Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/14/2007 12:39 pm
Post by: Avron on 06/14/2007 12:58 pm
Post by: psloss on 06/14/2007 01:02 pm
Bill Harwood also posted an update:
http://www.cbsnews.com/network/news/space/current.html
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/14/2007 01:03 pm
Quote
Avron - 14/6/2007 1:58 PM
Any news overnight i.r.t. russian computers?
L2 - and that is the latest.
Also another false fire alarm about an hour ago.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/14/2007 01:18 pm
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/14/2007 01:36 pm
Post by: Speedracer on 06/14/2007 01:36 pm
What exactly is going on? How serious is it compared to the media hype?
Post by: DaveS on 06/14/2007 01:36 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 14/6/2007 3:36 PMThis is of course a replay from earlier today.
From Holly Ridings, ISS Flight Director, lots of good progress on getting the Russian computers back to operation. Still clean up steps to do, root cause analysis, re-powering of Soyuz to ISS power, and other steps to complete.
Post by: hancider on 06/14/2007 01:49 pm
Post by: Gary on 06/14/2007 01:49 pm
Quote
Speedracer - 14/6/2007 2:36 PM
According to CNN, Reuters, and several other outlets, this may be a big day trying to get computers back up and running or else abandon the station... ;)
What exactly is going on? How serious is it compared to the media hype?
Ahh media :laugh:
The computers are up and running but Russian ground control only has one communications path open and not three.
The big question is what caused them to all crash?
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/14/2007 01:55 pm
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/14/2007 01:55 pm
Quote
DaveS - 14/6/2007 7:36 AMQuoteLee Jay - 14/6/2007 3:36 PMThis is of course a replay from earlier today.
From Holly Ridings, ISS Flight Director, lots of good progress on getting the Russian computers back to operation. Still clean up steps to do, root cause analysis, re-powering of Soyuz to ISS power, and other steps to complete.
But it wasn't in this thread yet (well, that I saw), and I think it should be since it's one of the main issues from yesterday.
Anyway, glad they're starting to get on top of it. Hopefully there will be no more negative surprises from this group of systems.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/14/2007 01:56 pm
Quote
hancider - 14/6/2007 2:49 PM
Hi guys thanks for the great coverage but can anyone tell me what the status is of the P6 retract as far as bays still deployed and also if they have the SARJ rolling yet on S4. I would really appreciate it. Thanks.
Last we heard it was down to 18 bays to go (which allows SARJ rotation). There are notes that some retraction was done a number of hours ago, but we'll confirm status as we go.
Post by: Chandonn on 06/14/2007 02:03 pm
Quote
Gary - 14/6/2007 9:49 AM
The big question is what caused them to all crash?
Maybe they're still running Windows ME?
Post by: Spiff on 06/14/2007 02:07 pm
Post by: JimO on 06/14/2007 02:08 pm
This is not a 'normal' problem and deserves the attention it is getting (as opposed to the thermal blanket
Photo of the boxes here:
http://www.dlr.de/rd/fachprog/raumstation/ESAProjekte/dmsr.jpg
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/14/2007 02:11 pm
Post by: shuttlefan on 06/14/2007 02:15 pm
Post by: bsegal on 06/14/2007 02:15 pm
Post by: whitewatcher on 06/14/2007 02:19 pm
Afaik, DMS-R consists of the CPC (Control Post Computer) and FTC (Fault Tolerant Computer). Which one is the source of trouble?
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 06/14/2007 02:22 pm
Quote
psloss - 14/6/2007 6:02 AM
I posted a couple of messages at the end of the FD6 thread relaying status, but not at home anymore, so I can't follow space-to-ground.
Bill Harwood also posted an update:
http://www.cbsnews.com/network/news/space/current.html
Great stuff psloss! Thanks, I managed to fall asleep. :(
It will be interesting to see what develops but I am fairly upbeat on the possible recovery.
Post by: rosbif73 on 06/14/2007 02:23 pm
Quote
Good Morning Atlantis!
Incredible day yesterday with EVA2 and the 2B retract. We will continue with the 2B retract
today as well as prepare for the revised EVA3, which includes the OMS pod blanket repair.
Keep up the great work!
Post by: shuttlefan on 06/14/2007 02:24 pm
Quote
bsegal - 14/6/2007 9:15 AM
Right - normally the reboot is automatic, but that didn't happen this time. This appears to be the first time that the ISS has (had) been without any lanes for a significant period ot time. Sounds like from the commentary this AM that they've recovered one lane overnight, are continuing to troubleshoot, and have asked shuttle to preserve some power to preserve the option of staying an additional day. Russian controllers last night were speculating the problem related to how the power from the new arrays was being routed to ISS - guess something akin to spoiled milk. Managers continued to express optimism that it would all get worked out, but they had to admit the option - however slim at this point - that if they couldn't get it figured out, abandoning the ISS was an option on the table.
How many of you out there would say this is the most serious problem the ISS has encountered thusfar?
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/14/2007 02:25 pm
Post by: whitewatcher on 06/14/2007 02:28 pm
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 14/6/2007 4:22 PM
It will be interesting to see what develops but I am fairly upbeat on the possible recovery.
I would say it depends .... S/W or H/W faulty?
S/W: Upload a previous, well tested version or similar solution.
H/W: Workaround by S/W or R&R or manual repair.
If H/W is the source of trouble and R&R is required, they'll probably have to abandon the station.
If they are not able to trace down the source, they'll have to abandon, too.
Lack of redundancy .... CMGs are no standalone systems by design.
Post by: YesRushGen on 06/14/2007 02:33 pm
Quote
bsegal - 14/6/2007 10:15 AM
...Managers continued to express optimism that it would all get worked out, but they had to admit the option - however slim at this point - that if they couldn't get it figured out, abandoning the ISS was an option on the table.
Under this scenario, does "abondon" imply permanent abondonment? Or would this be temporary, to allow time to work the problem from the ground without endangering a crew?
Post by: marsavian on 06/14/2007 02:33 pm
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 06/14/2007 02:37 pm
Quote
hancider - 14/6/2007 6:49 AM
Hi guys thanks for the great coverage but can anyone tell me what the status is of the P6 retract as far as bays still deployed and also if they have the SARJ rolling yet on S4. I would really appreciate it. Thanks.
As Chris said 18-18 1/2 still out but SARJ could roll with that. Except that there is a problem with the DLAs. There is either a hardware or software cross connect that is causing commands to DLA2 to activate DLA1. At this time it is unknown if commands to DLA1 are affecting DLA2. All launch locks have been removed and all but one (?) of the launch restraints have been released. There is also some question on whether DLA2 is properly installed due to the above cross connect.
Anyone got corrections to that? :D
Post by: rosbif73 on 06/14/2007 02:38 pm
Quote
marsavian - 14/6/2007 4:33 PM
Seems to me that after/if this is sorted, backup to the Russian computers are needed in the long-term as this looks a weak spot in the software systems. Dreadful to think the ISS is relying on 3 windows PCs for its continued existence !
Not Windows PCs but a fault-tolerant system provided by ESA (as mentioned earlier in this thread by JimO) and running software developed by RSC Energia. See for example http://www.esa.int/esapub/bulletin/bullet93/GRAF.pdf
Post by: whitewatcher on 06/14/2007 02:38 pm
Quote
Under this scenario, does "abondon" imply permanent abondonment? Or would this be temporary, to allow time to work the problem from the ground without endangering a crew?
Depends on the demage. There are delicate systems installed on the station and the attitude control indirectly manages their exposure to sunlight (=radiation&heat).
