Post by: voyager on 02/27/2007 10:45 am
Teams will inspect this morning. Potential rollback??
More to come.
Post by: C5C6 on 02/27/2007 11:00 am
Post by: DaveS on 02/27/2007 11:12 am
Quote
voyager - 27/2/2007 12:45 PMHail damage is confirmed. Teams will be assessing whether the damage is severe enough to warrant a rollback to the VAB for reparis. All the damage is limited to the upper sections of the LOX tank.
Reports of hail damage to the ET tank from late yesterday.
Teams will inspect this morning. Potential rollback??
More to come.
Last time a stack was rolled back to the VAB for ET SOFI repairs due to hail was on STS-96. This only led to a 7 day delay of the launch. The launch was originally scheduled for May 20 1999, launch occured as planned on the new launch date of May 27 1999.
Post by: DaveS on 02/27/2007 11:25 am
Post by: Mark Dave on 02/27/2007 11:28 am
Post by: paulhbell07 on 02/27/2007 11:42 am
But I agree one week is nothing. Lets play it safe.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/27/2007 12:09 pm
Post by: Terry Rocket on 02/27/2007 12:25 pm
Post by: Andy USA on 02/27/2007 12:33 pm
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/27/2007 01:02 pm
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/27/2007 01:06 pm
Post by: DaveS on 02/27/2007 01:12 pm
Post by: nathan.moeller on 02/27/2007 01:12 pm
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/27/2007 01:14 pm
Quote
DaveS - 27/2/2007 2:12 PM
I guess this will be discussed during the FRR which is to begin today. Chris, can you confirm that it has started?
Will do when I get word. I've sent enough e-mails out ;)
Post by: nathan.moeller on 02/27/2007 01:20 pm
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/27/2007 01:28 pm
S00018 SSB walkdown inpsections hail damage today start at 07:00
hyper servicing on hold
oxidizer complete
OP RT in work
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/27/2007 01:29 pm
Post by: nathan.moeller on 02/27/2007 01:30 pm
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/27/2007 01:36 pm
Will write an article.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/27/2007 01:37 pm
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/27/2007 01:42 pm
This isn't good guys :(
"At least" one IFR damaged.
Post by: nathan.moeller on 02/27/2007 01:42 pm
Post by: nathan.moeller on 02/27/2007 01:56 pm
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/27/2007 01:58 pm
Quote
nathan.moeller - 27/2/2007 2:42 PM
Report on L2 also mentions about 1000 areas of damage, as opposed to the 700 areas on the STS-96 tank. The report goes quite in depth and the images tell the tale. Check it. My money is on rollback.
They are up to 7000 now!
Article with some L2 stuff including. http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5034
Post by: nathan.moeller on 02/27/2007 01:59 pm
Quote
Chris Bergin - 27/2/2007 8:58 AMQuotenathan.moeller - 27/2/2007 2:42 PM
Report on L2 also mentions about 1000 areas of damage, as opposed to the 700 areas on the STS-96 tank. The report goes quite in depth and the images tell the tale. Check it. My money is on rollback.
They are up to 7000 now!
Article with some L2 stuff including. http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5034
So I read. Good article Chris thanks.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/27/2007 02:00 pm
Checking with LM/MAF.
Post by: nathan.moeller on 02/27/2007 02:05 pm
Post by: DaveS on 02/27/2007 02:05 pm
Post by: Gerald Andrew Richli on 02/27/2007 02:24 pm
Post by: DaveS on 02/27/2007 02:26 pm
Quote
Gerald Andrew Richli - 27/2/2007 4:24 PMNo decision yet on whether to repair the current ET or to use ET-117. ET-117 is currently set to be shipped from Michoud to KSC on April 4.
So when will the new external tank arrive for STS-117?
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/27/2007 02:31 pm
Atlantis suffered 20 hits on her left wing. Evalautions proceeding.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/27/2007 02:33 pm
Preparations being put into place.
Post by: Michael22090 on 02/27/2007 02:37 pm
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/27/2007 02:38 pm
Quote
Michael22090 - 27/2/2007 3:37 PM
Does anyone know how soon they will start rolling her back? Could it even be today?
Won't be today. It takes a while to disconnect all the connections etc.
Post by: nathan.moeller on 02/27/2007 02:38 pm
Quote
Chris Bergin - 27/2/2007 9:31 AM
More notes - trying to summarize the NASA memos flying into L2.
Atlantis suffered 20 hits on her left wing. Evalautions proceeding.
RRrrnn! Are we looking at RCC panel replacement now?
Post by: Jim on 02/27/2007 02:40 pm
Post by: Michael22090 on 02/27/2007 02:40 pm
Quote
Chris Bergin - 27/2/2007 9:38 AMQuoteMichael22090 - 27/2/2007 3:37 PM
Does anyone know how soon they will start rolling her back? Could it even be today?
Won't be today. It takes a while to disconnect all the connections etc.
Okay, thanks Chris. Well this sure doesn't look good. :(
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/27/2007 02:41 pm
"TPS inspections indicated that there were ~20+ hits on the left wing - severity of damage was not provided
Rollback is all but guaranteed - recovery time w/b based on severity of impacts"
Post by: nathan.moeller on 02/27/2007 02:47 pm
Quote
Jim - 27/2/2007 9:40 AM
Remove the payload or roll back with it in the orbiter?
Jim asks a question? :) My guess is leave it. They left P3/P4 in her PB when the STS-115 stack rolled off Pad B back in August. But then again the orbiter wouldn't have been taken off the stack.
Post by: Michael22090 on 02/27/2007 02:47 pm
Quote
Jim - 27/2/2007 9:40 AM
Remove the payload or roll back with it in the orbiter?
Wouldn't it be smarter to remove the payload incase they have to demate, or can it still be kept in the Orbiter? I am just wondering.
Post by: gordo on 02/27/2007 02:48 pm
Look on the brightside.....more great pictures :)
Post by: nathan.moeller on 02/27/2007 02:49 pm
Quote
Michael22090 - 27/2/2007 9:47 AMQuoteJim - 27/2/2007 9:40 AM
Remove the payload or roll back with it in the orbiter?
Wouldn't it be smarter to remove the payload incase they have to demate, or can it still be kept in the Orbiter? I am just wondering.
That's my thinking. Handling/moving the orbiter around could be dangerous for S3/S4. I change: Remove and hold in RSS PCR.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/27/2007 03:17 pm
Minor ET repairs in VAB - Possibly make the end of the March 25th window
Major ET repairs in VAB - Might be able to make the April 23rd - May 24th window
R&R ET with the 118 tank - STS-117 will launch in July and STS-118 will move to August 26th
Post by: C5C6 on 02/27/2007 03:24 pm
Post by: mr.columbus on 02/27/2007 03:24 pm
Quote
Chris Bergin - 27/2/2007 11:17 AM
Here's the dates update:
Minor ET repairs in VAB - Possibly make the end of the March 25th window
Major ET repairs in VAB - Might be able to make the April 23rd - May 24th window
R&R ET with the 118 tank - STS-117 will launch in July and STS-118 will move to August 26th
Would probably have been cheaper to invest in hail-protection blankets for critical areas of the STS-stack on the launch pad...
Post by: shuttlefan on 02/27/2007 03:25 pm
Post by: STS Tony on 02/27/2007 03:28 pm
Post by: James (Lockheed) on 02/27/2007 03:28 pm
Post by: rdale on 02/27/2007 03:41 pm
Quote
C5C6 - 27/2/2007 11:24 AM
how come hail protection was never considered when building the service structure?
This size of hail is _VERY_ rare in Florida...
Post by: alan w on 02/27/2007 03:45 pm
Post by: dsmillman on 02/27/2007 03:46 pm
Post by: TNCMAXQ on 02/27/2007 03:49 pm
This feels a little like 1995 again when I was going to see the launch of 70 when it was targeted for June and that didn't work out either. :frown:
Post by: DaveS on 02/27/2007 03:59 pm
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/27/2007 04:02 pm
Post by: TFGQ on 02/27/2007 04:12 pm
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/27/2007 04:19 pm
Quote
TFGQ - 27/2/2007 5:12 PM
anyone got shots of the left wing
It's more likely that the hits on the TPS were flagged by sensors. That is all still being evalated anyway. The ET is leading the way on everything right now.
Post by: Michael22090 on 02/27/2007 04:22 pm
Post by: Orbiter Obvious on 02/27/2007 04:26 pm
Post by: Davie OPF on 02/27/2007 04:33 pm
Quote
TFGQ - 27/2/2007 11:12 AM
anyone got shots of the left wing
I don't think it would be visible damage (hope not). We don't know, shes at the pad, so we're not able to comment.
There's some pad rats on here, so maybe they will add more.
Post by: Shuttle Man on 02/27/2007 04:35 pm
Quote
rdale - 27/2/2007 10:41 AMQuoteC5C6 - 27/2/2007 11:24 AM
how come hail protection was never considered when building the service structure?
This size of hail is _VERY_ rare in Florida...
Absolutely. This was not expected.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/27/2007 04:40 pm
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/27/2007 04:47 pm
NASA will host a news conference at no earlier than 4 p.m. EST, Tuesday, Feb. 27, to discuss the status of the space shuttle's upcoming mission, STS- 117. Topics will include the latest on possible impacts to the mission from a hail storm at Kennedy Space Center Monday.
The briefing will air live on NASA Television and the agency's Internet site from Kennedy. Questions will be taken from media at participating NASA locations. Media not at Kennedy are asked to call Public Affairs at their local field center to RSVP.
