Joffan - 5/9/2006 3:59 PM
We come out of the T-11 hold in 40 minutes or so?
jupiter - 5/9/2006 4:18 PM
still T -11 Hours and holding
Norm Hartnett - 5/9/2006 8:33 PM
And speaking of links this is new isn't it?
http://countdown.ksc.nasa.gov/elv/public/
Is this going to be functional for the launch?
MKremer - 5/9/2006 8:38 PM
That's not for Shuttle, it's only for ELV launches from Canaveral and Vandenberg.
The Shuttle countdown page is here: http://countdown.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/countdown/cdt/
jupiter - 6/9/2006 2:42 AM
the countdown clock its not work on my computer ¨! :(
Norm Hartnett - 5/9/2006 10:20 PM
Are we going to get a post MMT Tanking Meeting briefing?
astrobrian - 5/9/2006 9:38 PM
Never knew those had "targets" on the flaps. Can't think of what else to call them
mkirk - 5/9/2006 9:22 PM
the ASP (astronaut support personnel)/Cape Crusaders (i.e. astronauts that support KSC ground operations) are in the crew cabin completing the cockpit configurations such as equipment stowage, switch lists, commander and pilot seat adjustments...
Norm Hartnett - 5/9/2006 9:46 PMQuoteMKremer - 5/9/2006 8:38 PM
That's not for Shuttle, it's only for ELV launches from Canaveral and Vandenberg.
The Shuttle countdown page is here: http://countdown.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/countdown/cdt/
DOH Helps it I read the page before posting the link.
Does anyone know if they are ever going to get something like that for the Shuttle/Aries? That link above is amature hour.
astrobrian - 5/9/2006 8:47 PM
Technically full moon isn't until Thursday afternoon, but either way moonrise/set over the cape would be a good visual.
Flightstar - 5/9/2006 11:05 PM
Minor. No request made to engineering on troubleshoot. They'll be a number of these things popping up. Certainly is not flagged at this time.
Issue relates to Fuel Cell 1.
Svetoslav - 6/9/2006 10:51 AMI don't think this is at all the same as what happened on Apollo 13...
"Houston, we've had a problem here!"
This situation is known to NASA. We know this happened on Apollo 13 because the explosion damaged the fuel cells.
Svetoslav - 6/9/2006 11:10 AM
So, at this moment, no final decision has been made, so... let's wait for the conference.
Chris Bergin - 6/9/2006 5:20 AMQuoteSvetoslav - 6/9/2006 11:10 AM
So, at this moment, no final decision has been made, so... let's wait for the conference.
Yep. What we need to hear is that they don't need to replace it. Or the window closes during that replacement.
Any troubleshoot on the pad and we've got a chance.
Technical data on the issue in article form: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=4761
spaceshuttle - 6/9/2006 12:22 PMNope. There the FC#2 died while on-orbit, cutting the mission short. Was reflown with the same vehicle, same payloads and the same crew on mission STS-94.
but wasn't something like this the reason that sts-83 died, and was revived as "94" (if you know what i mean...)?
Each fuel cell is capable of supplying 12 kilowatts peak and 7 kilowatts maximum continuous power. The three fuel cells are capable of a maximum continuous output of 21,000 watts with 15-minute peaks of 36,000 watts. The average power consumption of the orbiter is expected to be approximately 14,000 watts, or 14 kilowatts, leaving 7 kilowatts average available for payloads.
joncz - 6/9/2006 5:44 AM
From:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/orbiter/eps/pwrplants.htmlQuoteEach fuel cell is capable of supplying 12 kilowatts peak and 7 kilowatts maximum continuous power. The three fuel cells are capable of a maximum continuous output of 21,000 watts with 15-minute peaks of 36,000 watts. The average power consumption of the orbiter is expected to be approximately 14,000 watts, or 14 kilowatts, leaving 7 kilowatts average available for payloads.
So one cell dropping out is cause to come home now.
{PIMF}
Svetoslav - 6/9/2006 11:28 AM
I think that flying as-is good. The fuel cell is not out completely as we have phase B and C. Neither A is completely out. Atlantis could launch even with two cells if that one fails completely.