Maybe 2-3 astronauts use the docked sojus as a lifeboat for a few days to give ground engineers more time.
Post by: Chandonn on 06/14/2007 02:39 pm
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 06/14/2007 02:41 pm
Quote
whitewatcher - 14/6/2007 7:38 AMQuoteUnder this scenario, does "abondon" imply permanent abondonment? Or would this be temporary, to allow time to work the problem from the ground without endangering a crew?
Depends on the demage. There are delicate systems installed on the station and the attitude control indirectly manages their exposure to sunlight (=radiation&heat).
Maybe 2-3 astronauts use the docked sojus as a lifeboat for a few days to give ground engineers more time.
They have two Progress and one Soyus docked, could these provide some short term attitude control?
Post by: Avron on 06/14/2007 02:42 pm
Post by: DaveS on 06/14/2007 02:43 pm
Quote
Chandonn - 14/6/2007 4:39 PMThat was just due to miscalculations on the Russians part as they failed to realize that the cg of the station had changed. Once that was fixed, the brun went nominal.
As previously mentioned, the best course of action is to see what's changed: ie S3/4. As I recall, there was an issue of an aborted Progess reboost after the addition of P3/4.
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 06/14/2007 02:45 pm
Quote
DaveS - 14/6/2007 7:43 AM
the brun went nominal.
LOL with all this computer chat I'm thinking brun... brun? are they using assembly language? Oh
burn LOL
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/14/2007 02:46 pm
Post by: Chandonn on 06/14/2007 02:46 pm
Quote
DaveS - 14/6/2007 10:43 AMQuoteChandonn - 14/6/2007 4:39 PMThat was just due to miscalculations on the Russians part as they failed to realize that the cg of the station had changed. Once that was fixed, the brun went nominal.
As previously mentioned, the best course of action is to see what's changed: ie S3/4. As I recall, there was an issue of an aborted Progess reboost after the addition of P3/4.
exactly. I'm just commenting that it's a similar type of problem, not the same problem. ie, most likely, something's been missed on the S3/4 addition, or not been accounted for fully.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/14/2007 02:48 pm
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/14/2007 02:54 pm
Post by: bsegal on 06/14/2007 03:00 pm
Post by: Joffan on 06/14/2007 03:01 pm
Post by: Jorge on 06/14/2007 03:10 pm
Quote
Joffan - 14/6/2007 10:01 AM
Would restowing and removing S3/4, flying it down or jettisoning, be a remote contingency?
Not just no, but "hell no". At most they will disconnect the power coming from it.
Quote
Or is that basically the same as abandoning further development on the ISS?
Yes. Without the additional power provided by S3/S4, the Japanese and European labs cannot be powered, therefore it would be pointless to launch them.
Post by: whitewatcher on 06/14/2007 03:11 pm
Quote
Joffan - 14/6/2007 5:01 PM
Would restowing and removing S3/4, flying it down or jettisoning, be a remote contingency? Or is that basically the same as abandoning further development on the ISS?
No S3/4 = 50% power in the american segment = not enough power for Columbus and Kibo = at least a large delay = probably ESA and JAXA giving up their ISS programmes
Post by: bsegal on 06/14/2007 03:21 pm
2:30 for OMS Pod repair work by Olivas. Reilly assisting in setup/cleanup for first and last 30 minutes.
While Olivas does the OMS pod work, Reilly to spend 1:30 on H2O/H2 Vent Valve R&R.
When both of those tasks are done, 3 hours scheduled for 2B retract activities for both.
Time permitting, additional tasks are listed as SARJ launch restraint removals for 1 hr, S3 drag link/keel pin stow for 1 hr, and S3/S4 closeout for 50 minutes.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/14/2007 03:36 pm
Quote
Speedracer - 14/6/2007 2:36 PM
According to CNN, Reuters, and several other outlets, this may be a big day trying to get computers back up and running or else abandon the station... ;)
What exactly is going on? How serious is it compared to the media hype?
I would urge caution when reading such reports (and I know you'll know to do so anyway).
They'll solve this problem. The Russians appear very confident they'll get it licked.
Post by: rcaron on 06/14/2007 03:42 pm
I always have had a soft spot for station hardware that never flies (I believe there's a spare FGB too), so best I could gather the ICM is complete and in storage near D.C. That sure would be handy on a day like today.
Post by: DaveS on 06/14/2007 03:44 pm
Quote
rcaron - 14/6/2007 5:42 PMFGB-2 has been redesignated the Multi-purpose Laboratory Module(MLM).
(I believe there's a spare FGB too),.
Post by: DaveS on 06/14/2007 03:47 pm
Post by: ApolloLee on 06/14/2007 04:04 pm
Quote
Speedracer - 14/6/2007 6:36 AM
According to CNN, Reuters, and several other outlets, this may be a big day trying to get computers back up and running or else abandon the station... ;)
What exactly is going on? How serious is it compared to the media hype?
Well, frankly, it was being hyped up in the Day 6 live update as well so don't just blame the media (which sparked my terse reply in the day 6 thread)
As for getting the computers back up...... Yippie but they should never try installing Vista again.
Post by: ApolloLee on 06/14/2007 04:06 pm
Quote
Spiff - 14/6/2007 7:07 AM
I would expect Russian computers to boot in Russian. So I would think not.
So they were just running Tetris then?
Post by: Chandonn on 06/14/2007 04:08 pm
Quote
ApolloLee - 14/6/2007 12:04 PM
Yippie but they should never try installing Vista again.
Quick OT from a guy who sells computers: Actually, Vista's problems are usually related to 3rd party venders and services not being fully ready for the new OS.
In this case it would mean S3/4 needs Vista-compatable drivers. :laugh:
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/14/2007 04:09 pm
Post by: ApolloLee on 06/14/2007 04:12 pm
Might they now consider sending up a back-up system before the shuttles retire?
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 06/14/2007 04:18 pm
Post by: whitewatcher on 06/14/2007 04:19 pm
Quote
ApolloLee - 14/6/2007 6:12 PM
Might they now consider sending up a back-up system before the shuttles retire?
No, I guess a (maybe slightly modified) ATV docked to Node2 could do the job AND provide additional storage volume.
That's what the ATV platform has been developed for.
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 06/14/2007 04:20 pm
Quote
ApolloLee - 14/6/2007 9:12 AM
OK... to join in with the doom and gloomers...... If this computer failure were to happen without Atlantis docked, what would have happened?
Might they now consider sending up a back-up system before the shuttles retire?
CMGs could maintain attitude for some period of time prior to requiring attitude burns. Probably sufficent time to recover computers again. It is worth noting that it is unlikely to be a problem with the computers themselves as it is unlikely to have six, three each in two seperate systems, fail. It is much more likely to be a network/communications bus problem. How robust these are and how vuneralable to dirty power or data they are is open to question.
Post by: kneecaps on 06/14/2007 04:25 pm
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/14/2007 04:25 pm
Quote
whitewatcher - 14/6/2007 10:19 AMQuoteApolloLee - 14/6/2007 6:12 PM
Might they now consider sending up a back-up system before the shuttles retire?
No, I guess a (maybe slightly modified) ATV docked to Node2 could do the job AND provide additional storage volume.
That's what the ATV platform has been developed for.
Can the ATV actually provide attitude control? From where would it get its commands?
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/14/2007 04:27 pm
Post by: whitewatcher on 06/14/2007 04:27 pm
They say it doesn't fit into the schedule, but I've heard rumors that they cannot deliver it to Kourou by plane. It was designed to be transported by ship and that's what they'll do. But it takes longer. There are some other rumors around.....