Senior spaceflight managers are at Kennedy for the Flight Readiness Review, a thorough assessment of preparations for an upcoming mission.
For NASA TV streaming video, downlink and scheduling information, visit:
http://www.nasa.gov/ntv
Post by: Michael22090 on 02/27/2007 04:48 pm
Quote
Chris Bergin - 27/2/2007 11:40 AM
NASA call a media briefing for this evening. NET 4pm Eastern.
Just to let everyone know, this breifing WILL be live on NASA TV.
Also, here are some very good views of the damages close up.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/27/2007 04:50 pm
Post by: Michael22090 on 02/27/2007 04:57 pm
Quote
Chris Bergin - 27/2/2007 11:50 AM
Not forgetting the issue of "at least" one IFR (Ice Frost Ramp) being damaged. That's pretty important.
At least the storm did not come at a time when the RSS was rolled back. The damage to Atlantis could have been terrible.
Post by: Jamie Young on 02/27/2007 04:59 pm
Quote
Michael22090 - 27/2/2007 11:57 AM
At least the storm did not come at a time when the RSS was rolled back. The damage to Atlantis could have been terrible.
True. But I don't think they rollout if there's a chance of bad weather, so they have time to get RSS rolled into place.
Post by: Andy L on 02/27/2007 05:29 pm
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/27/2007 05:42 pm
27 dings in Atlantis' left wing.
Post by: HailColumbia on 02/27/2007 05:51 pm
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/27/2007 05:56 pm
Post by: shuttlefan on 02/27/2007 05:56 pm
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/27/2007 06:00 pm
Launch postponed until at least April.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/27/2007 06:01 pm
Post by: Speedracer on 02/27/2007 06:02 pm
Post by: Michael22090 on 02/27/2007 06:06 pm
Quote
shuttlefan - 27/2/2007 12:56 PM
Can they fix the wing dings while the vehicle is vertical, or do they have to demate it and roll back over to the OPF for that?
I think that the damage to the wing is minor enough that they can do it while vertical. I am hoping the ET will not need to be totally replaced. That will be the worst case scenario. They would have to demate and wait for STS-118's tank in April and not launch until June/July. I am still wondering wether or not they will remove the payload. I am sure many questions will be answered at the press breifing this afternoon.
Post by: ApolloLee on 02/27/2007 06:09 pm
Does it kick in a little more "speed" without the shuttle and MLP atop it. I'm not thinking NASCAR speeds here, but I fiure they can drive at least 5....
Cue the Sammy Hagar remake, "I can't drive 5"
Post by: TFGQ on 02/27/2007 06:10 pm
Post by: DaveS on 02/27/2007 06:13 pm
Quote
ApolloLee - 27/2/2007 8:09 PMThe name of the two transporters are "Crawler Transporters". Max speed with load: 1 mph. Max speed unloaded: 2 mph.
Curiosity question from the mobile transporter heading back to Pad A........
Does it kick in a little more "speed" without the shuttle and MLP atop it. I'm not thinking NASCAR speeds here, but I fiure they can drive at least 5....
Cue the Sammy Hagar remake, "I can't drive 5"
Post by: Speedracer on 02/27/2007 06:14 pm
Quote
the 101 camera is at 39-B
According to NASA webcam page it's on the VAB
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/countdown/video/
Post by: jmjawors on 02/27/2007 06:19 pm
Quote
Speedracer - 27/2/2007 1:14 PMQuotethe 101 camera is at 39-B
According to NASA webcam page it's on the VAB
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/countdown/video/
Notice that there is an identical view which is labeled as LC-39A. One of those is not correct. ;) Either way, that crawler has been there for quite some time... at least a week.
Post by: TFGQ on 02/27/2007 06:21 pm
001 is Pad 39-A
080 is VAB
Post by: DaveS on 02/27/2007 06:29 pm
Quote
jmjawors - 27/2/2007 8:19 PMYep, in readiness of rolling MLP-1 off 39B.
Either way, that crawler has been there for quite some time... at least a week.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/27/2007 06:56 pm
Post by: Michael22090 on 02/27/2007 07:01 pm
Quote
Chris Bergin - 27/2/2007 1:56 PM
Rollback on Sunday is the current plan.
Thanks for the update Chris.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/27/2007 07:08 pm
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5035
Post by: psloss on 02/27/2007 07:16 pm
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/main/index.html
Excerpt:
Quote
02.27.07 - 3:10 p.m. EST
NASA officials have confirmed that Space Shuttle Atlantis will roll back to the Vehicle Assembly Building for further assessment after yesterday's hail storm event. Additional details will be available at the press briefing being held today at 4 p.m. EST.
Post by: Zoomer30 on 02/27/2007 07:24 pm
I wonder why the RSS was not around the ship, it has the "garage door" protection for the back part of the wings.
Post by: nathan.moeller on 02/27/2007 07:25 pm
Quote
Zoomer30 - 27/2/2007 2:24 PM
The weather pattern right now is very stormy, I live in Iowa and got nailed by the big one this past weekend, round 2 is due in Wed and will probaly last till Friday, figure when that one gets to the East Coast Florida will see more hail. Large hail is not common in Florida simply becasue the air is usuually far to warm at the low levels to support the formation of the stones. Large hailstones can make many trips up and down the storm before finally they are to heavy and fall to the ground. Storms THIS time of air have plenty of cold air even in FL, so large hail can happen.
I wonder why the RSS was not around the ship, it has the "garage door" protection for the back part of the wings.
RSS was around the ship. I'm not sure how the wing got hit.
Post by: psloss on 02/27/2007 07:27 pm
Quote
nathan.moeller - 27/2/2007 3:25 PMYup; the damage would very likely have been worse without it and the weather protection panels.QuoteZoomer30 - 27/2/2007 2:24 PM
I wonder why the RSS was not around the ship, it has the "garage door" protection for the back part of the wings.
RSS was around the ship. I'm not sure how the wing got hit.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/27/2007 07:29 pm
Post by: rdale on 02/27/2007 07:31 pm
Quote
Zoomer30 - 27/2/2007 3:24 PM
figure when that one gets to the East Coast Florida will see more hail. Large hail is not common in Florida simply becasue the air is usuually far to warm at the low levels to support the formation of the stones. Large hailstones can make many trips up and down the storm
The storm you'll get has no bearing on Florida's weather, so odds are not very good at all for them to see hail again soon. The up-n-down hail theory seems to be falling by the wayside, thanks in part to 3D doppler views... Anyways I'll bring this in from L2 now:
Could have been worse - radar is indicating 2.5" hail as the cell passed south of the landing strip towards VAB! Here's a 3D view of the storm http://skywatch.org/kmlb-vol.png and output showing potential hail size (1.86" indicated in the diamond) http://skywatch.org/kmlb-mesh.png
Post by: nathan.moeller on 02/27/2007 07:31 pm
Quote
Chris Bergin - 27/2/2007 2:29 PM
Wing damage is "pretty bad" - source. Which is ambigous, but working on getting images.
I'm definitely curious to see the damage. Has anyone said whether the damage is all on TPS or is the top part of the wing busted up as well?
Post by: psloss on 02/27/2007 07:35 pm
Quote
rdale - 27/2/2007 3:31 PMRob,
Could have been worse - radar is indicating 2.5" hail as the cell passed south of the landing strip towards VAB! Here's a 3D view of the storm http://skywatch.org/kmlb-vol.png and output showing potential hail size (1.86" indicated in the diamond) http://skywatch.org/kmlb-mesh.png
What was the general direction of movement of the cell?
Thanks.
Post by: HKS on 02/27/2007 07:35 pm
Quote
Chris Bergin - 27/2/2007 9:29 PM
Wing damage is "pretty bad" - source. Which is ambigous, but working on getting images.
If the damage is bad, and Atlantis is in for some R&R an a longer stay in the OPF, can it be an option for NASA to swap orbiters? Fly S3/S4 with Endeavour in June?
Post by: Andy L on 02/27/2007 07:37 pm
Quote
nathan.moeller - 27/2/2007 2:31 PMQuoteChris Bergin - 27/2/2007 2:29 PM
Wing damage is "pretty bad" - source. Which is ambigous, but working on getting images.
I'm definitely curious to see the damage. Has anyone said whether the damage is all on TPS or is the top part of the wing busted up as well?
Someone who doesn't read the news articles on here :angry:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5035
"'There were around 27 Orbiter tile damages located on the port side chine and wing tip area,' added the 1pm NASA memo. 'Many of the damages were depressed coating with no visible base substrate showing. The worst case (depth wise) .5'' x.5'' x.12 in depth. RCCs have no visible damage, but will be inspected in the VAB."
Post by: nathan.moeller on 02/27/2007 07:39 pm
Quote
HKS - 27/2/2007 2:35 PMQuoteChris Bergin - 27/2/2007 9:29 PM
Wing damage is "pretty bad" - source. Which is ambigous, but working on getting images.
If the damage is bad, and Atlantis is in for some R&R an a longer stay in the OPF, can it be an option for NASA to swap orbiters? Fly S3/S4 with Endeavour in June?
That's actually a really interesting point. But I don't think Endeavour will be ready to fly before the end of June. But if Atlantis is in OPF-1 passed the planned time, I would guess calling up Endeavour would be a possibility.