Svetoslav - 6/9/2006 6:28 AM
I think that flying as-is good. The fuel cell is not out completely as we have phase B and C. Neither A is completely out. Atlantis could launch even with two cells if that one fails completely.
Wubbo - 6/9/2006 5:38 AM
Does anyone have any pointers to background docs, or information on how these multiple phases are used and how a flight could happen with one phase unavailable?
Apologies if this is a dumb question, or the wrong place to ask. I've just recently joined the NSF site and am still trying to 'grok' it all.
GJ
STS-69 SCRUB ANNOUNCEMENT
August 31, 1995
5:30 a.m.
Mission managers scrubbed today's scheduled launch of Space Shuttle
Endeavour and mission STS-69 due to the failure of one of the orbiter's
three fuel cells. The scrub was called at about 3:30 a.m., prior to
commencing tanking operations, during normal fuel cell activation.
Fuel cells provide electricity to the orbiter while in space. Mission
rules state that all three fuel cells must be up and operational prior
to launch. Managers have indicated the fuel cell will be removed and
replaced, effectively postponing the launch about a week.
Gerald Richling - 6/9/2006 12:53 PM
If NASA relaxes this daylight restriction, permitting night launches, Lauch will likely occur perhaps in mid October, 2006. Frustrating, isn't it? :o
gordo - 6/9/2006 6:45 AM
In Laymans terms; think of each fuel cell as 3 fuel cells in one. The problem here lies in 1/9th of the system, but certain equipment needs each of the 3 different phases to run correctly.
kneecaps - 6/9/2006 7:04 AM
I seems to me that the cause of concern is if the coolant pump on FC1 is good or not. This does not have anything directly to do with power coming from the fuel cell as Jim says...But and its a big but....if the coolant pump fails then you have no fuel cell.
The question will be, are the anomalous currents on Phase A of AC1 indicative of a critical problem with the coolant pump. I think we may find out soon.
Gerald Richling - 6/9/2006 7:53 AM
...
It is very likely that Atlantis will be rolled back to VAB, demated and swap out the fuel cell.
rdale - 6/9/2006 2:50 PMActually it's noon CDT, 1 pm EDT.
Nathan - if you scroll back you'll see a MMT meeting is planned for noon,
rdale - 6/9/2006 9:11 AMThat's NET, though.
NASA TV just updated their schedule to add this afternoon's briefing:
September 6, Wednesday
1 p.m. EDT - STS-115 Post Mission Management Team Briefing - HQ (All Channels)
Gerald Richling - 6/9/2006 6:53 AM
Hello! Murphy's Law is now strictly enforced! It is very likely that Atlantis will be rolled back to VAB, demated and swap out the fuel cell. If NASA keeps daylight only launch restriction in place, the launch of STS-115 will not occur until February 19, 2007 when next extended daylight launch opportunies opens up. If NASA relaxes this daylight restriction, permitting night launches, Lauch will likely occur perhaps in mid October, 2006. Frustrating, isn't it? :o
Florida Today:
"The suspect fuel cell that prompted NASA to scrub today's Atlantis launch is not believed to have failed. NASA believes the problem lies with an associated freon coolant loop, which prevents the electricity-generating device from overheating."
Chris Bergin - 6/9/2006 3:29 PMJust for the record: The vendor is UTC Power and they have little write-up on the shuttle orbiter fuel cells here: http://www.utcpower.com/fs/com/bin/fs_com_Page/0,9235,03557,00.html
Meeting with the vendor has begun. We have people at that meeting....presentations and reports to follow :)
mkirk - 6/9/2006 8:07 AMQuotegordo - 6/9/2006 6:45 AM
In Laymans terms; think of each fuel cell as 3 fuel cells in one. The problem here lies in 1/9th of the system, but certain equipment needs each of the 3 different phases to run correctly.
I think you are confusing substacks with 3 phase AC power.
Motorized devices on the orbiter such as pumps, fans, drive units for the vent doors, payload bay doors, ET doors etc...require multiphase operation from the AC busses. In some cases you can loose a single phase and still retain operation of the particular motor - this is certainly not ideal.
AC power comes from the inverters which take the DC power produced by the fuel cells and distributed through the Main Busses and coverts it to AC. Main Bus A powers AC1, Main B AC2, and Main C AC3. Each AC bus is powered by 3 inverters (i.e. 3 phases).