Maybe this indicates a delay in the shuttle schedule, too, because NASA is not to enthusiastic to launch an IP's module which the IP cannot supply.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/14/2007 04:28 pm
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/14/2007 04:30 pm
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/14/2007 04:30 pm
Post by: whitewatcher on 06/14/2007 04:31 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 14/6/2007 6:25 PM
Can the ATV actually provide attitude control? From where would it get its commands?
Not in the current dversion, but it was designed as a flexible platform. Deriving an attitude-control-system from the current design should be no problem:
Needs a different berthing port and probably different attitude thrusters. Maybe they want to use higher quality EEE parts, too, for longer docking time.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/14/2007 04:33 pm
Post by: Bret on 06/14/2007 04:34 pm
A few questions from the execute package:
1. They reference at least five medical staplers. Just how many are onboard? How many medical staplers could you need for normal operations?
2. Do they have the dental tool onboard for dental work or just because it is a handy all-purpose tool?
3. From the transfer notes: “… due to mission extension, you’ll be swapping your used LiOH with 3 new cans from ISS (used LiOH is being left on ISS because there is no Middeck room to return it).” -- Really? How big are those canisters? I find it hard to believe that there is absolutely no room left in some locker somewhere on Atlantis??
Thanks to all for the great info and discussions.
Post by: Zachstar on 06/14/2007 04:34 pm
Retraction images of this run.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/14/2007 04:35 pm
Quote
Bret - 14/6/2007 5:34 PM
I really enjoyed reviewing the OMS pod blanket repairs in today's execute package – complete with pictures! Did it remind anyone else of the Apollo 13 CO2 scrubber modifications?
A few questions from the execute package:
1. They reference at least five medical staplers. Just how many are onboard? How many medical staplers could you need for normal operations?
2. Do they have the dental tool onboard for dental work or just because it is a handy all-purpose tool?
3. From the transfer notes: “… due to mission extension, you’ll be swapping your used LiOH with 3 new cans from ISS (used LiOH is being left on ISS because there is no Middeck room to return it).” -- Really? How big are those canisters? I find it hard to believe that there is absolutely no room left in some locker somewhere on Atlantis??
Thanks to all for the great info and discussions.
We have a complete (and I mean complete) overview presentation going into L2. We'll do a full preview of this tonight as an article.
Welcome to the site :)
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/14/2007 04:36 pm
Post by: Zachstar on 06/14/2007 04:42 pm
Recommending a extend to help fix the loose guide.
2 sec deploy
Post by: DaveS on 06/14/2007 04:42 pm
Post by: Zachstar on 06/14/2007 04:44 pm
Post by: Zachstar on 06/14/2007 04:46 pm
A few images.
Post by: Zachstar on 06/14/2007 04:48 pm
Orbit view for reference.
Post by: Zachstar on 06/14/2007 04:56 pm
Control called asking for their thoughts when Suni reported them getting 800s for downlink.
Post by: jmjawors on 06/14/2007 04:56 pm
EDIT :: Beat me to it. ;)
Post by: jmjawors on 06/14/2007 05:01 pm
Post by: Zachstar on 06/14/2007 05:01 pm
Post by: Zachstar on 06/14/2007 05:02 pm
Suni says that's a good idea.
Post by: jmjawors on 06/14/2007 05:06 pm
Wiggle anytime that you feel right
You wiggle clause it's real or
You wiggle 'cause it's fake
You wiggle like a lizard
Or wiggle like a snake
-- "Wigglin' Worm" by Willie Dixon
Post by: jmjawors on 06/14/2007 05:07 pm
Post by: Zachstar on 06/14/2007 05:10 pm
Post by: jmjawors on 06/14/2007 05:12 pm
Post by: Zachstar on 06/14/2007 05:14 pm
Post by: eeergo on 06/14/2007 05:15 pm
EDIT: Silly me, I forgot the S4 arrays were still unable to track the sun because of P6...
Post by: mdmcgrory on 06/14/2007 05:16 pm
"FGB-2 has been redesignated the Multi-purpose Laboratory Module(MLM)."
So FGB 2 will be one of the two originally designed Russian Research Modules or will it be the commercial "Enterprise" module. Or both, as the "multi-purpose" in the name suggests?
There are no plans to slap FGB 2 on, plus a commercial module right? You probably couldn't do that without the power tower could you?
Post by: Zachstar on 06/14/2007 05:16 pm
One more thing they want to image.
Post by: DaveS on 06/14/2007 05:17 pm
Quote
Zachstar - 14/6/2007 7:16 PMI noticed on CJ's tone when called the ground that it was great news.
Wire just freed itself!
Post by: Avron on 06/14/2007 05:17 pm
Quote
Zachstar - 14/6/2007 1:16 PM
Wire just freed itself!
One more thing they want to image.
Amazing what a little thermal expansion can do
Correction: make that cooling
Post by: Zachstar on 06/14/2007 05:18 pm
Did they say inhibit thrusters?
Post by: ApolloLee on 06/14/2007 05:19 pm
![]("http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/5505/thewiggleswigglesticketnm0.jpg")
Like Suni, they approve of the wiggle decision.
Post by: Zachstar on 06/14/2007 05:20 pm
#1 Little piece of foil
#2 No action for another rev.
#3 Should everything warm, wiggle, and do somthin in a hour and a half.
#4 1.5 hours then retract
Post by: jmjawors on 06/14/2007 05:21 pm
Quote
eeergo - 14/6/2007 12:15 PMEDIT: Silly me, I forgot the S4 arrays were still unable to track the sun because of P6...
Is P6 still tracking the sun? Or does it just look like that way on the graphic? I don't see how it possibly could be at this point...
Post by: Zachstar on 06/14/2007 05:22 pm
Post by: mdmcgrory on 06/14/2007 05:23 pm
Quote
Zachstar - 14/6/2007 1:18 PM News from Moscow. Did they say inhibit thrusters?
Yes, clearly heard inhibit thrusters.
Post by: DaveS on 06/14/2007 05:24 pm
Quote
jmjawors - 14/6/2007 7:21 PM1: S4 SAWs could track the sun if the last launch restraint had been removed during EVA-2 yesterday.Quoteeeergo - 14/6/2007 12:15 PMEDIT: Silly me, I forgot the S4 arrays were still unable to track the sun because of P6...
Is P6 still tracking the sun? Or does it just look like that way on the graphic? I don't see how it possibly could be at this point...
2: P6 arrays are not active at this time.
Post by: Zachstar on 06/14/2007 05:24 pm
Post by: jmjawors on 06/14/2007 05:26 pm
And yeah, it can be hard to make out the Russian translation some times. Definitely computer talk... sounds like they're powering them on? Maybe?
Post by: mdmcgrory on 06/14/2007 05:26 pm
Quote
Zachstar - 14/6/2007 1:24 PM Computer talk on Russian side but I could not make out what all is being said.
Deactivate central computers 1, 2, and 3.
Post by: eeergo on 06/14/2007 05:26 pm
Quote
jmjawors - 14/6/2007 7:21 PMQuoteeeergo - 14/6/2007 12:15 PMIs P6 still tracking the sun? Or does it just look like that way on the graphic? I don't see how it possibly could be at this point...EDIT: Silly me, I forgot the S4 arrays were still unable to track the sun because of P6...
I don't think so... however I was answering a previous post by myself, where I asked why the S4 arrays were in such a different attitude with respect to P4. Obviously, because P6 is still in the way.
