to clean up.
Aaron
You really want to contaminate the inside of the cabin with MERCURY!!. The stuff woun't bee seen again until some astronaut inhaled it on orbit. Where that knob is, there would be no way to put something under it to catch any that dripped without dissasembaling the panel that its traped behind. Oh wait, that would free the knob anyway wouldn't it
-
Why can't they just pump the cabin up to 14.7 psi gauge while it is sitting in the OPF? They must do some type of pump up for leak checks all the time. Apollo I fire was largely due to pumping the cabin up to the proper 100% O2 gauge pressure.
For shuttle this would make for 30 psi air in the cabin. Is there a fire hazard with this.
Danny Deger
-
I think that can only be done at the pad. I know that's going to lead to people asking why they can't roll her out and send her with a stack to the pad, but I'm sure they've more than thought of all the proceedures and put them in a running order. First thing's first with Monday's low pressurization and dry ice, then they'll move on to the next option and so on if the knob doesn't come loose.
-
Why can't they just pump the cabin up to 14.7 psi gauge while it is sitting in the OPF? They must do some type of pump up for leak checks all the time.
I think the equipment in the OPF can only muster 2-3 psig.
You don't need 14.7 psig for a leak check.
-
Why can't they just pump the cabin up to 14.7 psi gauge while it is sitting in the OPF? They must do some type of pump up for leak checks all the time.
I think the equipment in the OPF can only muster 2-3 psig.
You don't need 14.7 psig for a leak check.
Why can't they have Atlantis pump herself up to 14.7 psi gauge. She does it all the time on orbit. Maybe the instruments in Atlantis will not work to 30 psi absolute.
Maybe doing this is risky, but it sounds like NASA is willing to take some risk at this point.
There certainly is a reason, or they would do it. I will say again, I know these guys are the best. They will get this problem resolved.
Danny Deger
-
Actually, yes.
* A small amount of mercury paste won't "drip" anywhere.
* A fume extraction hood next to the site to remove any vapors would be simple and easy.
* If you look at the photos, ksc folks have already managed to slip some materials under the offending knob to catch anything that might slip or fall.
It's not like there aren't other rather toxic items that need to be dealt with occasionally nearby, like hydrazine in the RCS.
Also, people are suggesting things like inflating the orbiter to 14 psi differential, which might have unknown effects on components inside the orbiter's pressure hull, and strapping the orbiter back on it's ferry and flying around with a team to unstick the knob in flight? Those sound a little more risky than a small controlled chemical procedure.
Of course, I'm just a deskchair speculator, so I may be wrong on a lot of assumptions here.
You really want to contaminate the inside of the cabin with MERCURY!!. The stuff woun't bee seen again until some astronaut inhaled it on orbit. Where that knob is, there would be no way to put something under it to catch any that dripped without dissasembaling the panel that its traped behind. Oh wait, that would free the knob anyway wouldn't it
-
The orbiter is made mostly of aluminum. Thus mercuary vapor could weeken the window frame. So any thin that could dislove or chemically
attack the knob is probabbly out.
-
Dumb Hg question, but I assume that knob is anodized, does Hg eat through the anodize the same way it eats through Al?
-
How about a miniature sheet metal brake?
http://www.micromark.com/MINI-BENDING-BRAKE,6702.html?sc=WGB&utm_source=GoogleBase&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=GoogleBase
A custom made one could bend the aluminum knob enough to get it out.
-
Actually, yes.
* A small amount of mercury paste won't "drip" anywhere.
* A fume extraction hood next to the site to remove any vapors would be simple and easy.
* If you look at the photos, ksc folks have already managed to slip some materials under the offending knob to catch anything that might slip or fall.
It's not like there aren't other rather toxic items that need to be dealt with occasionally nearby, like hydrazine in the RCS.
Also, people are suggesting things like inflating the orbiter to 14 psi differential, which might have unknown effects on components inside the orbiter's pressure hull, and strapping the orbiter back on it's ferry and flying around with a team to unstick the knob in flight? Those sound a little more risky than a small controlled chemical procedure.
Of course, I'm just a deskchair speculator, so I may be wrong on a lot of assumptions here.
What exaxtly were you thinking of mixing the mercury with to make a "paste"? mercury is a liquid at room tempature
The difference between this and things like the RCS is that this is inside the CM. I don't believe they would ever intoduce a toxic chemical to it if there is another choice, and there is always the possibility of a spill when working with chemicals. You can never assume that it won't get loose. Also, a fume hood wouldn't help very much, since the real threat is globs of mercury floating around the cabin.
I do agree that the ideas of preasurising the cabin are equally farfetched. It's up to the guys at the cape, but I think the only trully safe way to go is to remove the panel. They would have to remove it anyway if the get the knob out and it turns out the window has to be replaced. The only downside is that it will take a really long time to do.
-
Mercury paste is an actual substance; I don't know what they use to make the paste however.
German Commandoes were issued with it in WW2 to smear over Allied aluminium structures. Apparently.
