NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
NASA Shuttle Specific Sections => Atlantis (Post STS-135, T&R) => Topic started by: rdale on 08/29/2006 10:24 pm
-
In today's conference, Mike said that most people "in the know" were not surprised by the decision to turn around, that 40-50% back was the last chance to reverse the decision. I think I speak for all of us here that the last thing we expected was a mid-point turnaround.
At yesterday's press conference, he said the last chance for reversing the decision was when the shuttle left the pad.
Both answers cannot be correct. Why was this never mentioned in any form? Or even slightly hinted at? Obviously during the noon presser today, one of the two participants had to know it was being discussed - yet again no news.
Not that it's a big deal, but obviously a lot of people were keeping this away from the public and it seems strange.
-
probably to avoid an extra 20 minutes of Q&A
-
What questions would be different if they said 'last call when we leave the pad' vs 'last call at 40%'? I'm not sure that's a good reason to withhold seemingly harmless info from the public.
NASAWatch is now talking about the weather issue - but Keith leaves out WAY TOO MUCH info to make NASA look bad.
1) Cutoff on the pad is 70kts, which is not in the article
2) The weekly forecast is prepared by 8am, so it used the 5am NHC outlook for the wind speeds and we all know the reason they changed their minds is because the 11am / 2pm updates dramatically reduced the thread. The 45th Weather Squadron doesn't update the weekly planner until tomorrow morning...
-
Reviewed the plan on L2.. don't see it in the plan... but I like the call..
-
rdale - 30/8/2006 12:55 AM
What questions would be different if they said 'last call when we leave the pad' vs 'last call at 40%'? I'm not sure that's a good reason to withhold seemingly harmless info from the public.
LeRoy Cain said that halting at midpoint was an idea that came from Mike Leinbach, during the rollback.
-
Wonder how much Mike Griffin was in the rollback or if he just stayed out of it and watched it all work itself out
-
Go for it! I am looking forward to Sept. 6 launch of STS-115 Atlantis. Man can get around Murphy's law if he puts his mind to it. :)
-
astrobrian - 29/8/2006 7:26 PM
Wonder how much Mike Griffin was in the rollback or if he just stayed out of it and watched it all work itself out
Not his call
-
I tend to doubt Mike Griffirn personally ordered the rollback reverse. I think he's on the cautious side of safety primarily for the crews and personnel, but he also realizes that *too* much caution leads to stagnation and waste.
-
MKremer - 29/8/2006 6:52 PM I tend to doubt Mike Griffirn personally ordered the rollback reverse. I think he's on the cautious side of safety primarily for the crews and personnel, but he also realizes that *too* much caution leads to stagnation and waste.
That's why I asked.
-
astrobrian - 29/8/2006 7:26 PM
Wonder how much Mike Griffin was in the rollback or if he just stayed out of it and watched it all work itself out
Leroy made it clear in the conference that nobody from JSC talked to him about this decision, and nobody wanted to since his bosses made it clear that whatever route he chose was totally acceptable.
I did not hear Leroy say that this was something they didn't consider til after the rollback started - I did hear Mike say that many people "in the know" were not surprised. So somehow this had to have been on the drawing boards.
-
this is the best news i have heard all day this is great i hope we make it without anymore delays
-
rdale - 30/8/2006 5:29 AM
I did not hear Leroy say that this was something they didn't consider til after the rollback started - I did hear Mike say that many people "in the know" were not surprised. So somehow this had to have been on the drawing boards.
Yes, but only after the rollback had started. The MMT has a seperate meeting area in the Firing Room, so when the launch team saw Mike leave his console they pretty much figured that the rollback was about to be cancelled before they hit the last turn in the Crawlerway.
-
I don't understand why they had to start the rollback and cancel it... Do they get weather forecast all the time and this is the last-second decision?
-
Read through the Weather thread and/or News thread, or watch yesterday's press conference. All explained...
-
I heard this morning the storm had 45mph winds. And now is a depression.
I did hear that September 6th or 7 is when they might launch. Anymore to back that up?
-
"I heard this morning the storm had 45mph winds. And now is a depression."
45mph winds would be a storm, it does not have 45mph winds. Try the "weather" thread here or the NHC website.
"I did hear that September 6th or 7 is when they might launch. Anymore to back that up?"
I'm not sure that's in any way related to the timing of the return to pad, you might find more info in the "news" thread here.
-
They better hope the weather man is right...oh wait weather men are NEVER wrong ;)
They better nail that thing down good, they might find out if a shuttle can take over 50 mph wind on the pad.
-
Zoomer - the "storm" is long over. Peak winds at the SLF as I can find were in the 20mph range. The shuttle can take up to 79mph winds at the pad.
-
Over 60mph is undesirable.
-
Flightstar - 2/9/2006 6:05 PM
Over 60mph is undesirable.
But if it is forcast it does not trigger a rule of rollback.. or are the rules not really rules but guidelines??
-
79mph winds are the reason they rollback... AF/NHC forecasters were concerned that Ernie could have 79mph winds, they moved even after downgrading to a 70mph max forecast because it was close. When it came down to 60mph, they reversed course.
-
rdale - 3/9/2006 8:34 PM
79mph winds are the reason they rollback... AF/NHC forecasters were concerned that Ernie could have 79mph winds, they moved even after downgrading to a 70mph max forecast because it was close. When it came down to 60mph, they reversed course.
79mph forecast would have triggered the rule.. makes me a lot happier now..
-
All the articles for Ernesto reported that the rules say 79 mph is the pad limit. But last year, for 114, articles said it was 69.
Was there a change in rules or perhaps a mistake this time around?
-
Not sure what articles, the limit is 69kts (so 70kts, 79mph = problem.) Maybe they left of knots.
-
Here's one:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1042
According to NASA KSC PAO this morning, with regard to a possible rollback of the Discovery from the pad, if forecasts show unacceptable conditions from the periphery of the storm "the plan is we will roll back if there is a good possibility that winds will exceed a sustained velocity of 60 knots (69 MPH).
And another on SFN:
http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts114/status3.html
"Rules call for the shuttle to be moved off its launch pad and returned to the 52-story Vehicle Assembly Building if there's a possibility that winds could exceed a sustained speed of 60 knots (69 mph). "
And a google search reveals more that say that.
This time around, everyone is quoting 70 knots (79 mph) instead of 60 knots (69mph).
I also note that the actual conversion shows that 60 knots is indeed 69 mph, while 70 knots would be 81 mph.