Post by: nathan.moeller on 02/27/2007 07:42 pm
Quote
Andy L - 27/2/2007 2:37 PM
Someone who doesn't read the news articles on here :angry:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5035
"'There were around 27 Orbiter tile damages located on the port side chine and wing tip area,' added the 1pm NASA memo. 'Many of the damages were depressed coating with no visible base substrate showing. The worst case (depth wise) .5'' x.5'' x.12 in depth. RCCs have no visible damage, but will be inspected in the VAB."
I read that already. I asked because I don't understand all the NASA-speak. What is chine? What is substrate? I don't know where either are located. Wing tip can mean upper or lower side. I wouldn't have asked if knew those answers.
Post by: gordo on 02/27/2007 07:43 pm
Well done all
Post by: nathan.moeller on 02/27/2007 07:44 pm
Quote
gordo - 27/2/2007 2:43 PM
TV news stations just broke the news....... 6 hours after Chris and the team.
Well done all
Amen. NASA's official site didn't break it until just a little while ago. SFN was way behind as well. We won't go into mainstream media ;)
Post by: landofgrey on 02/27/2007 07:47 pm
Post by: rdale on 02/27/2007 07:48 pm
Quote
psloss - 27/2/2007 3:35 PM
What was the general direction of movement of the cell?
Just a little south of east at 30mph.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/27/2007 07:49 pm
Post by: Michael22090 on 02/27/2007 07:52 pm
Post by: nathan.moeller on 02/27/2007 07:52 pm
Quote
landofgrey - 27/2/2007 2:47 PM
A minor note about the crawler on the crawlerway, I (think) it was already on the roadbed prior to yesterday's storm. I may be wrong, but that's what I remember anyway.
Yeah it has been there for about a week. It's getting ready to haul MLP-1 off Pad B.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/27/2007 07:54 pm
Quote
Michael22090 - 27/2/2007 8:52 PM
STS-117 Status Briefing is about to be live on NASA TV, just to remind everyone.
Good call and this will start soon as the managers are already in the room.
Post by: nathan.moeller on 02/27/2007 07:55 pm
Post by: jmjawors on 02/27/2007 08:00 pm
Quote
nathan.moeller - 27/2/2007 2:42 PM
I read that already. I asked because I don't understand all the NASA-speak. What is chine? What is substrate? I don't know where either are located. Wing tip can mean upper or lower side. I wouldn't have asked if knew those answers.
Chine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chines :laugh:
In all seriousness though, Chris has done an outstanding job on this (as always). Look forward to this briefing so that maybe I can get some images of the wing as well (no L2 for me right now)!
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/27/2007 08:09 pm
The way we run this media site is to have the open/free area better than anyone else, with L2 even better than that ;)
Here's two wing images (you have to blow them up and go searching). Not as bad as you would assume, but on visibility.
Post by: Almurray1958 on 02/27/2007 08:32 pm
So the translation would be : "The hail seems to have damaged the outer surface but not penetrated to the inner core material near the location where the angle of the wing changes."
The results of the detailed inspection may render this discussion mute.
Hope this helps.
Post by: Thorny on 02/27/2007 08:36 pm
Quote
nathan.moeller - 27/2/2007 2:39 PMQuoteHKS - 27/2/2007 2:35 PMQuoteChris Bergin - 27/2/2007 9:29 PM
Wing damage is "pretty bad" - source. Which is ambigous, but working on getting images.
If the damage is bad, and Atlantis is in for some R&R an a longer stay in the OPF, can it be an option for NASA to swap orbiters? Fly S3/S4 with Endeavour in June?
That's actually a really interesting point. But I don't think Endeavour will be ready to fly before the end of June. But if Atlantis is in OPF-1 passed the planned time, I would guess calling up Endeavour would be a possibility.
Endeavour's LON for STS-117 is June 9.
Post by: Michael22090 on 02/27/2007 08:46 pm
Post by: Skinny on 02/27/2007 08:48 pm
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=6868&posts=1#M116151
Post by: mkirk on 02/27/2007 08:53 pm
Post by: jmjawors on 02/27/2007 09:01 pm
Quote
Gerald Andrew Richli - 27/2/2007 3:59 PM
New space shuttle launch schedule is: STS-117 is NET June 15, 2007; and STS-118 is NET August 26, 2007. What say ya?
You're betting that they will not be able to repair the ET in the VAB, then?
Post by: nathan.moeller on 02/27/2007 09:02 pm
Quote
Gerald Andrew Richli - 27/2/2007 3:59 PM
New space shuttle launch schedule is: STS-117 is NET June 15, 2007; and STS-118 is NET August 26, 2007. What say ya?
Aye! What time are they looking at rolling the stack off the pad on Sunday?
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/27/2007 09:08 pm
Quote
jmjawors - 27/2/2007 10:01 PM
You're betting that they will not be able to repair the ET in the VAB, then?
Lockheed didn't seem too hopeful, although right now that'd be the plan. Some of the things mentioned the presser were a bit off...such as the plan of five flights still being planned for 2007 - when the other week the fifth flight had already moved - documented - into Jan, as predicted a few months ago. Found that strange.
For everyone's sake, let's hope that they can repair in the VAB and not have to swap tanks.
Post by: shuttlefan on 02/27/2007 09:10 pm
Quote
nathan.moeller - 27/2/2007 4:02 PMI don't believe they've determined an exact time yet, Nathan. In fact they are still looking at the weekend or early nest week time frame....QuoteGerald Andrew Richli - 27/2/2007 3:59 PM
New space shuttle launch schedule is: STS-117 is NET June 15, 2007; and STS-118 is NET August 26, 2007. What say ya?
Aye! What time are they looking at rolling the stack off the pad on Sunday?
Post by: jmjawors on 02/27/2007 09:11 pm
Quote
Chris Bergin - 27/2/2007 4:08 PM
Lockheed didn't seem too hopeful, although right now that'd be the plan. Some of the things mentioned the presser were a bit off...such as the plan of five flights still being planned for 2007 - when the other week the fifth flight had already moved - documented - into Jan, as predicted a few months ago. Found that strange.
For everyone's sake, let's hope that they can repair in the VAB and not have to swap tanks.
I took note of that as well. The characterization of the "7000 divots" was interesting as well at the very end.
Post by: EirikV on 02/27/2007 09:35 pm
Those high-res pictures are incredible.
Post by: svenge on 02/27/2007 09:56 pm
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/27/2007 10:04 pm
Quote
svenge - 27/2/2007 10:56 PM
How many flights will be pushed back due to this?
It's all still "doable" with a one month or so delay (April 22).
Post by: Lee Jay on 02/27/2007 10:21 pm
Lee Jay
Post by: Flightstar on 02/27/2007 10:40 pm
Post by: Lee Jay on 02/27/2007 10:46 pm
Quote
Flightstar - 27/2/2007 4:40 PM
Not really Lee as the hail was coming in at an angle.
So, it wasn't on and wouldn't have helped much if it were due to the hail being wind-blown.
I was just wondering.
I work in wind energy and we have test site with some pretty extreme winds. Pebbles flying horizontally at 130mph are pretty damaging. We had one guy get all four of his side windows blown out while he was driving to work and that's pretty good automotive safety glass. The moral of the story is that I can imagine that even small wind-blown hail could be very damaging to something as soft as foam.
Lee Jay
Post by: C5C6 on 02/27/2007 10:49 pm
Post by: Lee Jay on 02/27/2007 10:56 pm
Post by: gordo on 02/27/2007 10:57 pm
Quote
C5C6 - 27/2/2007 11:49 PM
chris you mentioned more than 7000 impacts on the ET, are all this dents a problem? I'm afraid I haven't got it clear, what impact would this issue have during ascent: is it a problem of aerodynamic loads caused by deformation of the tank?
The issues are mainly due to ice building up in the 'dents' and then coming off during launch. Some weakening might also occur that would allow a chunk to break free and cause potential catastrophic damage
Post by: James (Lockheed) on 02/27/2007 10:59 pm
Quote
C5C6 - 27/2/2007 5:49 PM
chris you mentioned more than 7000 impacts on the ET, are all this dents a problem? I'm afraid I haven't got it clear, what impact would this issue have during ascent: is it a problem of aerodynamic loads caused by deformation of the tank?
Slight imperfections will be ok, although you'd want to fill and sand down as much as possible. Indentations are dangerous because they could cryopump during the ascent and become debris hazards.
Post by: jmjawors on 02/27/2007 10:59 pm
Quote
C5C6 - 27/2/2007 5:49 PM
chris you mentioned more than 7000 impacts on the ET, are all this dents a problem? I'm afraid I haven't got it clear, what impact would this issue have during ascent: is it a problem of aerodynamic loads caused by deformation of the tank?
The 7000 number was acknowledged at the press conference, but they seemed to indicate that that wouldn't be the number of repairs they'd need to make. According to them, the number is more "in the hundreds." And that yes... some of these divots are a concern because of aerodynamics.
Post by: texas_space on 02/27/2007 11:14 pm
Have incidents like these delayed flights with other, more conventional rockets (e.g. Saturns, Deltas, Atlases)? Would we have to worry as much if this had been an Orion or Ares-V stack on the pad?
Post by: Austin on 02/27/2007 11:35 pm
Quote
texas_space - 27/2/2007 4:14 PM
Delays stink :(
Yes, but nothing "stinks" more than a shuttle disaster. This was a freak occurrence served up by Ma Nature...nothing we can do about it.
Post by: Speedracer on 02/27/2007 11:43 pm
How "protected" is the nose of the ET?