Mark Kirkman
joncz - 6/9/2006 8:16 AMGood note about the STS-69 experience; however, that was back in the internal airlock days. On that flight, I don't think the Spartan was any farther forward than Bay 3. (Here's a picture of the OPF install (http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/sts-69/images/medium/KSC-95EC-0760.jpg).)
My post immediately before yours suggested the R&R can be and has been done at the pad (the trusses may have to be removed, however). And given the potential for a Sep 24th window with relaxed lighting requirements I would expect that, barring weather forcing a rollback, is what they would plan to do.
Chris Bergin - 6/9/2006 8:02 AMSigh. Hey Chris, why not just make a friggin' Schadenfreude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude) forum for those posts?QuoteGerald Richling - 6/9/2006 12:53 PM
If NASA relaxes this daylight restriction, permitting night launches, Lauch will likely occur perhaps in mid October, 2006. Frustrating, isn't it? :o
If NASA relaxes that restriction, there's an opportunity on September 24 (start of window). We published the document on L2 and there's a specific slide published on here showing this.
Most of your post was inaccurate.
mkirk - 6/9/2006 2:52 PM
Sorry I accidentally posted this in the wrong thread:
I have heard "fly as is" discussed all morning, but given the nature of the actual failure signature I don't see that as a realistic option!!!!!!!!!!
Mark Kirkman
They probably don't have an issue with access to the fuel cell, but I think a question is whether they have room to move the current unit and its replacement with the external airlock in place.
Chris Bergin - 6/9/2006 8:53 AMQuotemkirk - 6/9/2006 2:52 PM
Sorry I accidentally posted this in the wrong thread:
I have heard "fly as is" discussed all morning, but given the nature of the actual failure signature I don't see that as a realistic option!!!!!!!!!!
Mark Kirkman
Do you have a rough timeline for Fuel Cell R&R, Mark?
c.steven - 6/9/2006 4:01 PMNo need to load it into the canister. There's plenty of room in the Payload Changeout Room with the truss attached to the Payload Ground Handling Mechanism(PGHM).
The only question is when and where to replace it. Won't opening up the floor of the bay present FOD and other hazards to P3/P4? I would think for accessibility they would at least have to pull the payload out of the bay and put it in the canister temporarily if they attempt something at the pad.
Bubbinski - 6/9/2006 3:08 PM
If this truly means a standdown and possibly a week to replace the fuel cell, are there any plans to talk with the Russians so that the window can be extended back to 9/13? Or is allowing night launches later on a more realistic option?
c.steven - 6/9/2006 9:12 AM
So are we actually talking about having to replace FC1, or is the cooling pump that is suspect a separate device that is not integral to the fuel cell?
DaveS - 6/9/2006 10:06 AMIf past experience is worth anything, they left P1 in Endeavour's payload bay during the issues with a GOX line in the orbiter midbody during the STS-113 launch campaign, so I would guess FOD is not an issue in terms of removing payload bay liners. There are pictures in the KSC MMedia archive of the STS-113 activities...Quotec.steven - 6/9/2006 4:01 PMNo need to load it into the canister. There's plenty of room in the Payload Changeout Room with the truss attached to the Payload Ground Handling Mechanism(PGHM).
The only question is when and where to replace it. Won't opening up the floor of the bay present FOD and other hazards to P3/P4? I would think for accessibility they would at least have to pull the payload out of the bay and put it in the canister temporarily if they attempt something at the pad.
Chris Bergin - 6/9/2006 9:02 AM
Update:
OPO Telecon with vendors (mdwright)
- A spare pump or qual pump will be cut up to get a better understanding of the pump design. In particular, the interest is in whether or not the phase windings are isolated from one another.
- Several scenarios for a short
- Thermal equilibrium is reached in about 26-30 minutes - Worst case next failure could result in motor controller shutdown during ascent
Chris Bergin - 6/9/2006 3:50 PM
They've restarted the fuel cell. Waiting for results (will be a document - which have to go on L2 - as per source instructions).
Chris Bergin - 6/9/2006 9:50 AM
They've restarted the fuel cell. Waiting for results (will be a document - which have to go on L2 - as per source instructions).