Anyway, here is something from popsci on it.
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-09/amazing-rusting-aluminum
-
Mercury paste is an actual substance; I don't know what they use to make the paste however.
German Commandoes were issued with it in WW2 to smear over Allied aluminium structures. Apparently.
Anyway, here is something from popsci on it.
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-09/amazing-rusting-aluminum
Interesting post. It might work. On the toxic aspect, most of the filling in my teeth are almost 100% mercury. Before it hardened, it was a nice to spread paste. I used to routinely play with the stuff as a kid. It can't be all that bad that it can't be handled in in the cockpit.
Danny Deger
-
The following is a light hearted comment hope its not out of place and is meant for humour only.
Obviously the answer is to tie a length of rope around the knob and put the other end over the nose of Endeavour then when she launches she will yank it out, a bit like having a tooth pulled, can't beleive all those nasa boffins didn't see that one. :D
-
I wonder if there is any way to EDM the thumbwheel in two. I guess the electrolite and electrical current would be a problem.
-
How is pressurization going? Someone know sth more?
-
How is pressurization going? Someone know sth more?
In work. Won't be until much later today until the removal attempt. Will have an article updating status in an hour or so.
-
How is pressurization going? Someone know sth more?
In work. Won't be until much later today until the removal attempt. Will have an article updating status in an hour or so.
Good to know, thanks :)
-
Lots of ways to cut or dissolve the knob, but it's not that simple. When the knob breaks from removal of part of it's material the high points that are jammed into the window could and probably would slip, possibly causing further damage. About the only way to loosen it safely is shrink the knob or make the space it's in bigger. 1st one didn't work so it's up to the 2nd one (pressurization).
-
Will update this article on the latest news:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/06/atlantis-window-pane-begins-longerons-damaged-accident/
-
Any word on why she can't be pumped up to 14.7?
Danny Deger
-
Any word on why she can't be pumped up to 14.7?
Danny Deger
Already been said. They can't do it in the OPF, period.
-
But why not?
-
Any word on why she can't be pumped up to 14.7?
Danny Deger
Already been said. They can't do it in the OPF, period.
I guess I missed the technical reason. I will go back and look. There must be some widget in her that doesn't like 30 psi.
Keep us posted. This is a very good story and only this site is covering it.
Danny Deger
-
I may have missed it but besides the shrinking (which didn't work) and the pressurize and shrink, are there any other workable ideas that don't involve taking her apart?
-
It's out!! The pressurization worked, and it was liberated late last night.
Updated the article:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/06/atlantis-window-pane-begins-longerons-damaged-accident/
Now the inspections begin and we hope the pane is acceptable for flight.
-
Given no mention of the dental drill, is it right to conclude that the pressurization alone was responsible for liberating the knob?
-
Given no mention of the dental drill, is it right to conclude that the pressurization alone was responsible for liberating the knob?
No, as the proceedure also included the use of dry ice being applied to shrink the knob, in tandem with the slight expansion of the crew module under pressurization.
We're getting more details, and it wouldn't come out on the opening attempts last night ("The vehicle was pressurized 3.7 psi above ambient to 17.87 psi. The knob was cooled with slugs to -9 deg F"), but they kept trying until late last night. So it nearly didn't work.
-
Great news to hear its out, now lets hope inspections go just as well.
-
;D
-
Hope its a end of problems.. good that they didnt give up ;)
-
So glad it's out, although there were some pretty nifty ideas being thrown around here. Ingenuity at its best :)
Great work NASA.
-
Well the knob may be out, but the big problem is damage to the window, if classed as unacceptable for flight........
-
Why there is even an area of the window which is completely useless (as a window, that is), and only invites trouble? Does not look logical to me to make windows of this a shape...
-
When the inspections are expected to be finished?
Thanks.
-
When the inspections are expected to be finished?
Thanks.
We know they've taken molds, and now we're into the review of the inspection data. No word yet, but I obviously have people looking out for status.
-
Don't forget that tomorrow is a federal holiday and this is a big holiday weekend (which also means today is a getaway day)...might not get too much additional info on this and other shuttle program topics until next week.
-
Per morning report on L2, a second set of mold impressions have been ordered on Window 5's pressure pan and is "in cure" today. We're keeping a close eye on the situation.
-
Per L2. Damage to the pressure pane is within limits (no deeper than the maximum allowable), more discussion tomorrow on if the pane's coating needs replacing.
-
And to pretty much close this issue (thank goodness):
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/07/endeavour-into-countdown-atlantis-window-damage-cleared/
-
Have they written any new rules to stop this happening again?
-
There was an entry on the STS 127 FD17 Execute package to "Inspect area around forward windows (1 - 6); remove any loose objects."
-
There was an entry on the STS 127 FD17 Execute package to "Inspect area around forward windows (1 - 6); remove any loose objects."
That's a good spot!
Also Atlantis had a special layer on the pressure pane replaced I understand, which was the deepest damage (thankfully!).