Post by: jmjawors on 02/27/2007 11:46 pm
Quote
Speedracer - 27/2/2007 6:43 PM
How "protected" is the nose of the ET?
Is that a rhetorical question? ;) It's obviously not protected at all.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/27/2007 11:58 pm
Post by: Lee Jay on 02/28/2007 12:06 am
Post by: jmjawors on 02/28/2007 12:07 am
Quote
Lee Jay - 27/2/2007 7:06 PM
I'm curious. When significant work has to be done to tank foam, to people and equipment travel from Louisiana to Florida to do the work, or is the Florida-based workforce trained and equiped to handle such a situation?
I believe they addressed this at the press conference, but I was somewhat confused by the answer. I *think* they said that it's something they've discussed, but there was no real answer. Another one of those "we'll see when we get into the VAB" type of thing.
EDIT :: Oh. And Chris... so rollback is midnight Saturday? As in tomorrow night (EST)?
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/28/2007 12:14 am
Quote
jmjawors - 28/2/2007 1:07 AM
EDIT :: Oh. And Chris... so rollback is midnight Saturday? As in tomorrow night (EST)?
Unless I've lost my mind, tomorrow night is Wednesday night. Rollback is midnight Saturday (currently) which is March 3.
Post by: jmjawors on 02/28/2007 12:17 am
(Time to make up for some lost sleep!)
I guess what I was thinking of was "moved back a day," which my tired mind substituted with the word "tomorrow." :bleh:
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/28/2007 12:23 am
Quote
jmjawors - 28/2/2007 1:17 AM
No... I've lost my mind. Yes. Tomorrow is Wednesday.
(Time to make up for some lost sleep!)
I guess what I was thinking of was "moved back a day," which my tired mind substituted with the word "tomorrow." :bleh:
Sleep, what's sleep? Oh yeah, I think I had some in 1998 :laugh:
Post by: Speedracer on 02/28/2007 12:30 am
Post by: jmjawors on 02/28/2007 12:38 am
Quote
Speedracer - 27/2/2007 7:30 PM
Soooo I guess we should all hail Hale's hail handling? :laugh:
Nice. :cool:
As has been said, delays suck. But at least they're going to do the right thing to ensure a safe flight. No "go-fever" with these guys!
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/28/2007 12:41 am
Quote
jmjawors - 28/2/2007 1:38 AMQuoteSpeedracer - 27/2/2007 7:30 PM
Soooo I guess we should all hail Hale's hail handling? :laugh:
Nice. :cool:
As has been said, delays suck. But at least they're going to do the right thing to ensure a safe flight. No "go-fever" with these guys!
Interesting point there.
We all know NASA is continuing to be *safer*, and very open to any concerns raised from any area of the agency and contractors (you really see this with the "dissenting opinions" on PRCB presentations), but there was never a chance this would anything but rollback, to be honest.
Remember, they rolled back ET-100, with 700 areas of damage. ET-124 has 7000+ areas of damage.
Post by: jmjawors on 02/28/2007 12:47 am
So recognition that this is a problem worthy of 100% scrutiny, and not just an inconvenience, is a positive thing.
Post by: dwmzmm on 02/28/2007 01:10 am
Quote
Almurray1958 - 27/2/2007 3:32 PM
Basically a chine is a change in angle between hull sections (boat building). In the case of the orbiter, a chine is the change of angle in the wing sections (steep to shallow). Substrate is "the stuff beneath" the outer surface coating (coating is built-up over the substrate).
So the translation would be : "The hail seems to have damaged the outer surface but not penetrated to the inner core material near the location where the angle of the wing changes."
The results of the detailed inspection may render this discussion mute.
Hope this helps.<<<
Look at any pics of the Lockheed Blackbirds (SR-71, YF-12A); they have perfect examples of chines...
Post by: Seattle Dave on 02/28/2007 02:23 am
Quote
Chris Bergin - 27/2/2007 3:09 PM
Appreciate it.
The way we run this media site is to have the open/free area better than anyone else, with L2 even better than that ;)
"Even better" doesn't do it justice. You may as well be sat in Wayne Hale's office and answering the phone for him on L2. :cool:
Post by: Super George on 02/28/2007 02:49 am
Post by: edkyle99 on 02/28/2007 03:55 am
Quote
Shuttle Man - 27/2/2007 11:35 AMQuoterdale - 27/2/2007 10:41 AMQuoteC5C6 - 27/2/2007 11:24 AM
how come hail protection was never considered when building the service structure?
This size of hail is _VERY_ rare in Florida...
Absolutely. This was not expected.
This is the second time that a shuttle has been hail-damaged on the pad, as I understand it. Shouldn't it be expected by now? Will NASA learn a lesson from this that can be applied to Ares I ground processing?
- Ed Kyle
Post by: rdale on 02/28/2007 04:43 am
Post by: edkyle99 on 02/28/2007 04:56 am
Quote
rdale - 27/2/2007 11:43 PM
What sort of lesson? Even under the cover of RSS, this was an extreme enough storm that the shuttle itself took some dings. So you'd have to seal it off basically to prevent any damage from a major storm, but by sealing it off you can't access it. Not sure there is a workaround...
Well, the first lesson might be that an RSS-type partial enclosure, combined with several weeks of pad exposure, isn't good enough. Perhaps a complete enclosure is needed, at least for the upper stage and Orion spacecraft, in concert with a processing plan that keeps the vehicle off of the pad until just before launch to minimize its exposure to the elements.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: Jim on 02/28/2007 05:22 am
Quote
texas_space - 27/2/2007 7:14 PM
Delays stink :(
Have incidents like these delayed flights with other, more conventional rockets (e.g. Saturns, Deltas, Atlases)? Would we have to worry as much if this had been an Orion or Ares-V stack on the pad?
There would be some concern but ELV's don't care about ice falling or debris
Post by: Jim on 02/28/2007 05:25 am
Quote
edkyle99 - 28/2/2007 12:56 AMThe plan is to be on the pad less than a week. The "other" plan is only the shuttle has to worry about this, not ELV's
Well, the first lesson might be that an RSS-type partial enclosure, combined with several weeks of pad exposure, isn't good enough. Perhaps a complete enclosure is needed, at least for the upper stage and Orion spacecraft, in concert with a processing plan that keeps the vehicle off of the pad until just before launch to minimize its exposure to the elements.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: punkboi on 02/28/2007 07:00 am
Post by: paulhbell07 on 02/28/2007 08:19 am
Or is there enough time for delays like this to finish the ISS in 2010.
Just found the answer on L2. Thanks.
Post by: John44 on 02/28/2007 08:29 am
http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1541&Itemid=1
Post by: Concorde on 02/28/2007 08:52 am
Post by: ysl007 on 02/28/2007 11:15 am
Post by: alan w on 02/28/2007 11:30 am
Quote
Concorde - 28/2/2007 3:52 AM
Jumping the gun a little but if we're talking late April/early May would this be a day or night launch ?
Yeah does any one know, as i need to replan my attempt to catch it at KSC, although i dont know if my pocket can stretch to 2 Florida holidays in one year especially when the next attempt could get scrubbed aswell :o trying to plan a foreign visit to watch theses things is hard not to mention expensive!!
Post by: shuttlefan on 02/28/2007 12:33 pm
Quote
ysl007 - 28/2/2007 6:15 AMNo. Before STS-96 in May 1999, the tank got damaged by a hailstorm. Not quite as bad as this one though. They also rolled back to the VAB on STS-96 to fix the damage but the launch was only delayed a week because they didn't have other traffic at the ISS to work around. Also in summer 1995, Discovery's tank got damaged by woodpeckers, yes you read correctly, WOODPECKERS! They also rolled back to the VAB to fix that damage. Before the launch of STS-4, way back in 1982, they got hit by a hailstorm the day before launch and had to replace several tiles on the pad.
I'm living in Singapore so not really sure about the weather in florida though is this a first time a Space Shuttle has got damaged by a Hailstorm or some very bad weather alike ?
Post by: C5C6 on 02/28/2007 12:47 pm
Post by: KSC on 02/28/2007 01:23 pm
Post by: jacqmans on 02/28/2007 02:23 pm
Post by: DaveS on 02/28/2007 02:30 pm
Quote
jacqmans - 28/2/2007 4:23 PMThat's the crawler that had been waiting to pick-up MLP-1 at 39B to haul it to VAB HB1. But now that Atlantis is going back to VAB HB1 that will have to be rescheduled.
Post by: jacqmans on 02/28/2007 02:33 pm
Quote
DaveS - 28/2/2007 4:30 PMQuotejacqmans - 28/2/2007 4:23 PMThat's the crawler that had been waiting to pick-up MLP-1 at 39B to haul it to VAB HB1. But now that Atlantis is going back to VAB HB1 that will have to be rescheduled.
Is this crawler going to pick up Atlantis ?
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/28/2007 02:38 pm
Quote
C5C6 - 28/2/2007 1:47 PM
any video of the hailstorm?
Don't think there is.
Post by: DaveS on 02/28/2007 02:44 pm
Quote
jacqmans - 28/2/2007 4:33 PMYep.QuoteDaveS - 28/2/2007 4:30 PM
That's the crawler that had been waiting to pick-up MLP-1 at 39B to haul it to VAB HB1. But now that Atlantis is going back to VAB HB1 that will have to be rescheduled.
Is this crawler going to pick up Atlantis ?