----- called with a question from Wayne regarding any other equipment that has not been checked out/fired up in several years. Fuel Cell 1 had not been fully activated in 3 years..
astrobrian - 6/9/2006 10:45 AM
From the discussion here it is leaning towards replacement more than a fly as is. In that case I would think RSS rollback would be the next step would it not?
gordo - 6/9/2006 8:00 AMQuote----- called with a question from Wayne regarding any other equipment that has not been checked out/fired up in several years. Fuel Cell 1 had not been fully activated in 3 years..
Pretty shocking state of affairs that kit has not been fully run up and checked out. Big Management oversight there IMO.
Chris Bergin - 6/9/2006 9:58 AM
Outline notes from sources:
09/06/06 07:29:01 CET FC/PRSD STS-115 Coolant Pump Anomaly (--------)
STS-115 Fuel Cell Startup
Flow-thru and pulse purges were nominal. FC 1 activation was at 249:01:23:28 GMT (pumps on). At 249:01:34:55 GMT the H2 pump motor status experienced a step increase from 0.48 to 0.64 vdc. This corresponded to a spike in the AC 1 phase A current from 4.32 to 5.20 amps (0.10 second duration), followed by a decrease to 3.76 amp. Phase B current increased 0.2 amps and phase C current increased 0.10 amp. These values remained relatively stable for the remainder of the fuel cell startup. The heatup continued nominally, achieving the ready-for-load status in 25 m 21 s. Due to a concern that the coolant pump may be operating on only two phases, the connection of fuel cell 1 to main bus A was delayed. The H2 pump motor status measurement indicated that the H2 pump was still operating on all three phases. The decision was made to connect fuel cell 1 to the bus and continue with the startup for fuel cells 2 and 3. The startup for these two fuel cells was nominal.
A troubleshooting plan was discussed to determine a way to see if the coolant pump was indeed operating on only AC1 phases B and C. One option was to open either the phase B or phase C circuit breaker. The fuel cell coolant pump can operate on two phases but not on only one. If the coolant pump delta pressure indication would go off then that would verify that phase A was not feeding the coolant pump. The other option was to shutdown the fuel cell and observe the drop in the AC1 phase currents. The decision was made to shutdown the fuel cell rather than intentionally stopping a pump while the fuel cell was running.
Fuel cell 1 was removed from the bus at 249:05:42:18 GMT. The stop command was issued at 249:05:45:21 GMT (pumps off). Phases B and C decreased about one amp while phase A decreased only 0.3 amps, verifying that phase A was not powering the coolant pump. The fuel cell start command (pumps on) was issued at 249:05:47:56 GMT. The AC1 phase currents all returned to the values that they were prior to the shutdown. The AC1 startup transient appeared nominal, and the measurement returned to a value of 0.64 vdc. The FC 1 water conductivity sensor self-test circuit energized at startup, verifying that AC 1 phase A was active. Fuel cell 1 was reconnected to main bus A at 249:05:50:09 GMT. All fuel cell parameters were nominal. In order to proceed with the countdown, the fuel cell high load calibration was performed, beginning at 249:06:46:00 GMT, and lasting for about 48 minutes. Again, all fuel cell parameters were nominal. The fuel cell loads were brought back down to typical prelaunch steady state values.
astrobrian - 6/9/2006 5:12 PMNope. The RSS is in place around the orbiter during the TCDT.
I always thought that was what the TCDT did. (a dry run)
Svetoslav - 6/9/2006 10:14 AM
So, is Cell 1 working as expected?
spaceshuttle - 6/9/2006 5:22 PMNot known at this time. MMT still have to meet at 1 pm EDT and make their decision.
so is the launch postponed for tomorrow...
let me rephrase: is the next launch date known, or do we have to wait for a briefing?
Svetoslav - 6/9/2006 4:26 PM
As for the fuel cell, if it's performing OK, I see no reason to have more delays.
Svetoslav - 6/9/2006 11:26 AMWell apparently you don't understand WHY Atlantis is going to be retired after five more flights.
Sometimes NASA amazes me with the decisions! Why did they have to scrap Atlantis knowing that Discovery is older than Atlantis? They should scrap Discovery, and keep Atlantis alive :)
As for the fuel cell, if it's performing OK, I see no reason to have more delays.