Post by: mdmcgrory on 06/14/2007 05:28 pm
Post by: DaveS on 06/14/2007 05:30 pm
Quote
eeergo - 14/6/2007 7:26 PMNo it isn't. Don't trust the graphics, they're wrong and inaccurate and they still show the fully extended 2B SAW, which is no longer the case.
different attitude with respect to P4. Obviously, because P6 is still in the way.
They're down to about 15.5 bays when the minimum requirement is 19.5 bays.
Post by: Zachstar on 06/14/2007 05:31 pm
Post by: eeergo on 06/14/2007 05:33 pm
Quote
DaveS - 14/6/2007 7:30 PMQuoteeeergo - 14/6/2007 7:26 PM different attitude with respect to P4. Obviously, because P6 is still in the way.No it isn't. Don't trust the graphics, they're wrong and inaccurate and they still show the fully extended 2B SAW, which is no longer the case. They're down to about 15.5 bays when the minimum requirement is 19.5 bays.
Oh, I see. Yes, the graphics made me think it was. So all comes down to the launch lock still in place...
Post by: DaveS on 06/14/2007 05:35 pm
Quote
eeergo - 14/6/2007 7:33 PMYes. And they still hasn't made decision on when that one is coming off. It might be either on stage EVA or they're going to have the 118 EVs do it.
Oh, I see. Yes, the graphics made me think it was. So all comes down to the launch lock still in place...
Post by: Zachstar on 06/14/2007 05:44 pm
When it happens.
Post by: eeergo on 06/14/2007 05:44 pm
Post by: DaveS on 06/14/2007 05:45 pm
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/14/2007 05:47 pm
Quote
DaveS - 14/6/2007 11:35 AMQuoteeeergo - 14/6/2007 7:33 PMYes. And they still hasn't made decision on when that one is coming off. It might be either on stage EVA or they're going to have the 118 EVs do it.
Oh, I see. Yes, the graphics made me think it was. So all comes down to the launch lock still in place...
And that launch is (potentially) only 8 weeks from today.
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 06/14/2007 05:49 pm
Quote
DaveS - 14/6/2007 10:35 AMQuoteeeergo - 14/6/2007 7:33 PMYes. And they still hasn't made decision on when that one is coming off. It might be either on stage EVA or they're going to have the 118 EVs do it.
Oh, I see. Yes, the graphics made me think it was. So all comes down to the launch lock still in place...
Launch restraint not launch lock and there is still the question of the DLAs wireing. Not until after the next EVA at the soonest.
Post by: jmjawors on 06/14/2007 06:02 pm
Post by: sts1canada on 06/14/2007 06:03 pm
Currently have KU through TDRS-West, handover to TDRS-East available in 2 Minutes (more KU available on TDRS-East this pass). Sunset on this pass is 52 minutes away at 2:53 PM EDT (6:53 PM GMT).
Richard
Post by: Zachstar on 06/14/2007 06:09 pm
Post by: sts1canada on 06/14/2007 06:09 pm
Richard
Post by: Zachstar on 06/14/2007 06:11 pm
Post by: Zachstar on 06/14/2007 06:12 pm
Post by: sts1canada on 06/14/2007 06:14 pm
Richard
Post by: pippin on 06/14/2007 06:14 pm
Post by: Zachstar on 06/14/2007 06:15 pm
Post by: Zachstar on 06/14/2007 06:16 pm
Post by: sts1canada on 06/14/2007 06:18 pm
Richard
Post by: sts1canada on 06/14/2007 06:20 pm
Richard
Post by: JimO on 06/14/2007 06:21 pm
Post by: sts1canada on 06/14/2007 06:22 pm
Richard
Post by: Zachstar on 06/14/2007 06:24 pm
No Ku
Post by: sts1canada on 06/14/2007 06:25 pm
Richard
Post by: Blade_Pride on 06/14/2007 06:26 pm
Post by: Zachstar on 06/14/2007 06:27 pm
Ku!
Post by: Zachstar on 06/14/2007 06:28 pm
Post by: Zachstar on 06/14/2007 06:29 pm
Post by: jmjawors on 06/14/2007 06:30 pm
Quote
Zachstar - 14/6/2007 1:29 PM
1 more wiggle before retract.
Too bad we won't be able to see it. Press conference coming right up...
Post by: Zachstar on 06/14/2007 06:31 pm
Post by: Zachstar on 06/14/2007 06:34 pm
Russian crew may stay up a bit longer to help.
Post by: Zachstar on 06/14/2007 06:37 pm
Post by: zinfab on 06/14/2007 06:39 pm
Post by: Zachstar on 06/14/2007 06:50 pm
Quote
zinfab - 14/6/2007 1:39 PM
can someone summarize on here again? I am not allowed to stream from work.
Other than some minor stuff. Nothing but our brave offical suffering through press abusement goldigging for sensationalist headlines.
Post by: Zachstar on 06/14/2007 06:51 pm
Post by: jmjawors on 06/14/2007 06:52 pm
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/14/2007 06:52 pm
Quote
Zachstar - 14/6/2007 7:50 PMQuotezinfab - 14/6/2007 1:39 PM
can someone summarize on here again? I am not allowed to stream from work.
Other than some minor stuff. Nothing but our brave offical suffering through press abusement goldigging for sensationalist headlines.
With exception to the likes of Bill H, the AP and another guy tried to put words into Gerst's mouth there "Critical" etc. He didn't fall for it.
Basically, the situation is stable and they have a plan to work through. Shuttle is an advantage whilst docked.
Post by: collectSPACE on 06/14/2007 06:52 pm
Quote
zinfab - 14/6/2007 1:39 PM
can someone summarize on here again? I am not allowed to stream from work.
- Earlier this morning, ground controllers working with the crew aboard the station were able to get one lane (channel) on each of the two Russian computers running for a seven minute period.
- During these seven minutes, controllers were able to reconfigure power management systems to allow for a much more stable situation aboard the Russian components of the station.
- Trouble shooting continues; they expect computers will come up and down throughout the day and night, as well as the cosmonauts may be awake during their regularly scheduled sleep periods to coordinate with Russian communication ground passes.
- Potential culprits: power quality, associated with the addition of new solar arrays; electromagnetic interference; software anomalies (in particular, the order in which the two computers are brought back online). They do plan to isolate the new arrays from the Russian segments to help diagnose the problem.
Post by: zinfab on 06/14/2007 06:53 pm
ps - THANKS EVERYONE for the updates!
Post by: sts1canada on 06/14/2007 06:54 pm
Richard
Post by: Blade_Pride on 06/14/2007 06:55 pm
Quote
zinfab - 14/6/2007 1:53 PM
Will they still have the standard 6pm EDT MMT briefing, then?
ps - THANKS EVERYONE for the updates!
Yes - well they said briefing can’t remember what kind.
Post by: jmjawors on 06/14/2007 06:59 pm
Post by: zinfab on 06/14/2007 07:00 pm
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/mission_schedule.html
95 MISSION STATUS BRIEFING JSC 05/ 22:22 05:00 PM 06:00 PM 22:00 02:00
I got suspicious when they added this 2:30pm briefing. Again, thanks!
Post by: Johnny Rönnberg on 06/14/2007 07:00 pm
Post by: sts1canada on 06/14/2007 07:00 pm
Richard
Post by: Thomas ESA on 06/14/2007 07:00 pm
Post by: Zachstar on 06/14/2007 07:01 pm
Post by: zinfab on 06/14/2007 07:02 pm
11 +2 (EVA 4) +2 (contigency/weather) was the plan
This "extra day" that they discuss would make it a 14 day mission (with 1-2 days of weather contigency left available to them).