Post by: ShuttleDiscovery on 02/28/2007 03:25 pm
Post by: DaveS on 02/28/2007 03:33 pm
Quote
ShuttleDiscovery - 28/2/2007 5:25 PMStill to early to be determined. Everything should get much clearer once Atlantis is back in the VAB and a detailed assesment of the damages have been done.
Will any future flights be delayed becuse of this rollback? :)
Post by: Launch Fan on 02/28/2007 03:37 pm
Post by: gbiguy on 02/28/2007 04:06 pm
I'm new to this site. My name is James. I work as a photographer, and was in Florida a few weeks ago for Atlantis' rollout. I noticed on a few of my photos what appears to be "dings" on the lower part of the ET. I have been wondering if Nasa was planning on repairing these spots at the pad, or were they going to fly with the ET in that condition. You can see what I'm talking about from the photos I shot on my site: http://www.freewebs.com/robmed/atlantisrollout1.htm ( You'll have to skip the ad when you get there, I've used a lot of bandwidth this month ). Is it common to launch with the ET in this condition? I wouldn't think so.
James
Post by: gordo on 02/28/2007 04:10 pm
Post by: DaveS on 02/28/2007 04:12 pm
Quote
gordo - 28/2/2007 6:10 PMhttp://webcams.ksc.nasa.gov/ImgCap/default.htm
whats the URL of the page with the video images? (The ones with the date stamp)
Post by: DaveS on 02/28/2007 04:12 pm
Quote
gbiguy - 28/2/2007 6:06 PMPlease feel free to actually read the entire thread. It will answer all your questions.
Hi,
I'm new to this site. My name is James. I work as a photographer, and was in Florida a few weeks ago for Atlantis' rollout. I noticed on a few of my photos what appears to be "dings" on the lower part of the ET. I have been wondering if Nasa was planning on repairing these spots at the pad, or were they going to fly with the ET in that condition. You can see what I'm talking about from the photos I shot on my site: http://www.freewebs.com/robmed/atlantisrollout1.htm ( You'll have to skip the ad when you get there, I've used a lot of bandwidth this month ). Is it common to launch with the ET in this condition? I wouldn't think so.
James
Post by: gordo on 02/28/2007 04:14 pm
Post by: jmjawors on 02/28/2007 04:20 pm
Quote
gbiguy - 28/2/2007 11:06 AM
Hi,
I'm new to this site. My name is James. I work as a photographer, and was in Florida a few weeks ago for Atlantis' rollout. I noticed on a few of my photos what appears to be "dings" on the lower part of the ET. I have been wondering if Nasa was planning on repairing these spots at the pad, or were they going to fly with the ET in that condition. You can see what I'm talking about from the photos I shot on my site: http://www.freewebs.com/robmed/atlantisrollout1.htm ( You'll have to skip the ad when you get there, I've used a lot of bandwidth this month ). Is it common to launch with the ET in this condition? I wouldn't think so.
James
I think this is what you're referring to:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=6621&mid=113100#M113100
By the way, the photo of yours with the bird... is that bird real? There is another photo from another photographer with that bird in the exact same pose.
EDIT :: That link doesn't take you to the right place. Go to page 18 of that thread and scroll down a bit (post by TJL). Sorry about that.
Post by: marsavian on 02/28/2007 04:35 pm
Post by: Flightstar on 02/28/2007 04:38 pm
Post by: STS Tony on 02/28/2007 04:41 pm
Post by: DaveS on 02/28/2007 04:57 pm
Quote
STS Tony - 28/2/2007 6:41 PMYou mean Crawlers. The MLPs(Mobile Launcher Platforms) are just the mobile platforms on which the "stack" is mounted on.
So just to round up. Which MLP is on the way to pick up Atlantis and is there another MLP outside 39B?
The one that used to be waiting outside 39B to pick-up MLP-1 used for the STS-116/12A.1 launch has been relocated to outside 39A to pick-up MLP-2 with Atlantis.
Post by: gbiguy on 02/28/2007 05:32 pm
I know how to read. The area in question is on the right front of the tank, just in front of the wing. TJL was speaking of the area on the botton rear of the tank. Two different things. Yes, the bird was real. There were 3 of us photographing the same bird.
James
Post by: Davie OPF on 02/28/2007 05:38 pm
Quote
gbiguy - 28/2/2007 12:32 PM
Dave,
I know how to read. The area in question is on the right front of the tank, just in front of the wing. TJL was speaking of the area on the botton rear of the tank. Two different things.
James
As mentioned, there will be no repairs at the pad, period.
Post by: jmjawors on 02/28/2007 05:41 pm
Quote
gbiguy - 28/2/2007 12:32 PM
Dave,
I know how to read. The area in question is on the right front of the tank, just in front of the wing. TJL was speaking of the area on the botton rear of the tank. Two different things. Yes, the bird was real. There were 3 of us photographing the same bird.
James
I think you're referring to me. The only dings I saw were on the back, so I thought that was what you were referring to. Otherwise, I can only imagine that if Atlantis rolled out with the area in question that it must have been acceptable.
I figured that was the answer regarding the bird, I asked only because I remembered the other photo so I thought it wouldn't hurt. ;)
Post by: gbiguy on 02/28/2007 05:53 pm
James
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/28/2007 06:20 pm
Currently, all further evaluation - and thus work to repair - will proceed once the stack is back in the VAB. The main areas of concern are the top of the LOX tank, Atlantis' left wing (nothing serious) and the top of the SRBs (as per NASA report today).
Today is about getting the payload out, then disconnects ahead of rollout will proceed.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/28/2007 06:28 pm
STS117 / OV104 / PadA
S00024 hazardous operations and tank preps continue
Pad expected to be open mid to late 2nd shift tonight
Payload removal scheduled to begin 24:00 tonight
Post by: C5C6 on 02/28/2007 07:41 pm
Post by: DaveS on 02/28/2007 07:50 pm
Quote
C5C6 - 28/2/2007 9:41 PMThe entire ET is covered with Spray On Foam Insulation(SOFI). The main basic SOFI is robotically applied to the ET while anything that has geometric shape is shaped by hand(PAL ramps, bipod ramps etc).
small question: i read '7000 areas of foam damage'. Maybe i never knew, is the tank totally covered with foam? wikipedia says 'The ET thermal protection system consists of sprayed-on foam insulation...'. I thought the only foam were the pieces who fell from those orbiter-ET joints to columbia in STS-107
Post by: C5C6 on 02/28/2007 08:08 pm
Post by: shuttlepilot on 02/28/2007 08:08 pm
Post by: DaveS on 02/28/2007 08:15 pm
Quote
C5C6 - 28/2/2007 10:08 PMNo steel in the ET. Would be too heavy. The SLWT is made of a Aluminium-Lithium alloy(Al-Li).
so the damage is in this foam and not in the 'steel' structure? (I know nothing about materials)
And yes, the damage is in the foam only.
Post by: paulhbell07 on 02/28/2007 10:32 pm
Post by: ysl007 on 02/28/2007 11:14 pm
Post by: jmjawors on 02/28/2007 11:20 pm
Quote
ysl007 - 28/2/2007 6:14 PM
Just a question though , considering the damage done to the ET by these hails , will this ET be demated from Atlantis and replaced with a new one from MAF or they are gonna repair the damaged spots on it and go on ahead using the current ET ?
They are first going to try and assess the tank and see if it can be salvaged. The key, though, is that they need to get it inside so they have the proper access to inspect it.
Post by: jmjawors on 02/28/2007 11:21 pm
Quote
NASA officials have decided to remove propellants that were loaded this week on Space Shuttle Atlantis before returning the spacecraft to the Vehicle Assembly Building. This work results in additional time at the pad, and rollback is now expected to occur Sunday or Monday.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/28/2007 11:35 pm
I'll copy a couple of the images into here later, as they are the best images we've seen to date.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/01/2007 12:45 am
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/01/2007 04:00 am
Images to follow which will go with that article, taken as samples from the new presentations, downloadable on L2:
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/01/2007 04:00 am
Post by: Concorde on 03/01/2007 11:07 am
Quote
alan w - 28/2/2007 12:30 PMQuoteConcorde - 28/2/2007 3:52 AM
Jumping the gun a little but if we're talking late April/early May would this be a day or night launch ?
Yeah does any one know
To answer my own question, I have found an article from last year which suggested that if they wanted a daylight launch, then they would have to wait until the April 20 window.
Post by: shuttlefan on 03/01/2007 12:30 pm
Post by: voyager on 03/01/2007 12:30 pm
...THUNDERSTORM IMPACT...
GUSTY SOUTHEAST WINDS WILL TRANSPORT AN INCREASINGLY MOIST AND
MODERATELY UNSTABLE AIRMASS INTO CENTRAL FLORIDA TODAY. DAYTIME
HEATING ALONG WITH CONVERGING WINDS WILL LEAD TO DEVELOPMENT OF
SCATTERED SHOWERS AND THUNDERSTORMS OVER THE WESTERN AND INTERIOR
PORTION OF THE PENINSULA BY EARLY AFTERNOON. THE SHOWERS AND
STORMS WILL MOVE QUICKLY EAST AT 20 TO 25 MPH. A FEW OF THESE
STORMS MAY BECOME SEVERE AND PRODUCE DAMAGING WINDS GUSTS ABOVE
50 MPH...AN ISOLATED TORNADO...AND HAIL. LATER THIS AFTERNOON AND
EVENING...WIND SHEAR IN THE LOWER ATMOSPHERE WILL BE FURTHER
ENHANCED AND ANY STORMS WHICH FROM AT THIS TIME WILL HAVE A
MODERATE POTENTIAL TO ACQUIRE ROTATION AND BECOME SUPERCELLS.