Svetoslav - 6/9/2006 4:26 PM
Sometimes NASA amazes me with the decisions! Why did they have to scrap Atlantis knowing that Discovery is older than Atlantis? They should scrap Discovery, and keep Atlantis alive :)
As for the fuel cell, if it's performing OK, I see no reason to have more delays.
Svetoslav - 6/9/2006 11:47 AMThat's OK -- most of us don't completely understand NASA-ese, either.
Yeah, that's right. Knowing the fact that there's a probability that a bigger failure is comming, I won't commit a mission before I'm sure everything is OK.
And the Atlantis that HAS to be scrapped - that's a mistake of my language and lack of english grammar knowledge.
PS: Offtopic caused by me should better be deleted.
Chris Bergin - 6/9/2006 10:09 AM
Vendors involved: UTC + Kearfott
rdale - 6/9/2006 5:08 PM
Will you know anyone with a laptop in that meeting?
Chris Bergin - 6/9/2006 6:20 PMDamn. Looks like late October is the earliest they could do another attempt, right?
We're being told the reccomendation (current status) is rollback :(
Svetoslav - 6/9/2006 6:53 PMNope. That when the MMT meeting begins. When the actual press conference might begin is anyone's guess.
Oh, and it seems that the press conference is 10 minutes from now ( If I calculate the time zones properly ), am I right?
MarkD - 6/9/2006 7:03 PMIt isn't as much about fixing the problem, but question of flying with suspect critical hardware that has behaved very unusually on the ground.
Hopefully the problem will be fixed before tomorrow.
logickal23 - 6/9/2006 12:12 PM
I will be truly, truly surprised (and disappointed) if the team chooses to fly as-is. This is almost a perfect litmus test of the safety vs. schedule pressure arguement.
MarkD - 6/9/2006 7:14 PMHuge difference. The WSBs are part of the APU/HYD system which isn't used until landing. The FCs on the other hand is used during the entire mission. Loose one, and you get a early ticket home. Not the same thing if you loose a WSB.
If you miss it, tape the launch in advance. I always do that.
As to the fuel cell, I recall a water spray boiler problem mentioned on STS-104 where it was dropping 1.5 degrees every 15 minutes, but they flew the vehicle anyway. IMO just keep an eye on it if it seems to be a worry for some.
jacqmans - 6/9/2006 7:17 PMNo. That's why you get an early ticket home if you loose one FC out of three.
maybe a stupid question from me, but can the Shuttle fly with 2 full cells ?? (I know there were two missions cut short in the past due to Full cell failures, STS-2 and STS-83), but is it possible to launch with 2 ??
Chris Bergin - 6/9/2006 12:48 PM
On the flow charts, the one below the official reason notes: "1. Wire Short To Ground Between H2 Pump Motor Wiring Split To Coolant Pump Motor"
nathan.moeller - 6/9/2006 3:20 PMThe impact of a single fuel cell failure is basically loss of mission with the scheduling issues you describe -- not a crew, vehicle, or payload safety issue.
Let's say they fly as-is. The cell could work fine. But imagine if it dies. That would mean an early ticket home for Atlantis. Not only would that cut the mission short and eliminate many major tasks, depending on what the day the failure occurs, it could mean bringing the P3/4 back to Earth. No shuttle has ever landed with that weight and it could be very dangerous to attempt. Not only would it be dangerous to land with the payload, that payload would have to be relaunched at some point so assembly can continue. That would mean hundreds of millions of dollars down the drain and possibly the elimination of flights down the road in order to squeeze in another mission to relaunch the STS-115 payload. Also, if a failure occurs after the P3/4 is installed, most major tasks would be left incomplete and flights down the road would have to pick up the slack. The missions would be jam-packed with tasks left over from STS-115.
nathan.moeller - 6/9/2006 8:28 PM
I guess we're still just waiting on word from the MMT?
Svetoslav - 6/9/2006 6:06 PM
After the restart the fuel cell works properly. We could say the problem has been solved, but there could be a more serious problem, as some people noted. My vote is launch as-is.
nathan.moeller - 6/9/2006 3:33 PMThey have to be able to land with the payload -- that's a safety issue. You want to leave it in orbit attached to the station because of the implications of having to launch it twice. (Some of which you noted.)