Post by: jmjawors on 06/14/2007 07:03 pm
Quote
Thomas ESA - 14/6/2007 2:00 PM
Clarification. STS-117 is already two days extra. One extra day docked would extend the whole of the mission by another day?
That's my impression. They're asking the shuttle crew to conserve power so they can stretch to that extra day.
Post by: Thomas ESA on 06/14/2007 07:03 pm
Post by: sts1canada on 06/14/2007 07:08 pm
Richard
Post by: sts1canada on 06/14/2007 07:17 pm
Richard
Post by: sts1canada on 06/14/2007 07:25 pm
Richard
Post by: sts1canada on 06/14/2007 07:29 pm
Richard
Post by: Ankle-bone12 on 06/14/2007 07:32 pm
EDIT: to me at least.
Post by: Skinny on 06/14/2007 07:34 pm
And to accompany sts1canada's great updates :
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/14/2007 07:35 pm
http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-14/hires/iss014e10084.jpg
http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-14/hires/iss014e10053.jpg
Post by: sts1canada on 06/14/2007 07:35 pm
Quote
Ankle-bone12 - 14/6/2007 3:32 PM
not irritating, I find it very helpful.
Thanks Ankle-bone12, I appreciate it, I was beginning to wonder where everyone went when I posted 4 times in a row and no one else responded, anyways we have KU back through TDRS-West, we will be approaching orbital noon in about 10-15 minutes and the sun will move behind the P6 array when that happens.
Richard
Post by: sts1canada on 06/14/2007 07:42 pm
Richard
Post by: Avron on 06/14/2007 07:45 pm
Post by: Zachstar on 06/14/2007 07:46 pm
Post by: sts1canada on 06/14/2007 07:51 pm
Richard
Post by: jaredgalen on 06/14/2007 07:51 pm
Post by: Zachstar on 06/14/2007 07:54 pm
Quote
jaredgalen - 14/6/2007 2:51 PM
While I understand that ensuring no damage is done to the arrays is paramount, are they being too cautious in the retraction? The first retraction that was done with Beamer, the arrays were put through far more failed retractions and extensions without any major drawbacks it seems...
Well remember that they have to extend these again on 120.
But they may be acting a tad too cautious.
Post by: charlieb on 06/14/2007 07:55 pm
The 'Ratty Comm' that you are referring to is via the S-Band - not the Ku - and from my experiences in the past, the ratty-ness was from TDRS being 'off-the-nose, or 'off-the-tail'. We used to lock up the KU with TDRS during handovers, or post-ZOE acquisitions without much problem either.. S-Band would also get a phase-error problem usually during end-of-TDRS passes due to high-doppler effect buildups that would occur during the TDRS passes, and with that we'd have to drop modulation, and re-acquire (the S-band Rx's would have to re-sweep).
If you do not understand what I mean by 'off-the-nose, or 'off-the-tail', I will get back to you on that topic..
Charlie
Post by: Zachstar on 06/14/2007 07:55 pm
Standing down from arrays.
Post by: fburnell on 06/14/2007 07:56 pm
Oops - Zachstar beat me to the point :laugh:
Post by: sts1canada on 06/14/2007 07:56 pm
Richard
Post by: sts1canada on 06/14/2007 07:59 pm
Quote
charlieb - 14/6/2007 3:55 PM
Hey Richard,
The 'Ratty Comm' that you are referring to is via the S-Band - not the Ku - and from my experiences in the past, the ratty-ness was from TDRS being 'off-the-nose, or 'off-the-tail'. We used to lock up the KU with TDRS during handovers, or post-ZOE acquisitions without much problem either.. S-Band would also get a phase-error problem usually during end-of-TDRS passes due to high-doppler effect buildups that would occur during the TDRS passes, and with that we'd have to drop modulation, and re-acquire (the S-band Rx's would have to re-sweep).
If you do not understand what I mean by 'off-the-nose, or 'off-the-tail', I will get back to you on that topic..
Charlie
Thanks Charlie, I understand what you mean, I didn't know that S-Band is the source of the ratty comm, I always thought it was the KU trying to locate and lock on the TDRS making that sound, thanks!
Richard
Post by: jaredgalen on 06/14/2007 08:06 pm
Quote
fburnell - 14/6/2007 8:56 PM
There is still much to be determined about any damage that may have occurred during the first retraction. They still have to redeploy and reactivate that array. Better to be cautious.
Point taken of course, my understanding would be that the guide wires and grommets are much less important when extending the arrays though. But better safe then sorry I suppose.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/14/2007 08:24 pm
Post by: Speedracer on 06/14/2007 08:26 pm
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/14/2007 08:28 pm
Quote
Speedracer - 14/6/2007 9:26 PM
Haven't been able to keep up...are they going to shake, rattle, and roll the array some more?
Looking for a final bay count and leaving it for today.
15 or 15.5 bays to go (they say)
Post by: DaveS on 06/14/2007 08:30 pm
Quote
Speedracer - 14/6/2007 10:26 PMNo shakings or rattling. Just moving them up and down in the so called "Beta Gimbal Assembly(BGA) wiggle". They have stood down from any retracts until tommorow as a bunch of grommets on the guide wires are folding the wrong way and preventing the blanket panels from retracting properly.
Haven't been able to keep up...are they going to shake, rattle, and roll the array some more?
Post by: Jorge on 06/14/2007 08:43 pm
Quote
Blade_Pride - 14/6/2007 1:26 PM
Why does the NASA page say that with the building of the Guam Remote Ground Terminal ZOE had been eliminated, when it has not? It also says TDRSS provides customers with 100% coverage. Did somthing not work out the way they wanted to?
TDRS Z (relayed through Guam) did eliminate the ZOE, but NASA does not schedule it for every pass - only for complex mission phases.
And of course, 100% TDRS coverage does not mean 100% comm, since structural blockage is still a factor.
Post by: JimO on 06/14/2007 08:56 pm
My MSNBC analysis is up. I hope it doesn't sound too alarmist, but if it does, suck it up. :)
Space station glitch puzzles the experts
Computer system plays crucial role in stabilizing orbital outpost
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19228925/
By James Oberg, NBC News space analyst // Special to MSNBC // Updated: June 14/ 2 PM CDT
HOUSTON - The failure of all six main control computers on the international space station's Russian segment has baffled space engineers in Houston and in Moscow. Temporary repairs aren’t enough. If the cause of the sudden simultaneous failures cannot be quickly identified and remedied, the space station's future operations are under threat.
Post by: JimO on 06/14/2007 08:57 pm
Post by: rdale on 06/14/2007 09:05 pm
Quote
JimO - 14/6/2007 4:56 PM
If the cause of the sudden simultaneous failures cannot be quickly identified and remedied, the space station's future operations are under threat.
That's not what I heard at today's press conference... Do you have inside info you can share?
Post by: Skinny on 06/14/2007 09:05 pm
Quote
JimO - 14/6/2007 3:57 PM There was supposed to be an emoticon after the 'suck it up' phrase!! Oops! :frown:
Here you go :) and I also found it pretty good read, not ringing too much alarm bells right now.