SUPERCELLS OFTEN PRODUCE TORNADOES. PLAN AHEAD TODAY FOR THE
POSSIBILITY OF SEVERE WEATHER AND LISTEN FOR LATER STATEMENTS AND
POSSIBLE SEVERE WEATHER WATCHES OR WARNINGS. BE READY TO ACTIVATE
YOUR PLAN FOR MOVING QUICKLY TO A STRONG SHELTER IF IT BECOMES
NECESSARY. HAVE A NOAA WEATHER RADIO NEARBY.
Post by: DaveS on 03/01/2007 12:35 pm
Quote
shuttlefan - 1/3/2007 2:30 PMRollback is now Sunday or Monday as they have decided to offload the OMS/RCS propellants.
Chris, can you confirm that they've decided to rollback with the hypergolic propellants still onboard, therefore rollback would begin around midnight Saturday?
Post by: rdale on 03/01/2007 12:53 pm
Best bet is north of KSC associated with a monster storm system moving through the east half of the country...
Good news on rollback delay - I'm on the "Up Close" tour Monday!
Post by: mkirk on 03/01/2007 12:56 pm
Quote
DaveS - 1/3/2007 7:35 AM
Rollback is now Sunday or Monday as they have decided to offload the OMS/RCS propellants.
Where did you here that?
Last I heard they were going to adjust the OMS quatity today because it was slightly over serviced during loading. Rollout was still targeted for Saturday morning.
Mark Kirkman
Post by: DaveS on 03/01/2007 12:58 pm
Quote
mkirk - 1/3/2007 2:56 PMHere: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/main/index.html
Where did you here that?
"02.28.07 - 6:10 p.m. EST
NASA officials have decided to remove propellants that were loaded this week on Space Shuttle Atlantis before returning the spacecraft to the Vehicle Assembly Building. This work results in additional time at the pad, and rollback is now expected to occur Sunday or Monday."
Post by: mkirk on 03/01/2007 01:02 pm
Quote
DaveS - 1/3/2007 7:58 AMQuotemkirk - 1/3/2007 2:56 PMHere: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/main/index.html
Where did you here that?
"02.28.07 - 6:10 p.m. EST
NASA officials have decided to remove propellants that were loaded this week on Space Shuttle Atlantis before returning the spacecraft to the Vehicle Assembly Building. This work results in additional time at the pad, and rollback is now expected to occur Sunday or Monday."
Thanks, as you can see I have pretty much tunned out the public information stuff because it is usually not timely.
I can see needing the extra time, but I am still not convinced this is a full off-load. Like I said earlier I believe they are just adjusting the quantity - that is what I was briefed yesterday afternoon. I will check on this.
Mark Kirkman
Post by: joebacsi on 03/01/2007 02:05 pm
Post by: GLS on 03/01/2007 02:16 pm
Quote
Concorde - 1/3/2007 12:07 PMQuotealan w - 28/2/2007 12:30 PMQuoteConcorde - 28/2/2007 3:52 AM
Jumping the gun a little but if we're talking late April/early May would this be a day or night launch ?
Yeah does any one know
To answer my own question, I have found an article from last year which suggested that if they wanted a daylight launch, then they would have to wait until the April 20 window.
For an April 22 launch, I think it will be around 1905 GMT (1505 EDT) or so....
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/01/2007 02:39 pm
Hyper servicing complete
OMS quantity reduction in work
Post by: punkboi on 03/01/2007 04:04 pm
Post by: jmjawors on 03/01/2007 04:09 pm
Quote
punkboi - 1/3/2007 11:04 AM
Anyone know if the S3/S4 truss will be left in Atlantis' cargo bay...or remain in the RSS or be brought back to the SSPF to have its batteries recharged/replaced?
It will be removed from the payload bay and kept at the pad.
Post by: punkboi on 03/01/2007 04:16 pm
Quote
jmjawors - 1/3/2007 9:09 AMQuotepunkboi - 1/3/2007 11:04 AM Anyone know if the S3/S4 truss will be left in Atlantis' cargo bay...or remain in the RSS or be brought back to the SSPF to have its batteries recharged/replaced?It will be removed from the payload bay and kept at the pad.
Cool. Thanks
EDIT: Sorry... Someone can delete my previous post :bleh:
Post by: shuttlefan on 03/01/2007 04:51 pm
Quote
mkirk - 1/3/2007 8:02 AMQuoteDaveS - 1/3/2007 7:58 AMQuotemkirk - 1/3/2007 2:56 PMHere: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/main/index.html
Where did you here that?
"02.28.07 - 6:10 p.m. EST
NASA officials have decided to remove propellants that were loaded this week on Space Shuttle Atlantis before returning the spacecraft to the Vehicle Assembly Building. This work results in additional time at the pad, and rollback is now expected to occur Sunday or Monday."
Thanks, as you can see I have pretty much tunned out the public information stuff because it is usually not timely.
I can see needing the extra time, but I am still not convinced this is a full off-load. Like I said earlier I believe they are just adjusting the quantity - that is what I was briefed yesterday afternoon. I will check on this.
Mark Kirkman
I've understood all along here that they decided to fully-load the propellants and then that would be one less thing to do once they get back on the pad...
Sorry, I now have read that they will indeed remove the propellants and rollback has been reset for 7am Sunday. I stand corrected!! :cool:
Post by: anik on 03/01/2007 05:13 pm
These events can not be postponed, therefore it means that STS-117 launch is possible from the beginning of May only...
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/01/2007 06:35 pm
Hyper deservicing in work
Pad opening estimate 24:00 tonight
Payload removal to begin at triple balls 1 on Friday
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/01/2007 06:35 pm
Post by: Zoomer30 on 03/01/2007 06:55 pm
Post by: rdale on 03/01/2007 07:13 pm
It really isn't, if you watch the press conference the money issue was discussed and it has no impact on the budget...
Post by: mkirk on 03/01/2007 07:18 pm
Quote
shuttlefan - 1/3/2007 11:51 AMQuotemkirk - 1/3/2007 8:02 AMQuoteDaveS - 1/3/2007 7:58 AMQuotemkirk - 1/3/2007 2:56 PMHere: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/main/index.html
Where did you here that?
"02.28.07 - 6:10 p.m. EST
NASA officials have decided to remove propellants that were loaded this week on Space Shuttle Atlantis before returning the spacecraft to the Vehicle Assembly Building. This work results in additional time at the pad, and rollback is now expected to occur Sunday or Monday."
Thanks, as you can see I have pretty much tunned out the public information stuff because it is usually not timely.
I can see needing the extra time, but I am still not convinced this is a full off-load. Like I said earlier I believe they are just adjusting the quantity - that is what I was briefed yesterday afternoon. I will check on this.
Mark Kirkman
I've understood all along here that they decided to fully-load the propellants and then that would be one less thing to do once they get back on the pad...
Sorry, I now have read that they will indeed remove the propellants and rollback has been reset for 7am Sunday. I stand corrected!! :cool:
It looks like I was late to the party on this one!
I had been briefed yesterdy afternoon about a potential need to adjust quantity of OMS do to slight over servicing. I was also under the impression that everyone had signed off on any potential need for the OPF with OMS/RCS as is. Rollback was still set for Saturday at that time.
I was really amused/surprised that Dave S found out the correct info this morning from the Main NASA Shuttle News Page - that is the last place anyone would look for timely and acurate shuttle news.
Even the coda-phone from PAO, which is supposed to be the latest and greatest info (which it never is) for the media, wasn't updated until later in the morning.
Mark Kirkman
Post by: jmjawors on 03/01/2007 07:45 pm
Quote
mkirk - 1/3/2007 2:18 PM
I was really amused/surprised that Dave S found out the correct info this morning from the Main NASA Shuttle News Page - that is the last place anyone would look for timely and acurate shuttle news.
You may find it even more amusing that this was updated on nasa.gov last night and reported in this thread at that point.
I share your frustration with their website as a source of "news," but this time they were right on top of it.
*shrug*
Post by: alan w on 03/01/2007 10:38 pm
Quote
anik - 1/3/2007 12:13 PM
These events can not be postponed, therefore it means that STS-117 launch is possible from the beginning of May only...
is this really true, can anyone comment on this statement? thanks
Post by: ApolloLee on 03/01/2007 10:49 pm
Quote
Zoomer30 - 1/3/2007 11:55 AM
Makes me wish they had kept the "Mobile Service Structure" system they had in Apollo. Just enclose the whole stack, this is an expensive issue they have now.
Brings up the question of how an Ares I or Ares V rocket will be protected.
All the literature I've seen certainly has a launch tower on the MLP but I've seen nothing about a mobile or fixed service structure..... Will Ares just be open to the elements?
Post by: jmjawors on 03/01/2007 10:50 pm
Quote
alan w - 1/3/2007 5:38 PM
is this really true, can anyone comment on this statement? thanks
From what I have gathered in the past, Anik works in high places and knows his stuff. His info is currently at odds with the newest NET date, but remember that an April launch is by no means guaranteed even from a processing and repair standpoint.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/01/2007 11:10 pm
Quote
alan w - 1/3/2007 11:38 PMQuoteanik - 1/3/2007 12:13 PM
These events can not be postponed, therefore it means that STS-117 launch is possible from the beginning of May only...
is this really true, can anyone comment on this statement? thanks
If that's what he says, then that will be true. We'll have to see how this pans out, but remember, NET April 22 is very much a No Earlier Than date.