Have they ever landed with that weight before? I thought I heard Cain say that they wanted to do everything in their power to leave it in orbit so as not to risk an extremely heavy landing. It would be challenging at least with an extra 18 tons on your back I'm sure.
daveglo - 6/9/2006 3:42 PMFirst, I'm not sure they would load cryos in the OPF. Second, loading and unloading cryos probably takes away pad work shifts. And also why couldn't the fuel cell work fine during any number of pre-countdown tests and then fail during activation in launch count? (Operational lifetime is also an issue here -- i.e., MTBF.)
Could any of the knowledgeable folks expand on the pre-flight testing done on the fuel cells? I can't believe anything went to the pad without a thorough functional test prior to launch day. Given the number of times a fuel cell problem has caused a launch/flight issue, I'd have test run them several times in the days/weeks leading to this day.
psloss - 6/9/2006 2:44 PMQuotenathan.moeller - 6/9/2006 3:33 PMThey have to be able to land with the payload -- that's a safety issue. You want to leave it in orbit attached to the station because of the implications of having to launch it twice. (Some of which you noted.)
Have they ever landed with that weight before? I thought I heard Cain say that they wanted to do everything in their power to leave it in orbit so as not to risk an extremely heavy landing. It would be challenging at least with an extra 18 tons on your back I'm sure.
astrobrian - 6/9/2006 3:42 PMNow NET 5 pm Eastern, according to:
MMT Press briefing is still being listed as NET 4 pm EDT
nathan.moeller - 6/9/2006 3:19 PM
I'm sure this means there's some serious debate going on. MMT meetings usually don't take this long. I'm sure they'll make the right decision.
shuttle_buff - 6/9/2006 4:47 PMActually, Endeavour is the only orbiter that currently has the mods. Discovery isn't scheduled to get them until after its next flight.
Atlantis is the only ship without the station-to-shuttle power transfer too.
This could of helped the situation (possibly), not sure. With all the work going on, the station probably will be running on batteries longer than normal anyway.
shuttle_buff - 6/9/2006 10:47 PMDiscovery lacks SSPTS too. Only orbiter for now equipped with SSPTS is Endeavour.
Atlantis is the only ship without the station-to-shuttle power transfer too.
rdale - 6/9/2006 9:43 PM
Kind of defeats the purpose for checking in frequently when new posts are all the same - how about a separate thread for "tough choices" "I hope it's cleared" "I want to see a launch tomorrow." Even better - why not include an entire previous reply to say "me too" ;>
abacus - 6/9/2006 4:02 PMQuoteI have been thinking of adding the ability to tag messages. You could tag a message as news, a comment, a picture, etc. People could then choose just to see the news, or the news and the pictures.For hot threads like this one or live events it may be useful to do that. Not sure about the other threads
Going a bit more back on topic, what do they have the countdown clock on hold at?
gordo - 6/9/2006 5:35 PMSaturday will probably be asked about at the briefing given the news, but AFAIK, it's not a possibility. Even launching Friday reduces their on-orbit planning flexibility somewhat due to the commitment to undock no later than the 17th.
I think hats off to the team, they are working through the issues to get a better feel of what the siutation is, so that they can maybe get comfortable with the issue so a on Fri or Sat is a possibility
If they have to do the repoelacement time is not an big problem
Chris Bergin - 7/9/2006 12:12 AMDidn't that have to do with exposed wiring under the payload bay coming in contact with a screwhead?
They are going to review a load of data from the imfamous STS-93, due to "At approximately 5 seconds into the launch of STS-93, a momentary short occurred on AC1 phase A." Check out the launch video on the video section for all the fun and games that launch had.
Chris Bergin - 6/9/2006 3:42 PM
Eh? Wayne Hale says they don't have the blueprint drawings.........yet they are on one of the documents we put on L2. That is confusing.
Here's one of the several of such drawings.
dbhyslop - 6/9/2006 11:49 PM
This is a very interesting press conference. I wasn't expecting to learn how much clean underwear Wayne Hale has with him :)
When he said they didn't have the blueprints, perhaps he didn't mean so much the scale drawings but detailed specs about the parts?