Post by: Bret on 06/14/2007 09:10 pm
Post by: Jackson on 06/14/2007 09:11 pm
Post by: jmjawors on 06/14/2007 09:11 pm
Post by: ETEE on 06/14/2007 09:25 pm
ps Appreciate the Ku status info.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/14/2007 09:30 pm
Post by: Bret on 06/14/2007 09:40 pm
Edit: Sorry, off topic -- doesn't belong in this thread. I am still learning the rules here!
Post by: rcaron on 06/14/2007 09:45 pm
It is challenge to setup a collapsible array structure that can operate in 1/6th gravity. Hopes to retrofit an ISS design are looking increasingly unlikely as you work the structural numbers (and the difficulties we've been seeing on the last couple missions)
Post by: jarthur on 06/14/2007 10:14 pm
Post by: Johnny Rönnberg on 06/14/2007 10:16 pm
Quote
jarthur - 14/6/2007 12:14 AM
I have been away for the last couple hours so I haven't been getting the updates. What's the status on the briefing? Isn't supposed to be now?
NET 6:30 PM EDT (00:30 CEDT)
Post by: zinfab on 06/14/2007 10:22 pm
Post by: jmjawors on 06/14/2007 10:23 pm
Quote
Johnny Rönnberg - 14/6/2007 5:16 PM
NET 6:30 PM EDT (00:30 CEDT)
Now delayed another 15 minutes.
Post by: kneecaps on 06/14/2007 10:23 pm
Post by: Zachstar on 06/14/2007 10:26 pm
Post by: DaveS on 06/14/2007 10:26 pm
Post by: Gary on 06/14/2007 10:26 pm
Post by: Johnny Rönnberg on 06/14/2007 10:29 pm
Quote
jmjawors - 15/6/2007 12:23 AMQuoteJohnny Rönnberg - 14/6/2007 5:16 PM
NET 6:30 PM EDT (00:30 CEDT)
Now delayed another 15 minutes.
Why, NASA Why? :angry: I have a job to go to in five and a half hour.
Post by: Zachstar on 06/14/2007 10:30 pm
The computer's power source is extremely sensitive to noise.
The new truss element may have provided noise. Possibly when it was grounded. The times match up.
They plan to send a plan up for the crew to use a scopemeter to check for noise in the power.
They will need to access aft end cones to check.
The station is still sensitive to stuff that can affect CMGs.
Clear out some stuff in the node.
Check the batteries later.
---------
The check will happen sometime today.
Post by: zinfab on 06/14/2007 10:31 pm
*zach's summary more clear, i think*
Post by: triddirt on 06/14/2007 10:31 pm
Doesn't this information that the computers have been offline during the day conflict with the information provided at the press conference earlier with Gerst
Post by: DaveS on 06/14/2007 10:32 pm
Quote
Gary - 15/6/2007 12:26 AMNo. The appearant thinking right now is that some electrical noise caused the SM the computers to die.
Just had a thought - If the new solar array is guilty of crashing the russian computer systems could it have had the same effect on the shuttle computers if Atlantis had SSPTS fitted?
As KSC is located in the "Lightning Capital" of the US, the Shuttle GPCs got to be electrically hardended.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/14/2007 10:35 pm
Quote
triddirt - 14/6/2007 11:31 PM
OK... I'm confused...
Doesn't this information that the computers have been offline during the day conflict with the information provided at the press conference earlier with Gerst
Na, Gerst said they were up for 8 minutes, but then went down again.
Post by: Ankle-bone12 on 06/14/2007 10:36 pm
sorry for off-topicness
Post by: DaveS on 06/14/2007 10:37 pm
Quote
Chris Bergin - 15/6/2007 12:35 AMNitpick: 7 minutes, then went down and remained that way ever since.Quotetriddirt - 14/6/2007 11:31 PM
OK... I'm confused...
Doesn't this information that the computers have been offline during the day conflict with the information provided at the press conference earlier with Gerst
Na, Gerst said they were up for 8 minutes, but then went down again.
Post by: triddirt on 06/14/2007 10:38 pm
Quote
Chris Bergin - 14/6/2007 6:35 PM
Na, Gerst said they were up for 8 minutes, but then went down again.
OK.. Thanks for clarification Chris... I was at work so I must not have quite caught the whole gist..
Oh well... Guess that's why they call them rocket scientists... Time to get their genius on.
Post by: DaveS on 06/14/2007 10:38 pm
Quote
Ankle-bone12 - 15/6/2007 12:36 AMIt depends on when the crew(s) go to sleep. It's usually first shown at crew sleep+1 hour.
Does anyone know why the FD mission highlights was an hour early last night? will it be the same tonight?
sorry for off-topicness
Post by: gordo on 06/14/2007 10:40 pm
Do we think that there is a chance here that they might decided to uncouple the S3/4 electrical connections and re-extend the P6 array, if the computers are getting the noise from the new truss' electrical systems? This would give time for some filters to be installed on the PSUs to the computers
Post by: Zachstar on 06/14/2007 10:43 pm
Quote
zinfab - 14/6/2007 5:31 PM
they suggest that there is noise in the lines running from the arrays to the power supply of the computers. they state that the power supply is susceptible to "noise" and that while no power was running at the time of failure, they had just finished "attach." They hypothesize that the lines created a conduit for "noise."
*zach's summary more clear, i think*
Sorry about that. I've just cleaned it up somewhat.
Post by: Zachstar on 06/14/2007 10:45 pm
Post by: Zachstar on 06/14/2007 10:51 pm
Post by: Zachstar on 06/14/2007 10:53 pm
Post by: Zachstar on 06/14/2007 10:58 pm
Post by: Zachstar on 06/14/2007 11:14 pm
Can someone provide a description while we await john44 posting the video?
Post by: Ankle-bone12 on 06/14/2007 11:17 pm
Post by: kneecaps on 06/14/2007 11:18 pm
Post by: jaredgalen on 06/14/2007 11:19 pm
Post by: kneecaps on 06/14/2007 11:26 pm
Quote
jaredgalen - 15/6/2007 12:19 AM
How possible is it that the crossed DLA could have an affect on power 'noise' or is that just a silly. I'm not quite well informed on the tech specs of a DLA when it's are at home :)
Take it from my personal experience, 'noise' and 'noise' faultfinding/troubleshooting is a dark art. Sometimes the cause of noise can be obvious in an electrical system...sometimes the cause can be nearly unbelievable.
What concerns me is, if the DLA is indeed physically 'cross-wired', then it makes me raise the question, whats the rest of the QA on that truss like? There could be a lot of trouble spots (sloppy cable runs etc).
I must stress however, despite working with QA on electronic systems...NONE of them are aerospace related so i'm just speculating.
Post by: Ankle-bone12 on 06/14/2007 11:36 pm
Post by: stockman on 06/14/2007 11:36 pm
Post by: jaredgalen on 06/14/2007 11:38 pm
Post by: cookiejar500 on 06/14/2007 11:51 pm
Post by: Ankle-bone12 on 06/14/2007 11:54 pm
Quote
cookiejar500 - 14/6/2007 6:51 PM
I about split my sides when that reporter asked about the "noisy" station, what is that guy doing in an interview session with a bunch of engineers? That was funny!
Did you see the look on Sufferdini's face when he said that? That was what made it so funny. it took alot of effort to hold back like that. LOL! :laugh:
Post by: zinfab on 06/14/2007 11:56 pm
Post by: cookiejar500 on 06/14/2007 11:58 pm
Post by: bobthemonkey on 06/15/2007 12:40 am
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 12:44 am
Image of the station/shuttle complex.