Post by: mkirk on 03/01/2007 11:16 pm
The hypergolic deservicing is NOT a complete off load of ALL of the hypergolic propellant. They are just taking off a significant portion of the OMS propellant (i.e. OMS Quantity Adjustment). This is a lot more propellant than I thought at first and it is due to a Safety Requirement for the OPF and not because of the slight overload that occurred on the OMS fuel earlier this week as I indicated earlier in the thread.
The RCS will not be deserviced. A couple of news organizations have said the APUs will be deserviced before rollback to the VAB – that should go pretty quickly since they were never loaded this week in the first place. ;)
Payload removal is tomorrow morning and Rollback is early Sunday.
Initial processing plans are targeting Rollout to the Pad on March 31 with launch on April 23. Obviously April 23 is written in sand and may change after further assessment of the hail damage or negotiations with the International Partners.
That is the situation as I know it, if someone has more accurate info feel free to correct me.
Mark Kirkman
Post by: jmjawors on 03/01/2007 11:24 pm
Post by: Lee Jay on 03/01/2007 11:45 pm
Quote
mkirk - 1/3/2007 5:16 PMThe OPF? Are you (the collective "you") still worried that the orbiter will have to be demated and returned to the OPF? Or am I just missing something obvious...
The hypergolic deservicing is NOT a complete off load of ALL of the hypergolic propellant. They are just taking off a significant portion of the OMS propellant (i.e. OMS Quantity Adjustment). This is a lot more propellant than I thought at first and it is due to a Safety Requirement for the OPF and not because of the slight overload that occurred on the OMS fuel earlier this week as I indicated earlier in the thread.
Lee Jay
Post by: jmjawors on 03/01/2007 11:53 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 1/3/2007 6:45 PM
The OPF? Are you (the collective "you") still worried that the orbiter will have to be demated and returned to the OPF? Or am I just missing something obvious...
Lee Jay
EDIT :: Oops... totally misread the question. Nevermind.
Post by: mkirk on 03/01/2007 11:53 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 1/3/2007 6:45 PMQuotemkirk - 1/3/2007 5:16 PMThe OPF? Are you (the collective "you") still worried that the orbiter will have to be demated and returned to the OPF? Or am I just missing something obvious...
The hypergolic deservicing is NOT a complete off load of ALL of the hypergolic propellant. They are just taking off a significant portion of the OMS propellant (i.e. OMS Quantity Adjustment). This is a lot more propellant than I thought at first and it is due to a Safety Requirement for the OPF and not because of the slight overload that occurred on the OMS fuel earlier this week as I indicated earlier in the thread.
Lee Jay
There is no plan for the OPF at this point, this is just a precaution in case the OPF comes into play after further assessments.
Mark Kirkman
Post by: Lee Jay on 03/01/2007 11:59 pm
Quote
mkirk - 1/3/2007 5:53 PM
There is no plan for the OPF at this point, this is just a precaution in case the OPF comes into play after further assessments.
Mark Kirkman
Ah...thanks Mark!
Lee Jay
Post by: shuttlefan on 03/02/2007 12:51 am
Post by: Lee Jay on 03/02/2007 01:07 am
Lee Jay
Post by: rdale on 03/02/2007 02:01 am
Quote
shuttlefan - 1/3/2007 8:51 PM
Is it just dumb luck all these years that a tornado hasn't hit the pad and destroyed the Shuttle?
No. Most tornadoes are 50-100 feet wide. Florida rarely gets tornadoes. Put those two things together, and odds of a tornado hitting a pad with a shuttle on it are not computable...
Post by: MKremer on 03/02/2007 02:12 am
Quote
shuttlefan - 1/3/2007 7:51 PM
I read that Brevard County is under a Tornado Watch. Is it just dumb luck all these years that a tornado hasn't hit the pad and destroyed the Shuttle? Also, if a tornado were to hit it, would the SRBs explode because they are already loaded with solid fuel?
Not "dumb luck", but just the rarity of that type of thunderstorm at the Cape (also note that in the past almost-50 years there hasn't been that type of "violent, quick-storm" that has resulted in major damages to either NASA or Pentagon LVs, or the support/fueling structures around them.)
Even if an SRB were to hypothetically be somehow ignited from a severe thunderstorm, it would not "explode" at all.
Worst case would be that some of the propellent would start to burn, and there are more than a couple of contigency operations in that case, both for Shuttle and other LVs that use solid boosters.
Post by: Austin on 03/02/2007 03:05 am
Quote
MKremer - 1/3/2007 7:12 PMQuoteshuttlefan - 1/3/2007 7:51 PM
I read that Brevard County is under a Tornado Watch. Is it just dumb luck all these years that a tornado hasn't hit the pad and destroyed the Shuttle? Also, if a tornado were to hit it, would the SRBs explode because they are already loaded with solid fuel?
Not "dumb luck", but just the rarity of that type of thunderstorm at the Cape (also note that in the past almost-50 years there hasn't been that type of "violent, quick-storm" that has resulted in major damages to either NASA or Pentagon LVs, or the support/fueling structures around them.)
Even if an SRB were to hypothetically be somehow ignited from a severe thunderstorm, it would not "explode" at all.
Worst case would be that some of the propellent would start to burn, and there are more than a couple of contigency operations in that case, both for Shuttle and other LVs that use solid boosters.
The SRB casings are pretty darn tough -- the chance of one (or both) of them exploding would be extremely remote.
LO2 and LH2 in the ET is a different story -- much riskier. But then tanking begins hours before launch and there are, of course, stringent weather guidelines concerning this.
Post by: Jim on 03/02/2007 04:05 am
Quote
ApolloLee - 1/3/2007 6:49 PMQuoteZoomer30 - 1/3/2007 11:55 AM
Makes me wish they had kept the "Mobile Service Structure" system they had in Apollo. Just enclose the whole stack, this is an expensive issue they have now.
Brings up the question of how an Ares I or Ares V rocket will be protected.
All the literature I've seen certainly has a launch tower on the MLP but I've seen nothing about a mobile or fixed service structure..... Will Ares just be open to the elements?
The MSS only covered the Apollo spacecraft. It the Saturn V had foam like the ET, it would have still been damaged while in the MSS. But it might not have mattered, only the shuttle worries about ice and not ELV's.
Ares will be out in the open. Short time at pad (less than a week) is its protections
Post by: C5C6 on 03/02/2007 11:23 am
here comes the crawler...or it's been waiting for some time and i didn't notice?
![]("http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/6255/chan3largees7.jpg")
Post by: DaveS on 03/02/2007 11:27 am
Quote
C5C6 - 2/3/2007 1:23 PMThe Crawler has been there ever since Wednesday when it was moved from 39B.
here comes the crawler...
Post by: rdale on 03/02/2007 11:30 am
Post by: SimonFD on 03/02/2007 12:06 pm
Quote
MKremer - 1/3/2007 7:12 PM
IWorst case would be that some of the propellent would start to burn, and there are more than a couple of contigency operations in that case, both for Shuttle and other LVs that use solid boosters.
What contingency ops are there in case of accidental SRB ignition? I though once they were going that was that for two minutes or so!
You'll have to excuse me i'm new here :)
Post by: nathan.moeller on 03/02/2007 12:30 pm
Quote
SimonFD - 2/3/2007 7:06 AMQuoteMKremer - 1/3/2007 7:12 PM
IWorst case would be that some of the propellent would start to burn, and there are more than a couple of contigency operations in that case, both for Shuttle and other LVs that use solid boosters.
What contingency ops are there in case of accidental SRB ignition? I though once they were going that was that for two minutes or so!
You'll have to excuse me i'm new here :)
Welcome to the site Simon. Probably better for the Shuttle Q&A section in the general discussion forum. ;) But SRBs have self-destruct charges that can be detonated by the RSO (Range Safety Officer). The only time that has happened was STS-51L (Challenger Accident). The boosters were destroyed about 37 seconds after the disintegration of Challenger and the ET.
EDIT: Yes, the vehicle would be destroyed completely. I'm not sure of the consequences for the FSS/RSS but they wouldn't be good. The other concern for any SRB ignition is whether or not the hold down bolts will let go or not. There's a big discussion on that as well. Very interesting stuff!
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/02/2007 12:31 pm
Quote
SimonFD - 2/3/2007 1:06 PM
What contingency ops are there in case of accidental SRB ignition? I though once they were going that was that for two minutes or so!
You'll have to excuse me i'm new here :)
Welcome to the site :)
Undesired SRB ingition is bad, period. That has LOV (Loss of Vehicle) written all over it.
The worst situation is at launch, if only one lights. Hugely unlikely, but (and a good place to check) on Shuttle Q and A this is discussed.
Post by: charlieb on 03/02/2007 01:21 pm
Post by: kevin-rf on 03/02/2007 02:07 pm
Quote
nathan.moeller - 2/3/2007 7:30 AMQuoteSimonFD - 2/3/2007 7:06 AM
What contingency ops are there in case of accidental SRB ignition? I though once they were going that was that for two minutes or so!
You'll have to excuse me i'm new here :)
Welcome to the site Simon. Probably better for the Shuttle Q&A section in the general discussion forum. ;) But SRBs have self-destruct charges that can be detonated by the RSO (Range Safety Officer). The only time that has happened was STS-51L (Challenger Accident). The boosters were destroyed about 37 seconds after the disintegration of Challenger and the ET.