Dan
DaveS - 6/9/2006 11:16 PMQuoteChris Bergin - 7/9/2006 12:12 AMDidn't that have to do with exposed wiring under the payload bay coming in contact with a screwhead?
They are going to review a load of data from the imfamous STS-93, due to "At approximately 5 seconds into the launch of STS-93, a momentary short occurred on AC1 phase A." Check out the launch video on the video section for all the fun and games that launch had.
spaceshuttle - 7/9/2006 1:00 AMThat is TBD after tommorow's MMT meeting(1 pm EDT).
ok...so, what are they going to do about launching?
Chris Bergin - 6/9/2006 6:51 PM
And we have the Wayne Hale underwear manifest for STS-115 ;)
dbhyslop - 6/9/2006 6:08 PM
Sounds like I'll have to invest in L2 to get the quantitative details?
Dan
Mark Max Q - 6/9/2006 6:33 PMQuotedbhyslop - 6/9/2006 6:08 PM
Sounds like I'll have to invest in L2 to get the quantitative details?
Dan
I'm on L2 and I haven't got a problem is saying that while this site without L2 is still the best, L2 is literally like taking a seat next to Wayne Hale. It's impossible to say how accurate it is to say that without source compromising, but I'm not far off in saying that, as the MMT presentations came in on L2 as they were to the MMT. It is a fantastic section if you want to get deep down and dirty in what's going on, and it's the same for the CEV/CLV stuff too.
nathan.moeller - 6/9/2006 7:52 PMThe question is: and done what? Do they have to throw it away because of bad wiring elsewhere in the orbiter? Assuming the fuel cell passed its pre-launch checkouts, to what extent is the fuel cell invalidated based on the STS-93 experience?
I can't believe that this is the same FC that flew on STS-93. That's insane. You would think someone would've caught that!!
psloss - 6/9/2006 7:03 PMQuotenathan.moeller - 6/9/2006 7:52 PMThe question is: and done what? Do they have to throw it away because of bad wiring elsewhere in the orbiter? Assuming the fuel cell passed its pre-launch checkouts, to what extent is the fuel cell invalidated based on the STS-93 experience?
I can't believe that this is the same FC that flew on STS-93. That's insane. You would think someone would've caught that!!
These decisions are a lot easier in hindsight.
Mark Max Q - 6/9/2006 7:33 PM
I'm on L2 and I haven't got a problem is saying that while this site without L2 is still the best, L2 is literally like taking a seat next to Wayne Hale. It's impossible to say how accurate it is to say that without source compromising, but I'm not far off in saying that, as the MMT presentations came in on L2 as they were to the MMT. It is a fantastic section if you want to get deep down and dirty in what's going on, and it's the same for the CEV/CLV stuff too.
nathan.moeller - 6/9/2006 8:12 PMOK -- thought you were serious.
First part is a funny coincidence. Second part is a joke. It just seems NASA's had a run of bad luck lately as far as trying to get these things off the ground. I'm really curious to see how they handle this one. Surprising that it doesn't violate launch commit criteria.
dbhyslop - 6/9/2006 7:21 PM
I'm thinking about it just for the CaLV and lander documents I've seen on the ticker lately.
Jamie Young - 6/9/2006 8:49 PMDisagree -- there are two biggies right now that are working: the lighted launch/lighted ET sep constraint and the end FY 2010 deadline for shuttle flights.
Don't think anyone can say they have schedule pressure as this could go either way and the data will decide. Very cool day.
psloss - 6/9/2006 7:43 PMQuotenathan.moeller - 6/9/2006 8:12 PMOK -- thought you were serious.
First part is a funny coincidence. Second part is a joke. It just seems NASA's had a run of bad luck lately as far as trying to get these things off the ground. I'm really curious to see how they handle this one. Surprising that it doesn't violate launch commit criteria.
Yes it's bad luck, but it's only been a week and a half -- delays like this are unusual, but not unprecedented. If they choose to or are forced to wait to fly until after the Expedition crew rotation, it would only be a one month hit or thereabouts if they wave the lighting requirements to document tank foam performance.
The only bad feeling I'm getting about this is that there seems to be some programmatic urge to launch this mission, even to the extent of waving some of their in-flight flexibility -- I was surprised to hear Wayne Hale's comment towards the end of the briefing about the program's willingness to accept a higher risk of a minimum duration flight.