Post by: hop on 06/15/2007 12:45 am
Quote
stockman - 14/6/2007 4:36 PMIt is surprising. Perhaps some of the paperwork was reversed as well, or a design change wasn't propagated through all the paperwork. Certainly seems like multiple layers of errors must have been required for something like this to slip through.
This DLA reversal is just impossible for me to understand. Even if something like that could happen in manufacturing, aren't there many, many integration tests on these things before they are certified??? I would have expected (maybe naively) that a cross wiring on one of the MAJOR components of this trust would have been tripped over way before now.. What am I missing with this??
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 12:46 am
Quote
bobthemonkey - 14/6/2007 7:40 PM
Just seen ABC World News. Leading with the ISS. Using language such as 'crisis' and talking about abandonment.
I guess little mention that they likely found the cause right?
That would only get in the way of the sensationalism.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/15/2007 12:52 am
Quote
bobthemonkey - 15/6/2007 1:40 AM
Just seen ABC World News. Leading with the ISS. Using language such as 'crisis' and talking about abandonment.
*Bangs head against nearest wall* But then again, they'll look silly if the problem is solved when the troubleshoot kicks in at 9pm Central.
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 06/15/2007 12:53 am
Quote
bobthemonkey - 14/6/2007 5:40 PM
Just seen ABC World News. Leading with the ISS. Using language such as 'crisis' and talking about abandonment.
NBC and CBS second lead story, not quite so much hysteria.
Post by: jmjawors on 06/15/2007 12:54 am
Post by: Gary on 06/15/2007 12:58 am
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 06/15/2007 01:04 am
Quote
Gary - 14/6/2007 5:58 PM
BBC News says that the computer crash on the ISS has caused the oxygen generation system to fail..... I think they are getting confused with previous Elektron failures and with Clays work on installing the OGS.
Elektron has been down several times during the last few days, it is controlled by the computers and is also normally dependant on external (US) power.
Post by: cookiejar500 on 06/15/2007 01:17 am
Post by: MKremer on 06/15/2007 01:23 am
Post by: NASA_Twix_JSC on 06/15/2007 01:31 am
Quote
cookiejar500 - 14/6/2007 8:17 PM
I do not believe anyone has mentioned this but is there any chance that the spacewalkers connected up the cables wrong? Maybe they switched two of them that have the DLA control lines. It is hard to believe that the S3/S4 itself is miswired, they should have caught that in the integration testing.
The process is hugely timelined and each step is checked, double checked and then reviewed. I don't think it will be this. I hope.
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 06/15/2007 01:36 am
Quote
hop - 14/6/2007 5:45 PMQuotestockman - 14/6/2007 4:36 PMIt is surprising. Perhaps some of the paperwork was reversed as well, or a design change wasn't propagated through all the paperwork. Certainly seems like multiple layers of errors must have been required for something like this to slip through.
This DLA reversal is just impossible for me to understand. Even if something like that could happen in manufacturing, aren't there many, many integration tests on these things before they are certified??? I would have expected (maybe naively) that a cross wiring on one of the MAJOR components of this trust would have been tripped over way before now.. What am I missing with this??
You can bet there are massive ass covering operations going on right now.
Post by: stockman on 06/15/2007 01:37 am
Quote
NASA_Twix_JSC - 14/6/2007 9:31 PMQuotecookiejar500 - 14/6/2007 8:17 PM
I do not believe anyone has mentioned this but is there any chance that the spacewalkers connected up the cables wrong? Maybe they switched two of them that have the DLA control lines. It is hard to believe that the S3/S4 itself is miswired, they should have caught that in the integration testing.
The process is hugely timelined and each step is checked, double checked and then reviewed. I don't think it will be this. I hope.
I truly hope you are right. But I never thought an agency with so many checks and rechecks in its systems would make a mistake between Metric and Imperial measurement either - yet Mars Climate Orbiter proved that it is at least possible! Lets hope its silly software issues.
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/15/2007 01:42 am
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 06/15/2007 01:43 am
Quote
NASA_Twix_JSC - 14/6/2007 6:31 PMQuotecookiejar500 - 14/6/2007 8:17 PM
I do not believe anyone has mentioned this but is there any chance that the spacewalkers connected up the cables wrong? Maybe they switched two of them that have the DLA control lines. It is hard to believe that the S3/S4 itself is miswired, they should have caught that in the integration testing.
The process is hugely timelined and each step is checked, double checked and then reviewed. I don't think it will be this. I hope.
I've been thinking that this mission did not seem as organized as the P3/4 mission was. Remember everyone doing the Abort Abort Abort routine when working on the retract. Nothing like that happening on this mission, kinda casual in some ways.
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 01:48 am
They ought to cancel it in leu of today's sensationalist attitude from the media. The crew doesn't need the extra crap.
My bet is these reporters are drolling from the mouth waiting to start their golddigging session.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/15/2007 01:59 am
I'm not saying "all is ok, everyone hug a NASA manager" - I'm just going to report it in a "this is how they work a problem" style.
I'll have it done in 30 mins or so.
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/15/2007 02:02 am
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 06/15/2007 02:03 am
Post by: JimO on 06/15/2007 02:15 am
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 14/6/2007 7:53 PM
NBC and CBS second lead story, not quite so much hysteria.
Well, I admit we could have been clearer about how the US computers and CMGs were still functioning. And I'm going to stop using words such as 'tumble' and 'spin' whenever I talk with colleagues. "Drift" is the term I intend to prefer, as in ver-r-r-r-ry slow orientation turn... That's the 'worst-case' attitude rates I can EVEr imagine.
'Drift'.
D-R-I-F-T.
Read my lips (and watch my hands).
Post by: backspace on 06/15/2007 02:15 am
Post by: Pete at Edwards on 06/15/2007 02:16 am
Post by: Andrewwski on 06/15/2007 02:16 am
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 02:17 am
Post by: JimO on 06/15/2007 02:18 am
Quote
stockman - 14/6/2007 8:37 PM
But I never thought an agency with so many checks and rechecks in its systems would make a mistake between Metric and Imperial measurement either - yet Mars Climate Orbiter proved that it is at least possible! Lets hope its silly software issues.
That's a media myth (and a self-serving NASA bureaucrat's excuse). Check out the 'safety' section of my home page (www.jamesoberg.com) for the low-down of what really caused the failure and how little the units confusion had to do with it.
Post by: Andrewwski on 06/15/2007 02:18 am
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 02:18 am
I feel he is a real scumbag!
Post by: Pete at Edwards on 06/15/2007 02:18 am
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/15/2007 02:20 am
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 02:24 am
Like I said I think it may be a good idea to keep all the media away from the crew until they are back on the ground again.
Post by: JimO on 06/15/2007 02:24 am
Quote
(Girst always looks like he could use a hug)
Here's a 1981 picture -- he looked the same:
http://www.jamesoberg.com/image/sts2orbitteambig.jpg
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 02:25 am
Quote
JimO - 14/6/2007 9:24 PMQuote(Girst always looks like he could use a hug)
Here's a 1981 picture -- he looked the same:
http://www.jamesoberg.com/image/sts2orbitteambig.jpg
That just made my day! HAHAHA! Almost EXACTLY the same.
Post by: bsegal on 06/15/2007 02:25 am
Post by: bsegal on 06/15/2007 02:31 am
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 02:32 am
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 02:35 am
15 mins or so.
Edit: whoops forgot to add "power"
Post by: charlieb on 06/15/2007 02:38 am
Who is that with you in the picture?
Charlie (B. Pivar's pal - aka cjbinco...)