There is always an RSO sitting with his finger on the switch? I think if an SRB was ignited outside of a normal countdown (thunder boomer moves through and strikes the booster instead of the lightening supression system) there would be no one to throw the switch. I sure one of NASA's biggest fears is a SRB lighting inside the VAB. It would be a curtain call for the Shuttle,Ares I, and Ares V. One only has to look at what happened on the pad in brazil a few years back to get an idea of how bad it would be.
Post by: nathan.moeller on 03/02/2007 02:59 pm
Quote
kevin-rf - 2/3/2007 9:07 AMQuotenathan.moeller - 2/3/2007 7:30 AMQuoteSimonFD - 2/3/2007 7:06 AM
What contingency ops are there in case of accidental SRB ignition? I though once they were going that was that for two minutes or so!
You'll have to excuse me i'm new here :)
Welcome to the site Simon. Probably better for the Shuttle Q&A section in the general discussion forum. ;) But SRBs have self-destruct charges that can be detonated by the RSO (Range Safety Officer). The only time that has happened was STS-51L (Challenger Accident). The boosters were destroyed about 37 seconds after the disintegration of Challenger and the ET.
There is always an RSO sitting with his finger on the switch? I think if an SRB was ignited outside of a normal countdown (thunder boomer moves through and strikes the booster instead of the lightening supression system) there would be no one to throw the switch. I sure one of NASA's biggest fears is a SRB lighting inside the VAB. It would be a curtain call for the Shuttle,Ares I, and Ares V. One only has to look at what happened on the pad in brazil a few years back to get an idea of how bad it would be.
I was actually thinking about accidental ignition during the countdown. As for any other time, I have no idea :) Just pray it goes up and away into the Atlantic. Yeah, ignition in the VAB mean NASA is done with any launch operations for several years.
Post by: voyager on 03/02/2007 04:06 pm
This will give you an idea as to how intensive the repairs can be and why these repairs are not performed at the pad.
Post by: rdale on 03/02/2007 04:12 pm
Quote
kevin-rf - 2/3/2007 10:07 AM
I sure one of NASA's biggest fears is a SRB lighting inside the VAB.
I am even more certain that such an event is WAY WAY WAY, WAY down on the NASA Fear List...
Post by: STS-500Cmdr on 03/02/2007 05:52 pm
Post by: publiusr on 03/02/2007 06:52 pm
Quote
MKremer - 1/3/2007 9:12 PMQuoteshuttlefan - 1/3/2007 7:51 PM
I read that Brevard County is under a Tornado Watch.
Not "dumb luck", but just the rarity of that type of thunderstorm at the Cape (also note that in the past almost-50 years there hasn't been that type of "violent, quick-storm" that has resulted in major damages to either NASA or Pentagon LVs, or the support/fueling structures around them.)
Also, many Florida tornadoes are little more than Waterspouts/Landspouts, though an occasional larger vortex like what struck Florida recently can occur as well.
The current system moving through may produce more hail. This was the system that destroyed the High School in Enterprise, Alabama...my home state:
http://attackmachine.proboards56.com/index.cgi?board=onair&action=display&thread=1172846755
I've seen what a tornado can do to a large school, having assisted with the survey of the Oak Grove tornado from 1998...so luck can have something to do with high value 'targets.'
I seem to remember a waterspout photographed behind a shuttle stack from a couple of years ago IIRC.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/02/2007 08:02 pm
Quote
voyager - 2/3/2007 5:06 PM
Not to change the subject of SRB's but ran across some historical images of the last rollback of STS-96.
This will give you an idea as to how intensive the repairs can be and why these repairs are not performed at the pad.
Wonderful images.
Reminds me of the image of platform access used to changeout the LOX vent and relief valve on ET-119.
Post by: psloss on 03/02/2007 09:55 pm
http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm
I've attached a medium res picture of the top of that tank from a perspective that should look familiar; this link references that particular image:
http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=3336
Post by: jmjawors on 03/02/2007 11:24 pm
Quote
anik - 1/3/2007 12:13 PM
According to current plan, there will be Soyuz TMA-10 relocation from Zvezda module to Zarya module on April 27 and possible ISS orbit's raisings by Zvezda's engines for preparation to STS-117 and Progress M-60...
These events can not be postponed, therefore it means that STS-117 launch is possible from the beginning of May only...
On NASA.gov today:
Quote
A planned altitude reboost for the space station on Friday was cancelled and rescheduled for later this month. With the launch of the STS-117 shuttle mission delayed until no earlier than late April, Russian flight controllers now plan on two separate reboosts for the station.
The first reboost, now planned for around March 16, will position the station for the launch of the Expedition 15 crew and U.S. businessman Charles Simonyi on the Soyuz TMA-10 craft from the Baikonur Cosmodrome on April 7.
A second reboost on March 28 improves rendezvous opportunities for Atlantis’ flight and brings the station into the correct trajectory for the returning Soyuz craft to land in Kazakhstan on April 19 with Expedition 14 Commander Mike Lopez-Alegria, Flight Engineer Mikhail Tyurin and Simonyi.
Two issues here, the reboost and the relocation. But so far NASA does not seem to be addressing the "Soyuz relocation" aspect of all this. At least not on the website.
Post by: DaveS on 03/02/2007 11:50 pm
Quote
jmjawors - 3/3/2007 1:24 AMThey probably have nothing new to report at this time on this. They're probably still talking about it. I don't see any reason why it couldn't be postponed.
Two issues here, the reboost and the relocation. But so far NASA does not seem to be addressing the "Soyuz relocation" aspect of all this. At least not on the website.
I think that the Russians have gotten a little bit too comfortable with slack in the ISS schedule during the downtime between STS-107/STS-114 and STS-114/STS-121.
Now the shuttle is back and it's time to get used to the fact that assembly has restarted and there's no more slack in the schedule.
Post by: Michael22090 on 03/03/2007 01:03 am
Post by: nathan.moeller on 03/03/2007 02:09 am
Quote
Michael22090 - 2/3/2007 8:03 PM
I notice that the NASA TV schedule does not list the rollback. Does anyone know if it will be shown? I would like to see at least part of it...
Probably not. We usually stick to screen caps from the NASA webcams on here to give coverage. It's not a heck of an event to keep up with on here but at least we can track it. The most exciting rollout/rollback event we've seen was the STS-115 rollback reversal back in August. Big excitement there but we know that isn't going to happen this time around. We can expect at least 26 days in the VAB.
Post by: anik on 03/03/2007 06:24 am
Quote
DaveS - 3/3/2007 3:50 AM
I don't see any reason why it couldn't be postponed.
I think that the Russians have gotten a little bit too comfortable with slack in the ISS schedule during the downtime between STS-107/STS-114 and STS-114/STS-121.
Now the shuttle is back and it's time to get used to the fact that assembly has restarted and there's no more slack in the schedule
I will answer to the first sentence only and ignore other two...
There will be two spacecrafts on ISS after Soyuz TMA-9 landing: Progress M-59 - on Pirs module and Soyuz TMA-10 - on Zvezda module... Progress M-59 is unprofitable for performing maneuvers of changing ISS orbit... The using of Soyuz TMA-10 engines for such purposes is dangerously...
"If" Space Shuttle will enter very low orbit then, according to agreement between Russian and U.S. specialists, ISS must lower orbit by approximately 100 kilometres... In this situation we can perform such maneuver with using Zvezda's engines only... Therefore Soyuz TMA-10 must be relocated from Zvezda module to Zarya module prior to STS-117 launch...
I am not a specialist, but this information was gotten from my sources... If it is not true, then I am sorry...
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/03/2007 11:31 am
STS 117 / OV 104 / Pad A
Orbiter powered down
Next power up scheduled for Saturday 09:00
S00024 post ops in work
Payload bay doors open for payload transfer
S00038 in work
RSS retract scheduled for 01:00 Sunday
85217 call to stations is 03:00 Sunday
First motion 07:00 Sunday
Post by: nathan.moeller on 03/03/2007 06:45 pm
Quote
anik - 3/3/2007 1:24 AM
I will answer to the first sentence only and ignore other two...
There will be two spacecrafts on ISS after Soyuz TMA-9 landing: Progress M-59 - on Pirs module and Soyuz TMA-10 - on Zvezda module... Progress M-59 is unprofitable for performing maneuvers of changing ISS orbit... The using of Soyuz TMA-10 engines for such purposes is dangerously...
"If" Space Shuttle will enter very low orbit then, according to agreement between Russian and U.S. specialists, ISS must lower orbit by approximately 100 kilometres... In this situation we can perform such maneuver with using Zvezda's engines only... Therefore Soyuz TMA-10 must be relocated from Zvezda module to Zarya module prior to STS-117 launch...
I am not a specialist, but this information was gotten from my sources... If it is not true, then I am sorry...
Bravo. Anik, I'm not sure if you can answer this one, but you seem to know more about Russian operations than most others on the site. The situation concerning the STS-118 delay and Suni Williams' return seems very open-ended at this point. It seems her stay will be extended indefinitely, as she cannot return on the upcoming Soyuz flight. STS-117 is delayed to April for sure, and it doesn't seem feasible to place Clayton Anderson on that crew and swap Williams out at that point (I could be wrong). With no flights between STS-117 and STS-118, it seems she must stay an extra two months. Are there any other return options available for her at this point?
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/03/2007 07:56 pm