Jamie Young - 6/9/2006 5:49 PM If they launch on Friday, it's a big pat on the back to NASA. If they don't, they really didn't want to chance any risk. Don't think anyone can say they have schedule pressure as this could go either way and the data will decide. Very cool day.
If you don't have "Go fever" like many of us do ;)
rdale - 6/9/2006 8:53 PM
"Who knows he may move for an extension of that deadline."
Why would anyone change that deadline given current financial / political environments? The public doesn't care (or even know) about 2010.
"But most websites say that the Soyuz will return on September 29."
I don't see that on any website, but regardless it'll come back the night of the 24th (for US, 25th at 3Z-ish globally)
'Launch of Soyuz TMA-9 on September 18 will allow us to provide a landing opportunity for the Expedition 13 crew on September 29, which is a deadline for the landing in the daytime.
collectspace - 6/9/2006 9:18 PM
Quoting NSF's article from a few days ago, which in turn was quoting RSC Energia president Nikolay Sevastyanov:Quote'Launch of Soyuz TMA-9 on September 18 will allow us to provide a landing opportunity for the Expedition 13 crew on September 29, which is a deadline for the landing in the daytime.
If Atlantis launches on Friday (or Saturday), then Soyuz will return on September 29, which is presently the date for which the Russians are planning.
nathan.moeller - 6/9/2006 3:51 PMQuotepsloss - 6/9/2006 2:44 PMQuotenathan.moeller - 6/9/2006 3:33 PMThey have to be able to land with the payload -- that's a safety issue. You want to leave it in orbit attached to the station because of the implications of having to launch it twice. (Some of which you noted.)
Have they ever landed with that weight before? I thought I heard Cain say that they wanted to do everything in their power to leave it in orbit so as not to risk an extremely heavy landing. It would be challenging at least with an extra 18 tons on your back I'm sure.
True. I feel really stupid now because I said that to my dad earlier. We were discussing the AOA (abort once around) option if something were to go wrong and how they'd have to be able to land with the payload in that case. In any case it would be difficult handling I bet if you're used to landing an orbiter with a near-empty payload bay. Sorry about that.
Cain: "We will do everything in our power to leave this payload in orbit"
*reporters chuckle*
Cain: "Preferably at the space station."
Suffredini: "...thank you..." ;)
daveglo - 6/9/2006 3:42 PM
Could any of the knowledgeable folks expand on the pre-flight testing done on the fuel cells? I can't believe anything went to the pad without a thorough functional test prior to launch day. Given the number of times a fuel cell problem has caused a launch/flight issue, I'd have test run them several times in the days/weeks leading to this day.
Joffan - 6/9/2006 1:11 PM
I'm with you Svetoslav but I don't think that NASA is. The process appears to be that any issue has to be proven benign or survivable without flight objective impact.
Personally it seems to me that the impact of not launching with a survivable fault such as this is greater than a full investigation and whole program delay. Even a shortened mission would allow the orbiter to leave the P3/P4 truss on the ISS and safe, after which a program of ISS crew spacewalks might recover some of the slip.
TNCMAXQ - 6/9/2006 9:35 PM
"He (our next president) may move for an extension of that deadline."
He or she you mean. ;)
Svetoslav - 6/9/2006 1:22 PM
And if there's a delay what about the shedule? A lot of major components for ISS won't be installed at all. How do you expect the station to be finished in the configuration we want if there are more delays?
c.steven - 6/9/2006 10:47 PM
I think I read where Wayne said fuel cell 1 continues to operate properly at the time of the press briefing. Are the fuel cells all running now, and does this have much impact on the PDRS load? My guess is they aren't carrying the full power load at this point, but simply running in some type of idle mode. Doesn't most orbiter power come from ground sources until the final couple of minutes in the count? Anybody got an answer?
c.steven - 6/9/2006 10:47 PM
I think I read where Wayne said fuel cell 1 continues to operate properly at the time of the press briefing. Are the fuel cells all running now, and does this have much impact on the PDRS load? My guess is they aren't carrying the full power load at this point, but simply running in some type of idle mode. Doesn't most orbiter power come from ground sources until the final couple of minutes in the count? Anybody got an answer?