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/15/2007 02:46 am
Quote
Zachstar - 14/6/2007 8:35 PM
Suni and Clay are soon to take the Noise readings.
15 mins or so
Hope they don't forget their earplugs. :laugh:
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 02:49 am
Then you Don't!
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 02:51 am
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 02:51 am
Quote
Lee Jay - 14/6/2007 9:46 PMQuoteZachstar - 14/6/2007 8:35 PM
Suni and Clay are soon to take the Noise readings.
15 mins or so
Hope they don't forget their earplugs. :laugh:
Forgot to add "power" my bad :bleh:
Post by: collectSPACE on 06/15/2007 02:52 am
Quote
Pete at Edwards - 14/6/2007 9:16 PMThey aren't keeping anyone away. The in-flight crew interviews (with the exception of the joint crew press conference on Saturday, which is open to all accredited media) is always predetermined before launch. If you check the NASA TV schedule, you'll see that the cable and broadcast networks will or have had their chance to talk to the crew(s).
I notice they are only letting on some small time TV stations. NASA PAO keeping the CNNs and APs of this world away from asking stupid questions?
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 02:55 am
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 02:56 am
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 02:59 am
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 03:00 am
Post by: stockman on 06/15/2007 03:01 am
Quote
Zachstar - 14/6/2007 11:00 PM
They may have removed the wrong cover LOL!
hahah.. was that port or starboard???? these guys must be tired! :)
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 03:02 am
Image of the "port" rack
Post by: DaveS on 06/15/2007 03:03 am
Quote
Zachstar - 15/6/2007 5:00 AMIt's a rack, not a cover.
They may have removed the wrong cover LOL!
Post by: bsegal on 06/15/2007 03:04 am
Post by: noname_77065 on 06/15/2007 03:04 am
Post by: ardy on 06/15/2007 03:04 am
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 06/15/2007 03:05 am
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 03:06 am
Quote
bsegal - 14/6/2007 10:04 PM
Is is just me, or does it seem that Clay is having a tough time so far?
He just misses having Megan on capcom ;) He was really talkin "smooth" to her ya know.
Clay is funny!
Post by: ardy on 06/15/2007 03:08 am
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 06/15/2007 03:08 am
Post by: An0NyM0uS on 06/15/2007 03:15 am
some 8 min communication break.
nice to see some internal wall pictures.
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/15/2007 03:15 am
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 03:16 am
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 03:16 am
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 03:17 am
Post by: noname_77065 on 06/15/2007 03:17 am
Post by: An0NyM0uS on 06/15/2007 03:17 am
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 03:18 am
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 03:18 am
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 03:19 am
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 03:19 am
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 03:20 am
Post by: An0NyM0uS on 06/15/2007 03:20 am
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 03:21 am
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 03:21 am
Post by: An0NyM0uS on 06/15/2007 03:22 am
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 03:22 am
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 03:22 am
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 03:24 am
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 03:25 am
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/15/2007 03:28 am
Post by: noname_77065 on 06/15/2007 03:31 am
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 03:32 am
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 03:33 am
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 03:34 am
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 03:36 am
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 03:38 am
Reports no damage on the cables.
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 03:39 am
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 03:41 am
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 03:42 am
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 03:44 am
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 03:45 am
Command they want her to enter into it.
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/15/2007 03:47 am
Post by: Andrewwski on 06/15/2007 03:49 am
Post by: Launch Fan on 06/15/2007 03:50 am
'It appears the computers are sensitive to noise. Problems occurred when the truss was attached,' added another note. 'It's possible that the ground path changed with the addition of the truss, which increased the noise level. There will be some troubleshooting later today. The crew will use a scope meter to check for noise.'
Post by: JWag on 06/15/2007 03:53 am
Quote
Lee Jay - 14/6/2007 10:47 PM Why are they looking at currents? The source controls the voltage, the load controls the current. Well, unless this is a current-source power system (no way).
To some extent, the current will be proportional to voltage, so looking at currents can give an idea about noise.
They're using a clamp-on inductive probe on the meter. There may not be available testpoints to look at voltage (and they're not going to be disconnecting things or piercing insulation), so monitoring current is the next best thing.
Edit: I don't know anything specific about the ISS power delivery. It looks as if the solar panel electricity is converted to AC for transmission down the trusses, so clamping a lead around the power cables heading to the computers would give an indication of the current drawn by those boxes.
Post by: MKremer on 06/15/2007 03:58 am
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 04:02 am
Change scale up
Good batteries even tho you see the battery symbol.
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/15/2007 04:04 am
I suspect you're right that they just don't have available test points and they're getting what they can get easily. I have a good deal of experience dealing with noise problems since I use sensitive instrumentation in extremely noisy electrical environments (way more power, voltage, and EMI than ISS), and I haven't had success with this approach. Problems like this for me have always come down to a problem with grounding and shielding - ground loops, multiple grounds at different voltages, open shields, shields with multiple tie points etc. I'll often do this sort of test with a hall-effect current probe on a ground, but not on a main cable unless I suspect a common-mode problem of some sort (rare).
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 04:06 am
The graph is going off the charts!
Post by: JWag on 06/15/2007 04:06 am
Post by: j2_ on 06/15/2007 04:07 am
Post by: iloco on 06/15/2007 04:09 am
Post by: rdale on 06/15/2007 04:09 am
Quote
Zachstar - 14/6/2007 12:06 AM
WOAH! The meter is moving all over the place.
The graph is going off the charts!
Does that signify anything?
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 04:12 am
Go to sleep now. (But they really need data for troubleshoot)
Rotate to starboard side and do the demate cable.
Do the full data collection.
-------------
Suni wants to close this rack and talk to the guys first.
Post by: jimvela on 06/15/2007 04:17 am
Quote
and I haven't had success with this approach. Problems like this for me have always come down to a problem with grounding and shielding - ground loops, multiple grounds at different voltages, open shields, shields with multiple tie points etc. I'll often do this sort of test with a hall-effect current probe on a ground, but not on a main cable unless I suspect a common-mode problem of some sort (rare).
We have a clued in participant! I wholeheartedly agree.
Post by: jmjawors on 06/15/2007 04:17 am
Quote
MondoMor - 14/6/2007 11:06 PM
Wait-- I could have sworn I saw an image with "DCmA" in it. :frown:
What would that signify to you? I'm clueless.
Post by: jimvela on 06/15/2007 04:18 am
Quote
jmjawors - 14/6/2007 10:17 PMQuoteMondoMor - 14/6/2007 11:06 PM
Wait-- I could have sworn I saw an image with "DCmA" in it. :frown:
What would that signify to you? I'm clueless.
DC Current.
DC= Direct current
mA= Milliamp range.
Post by: JWag on 06/15/2007 04:20 am
Quote
Lee Jay - 14/6/2007 11:04 PM Unless they're monitoring ground current, I would think looking at currents would be totally misleading unless they suspect the loads (computers) ...
About the only thing I can come up with is that they may be comparing what they're seeing on the station to a setup on the ground, and looking for differences
There's probably a schematic on L2 somewhere. :)
Post by: jmjawors on 06/15/2007 04:20 am
Quote
jimvela - 14/6/2007 11:18 PMQuotejmjawors - 14/6/2007 10:17 PMQuoteMondoMor - 14/6/2007 11:06 PM
Wait-- I could have sworn I saw an image with "DCmA" in it. :frown:
What would that signify to you? I'm clueless.
DC Current.
DC= Direct current
mA= Milliamp range.
Ok... but why the frown? That was really the crux of the question.
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 04:22 am
Thats better!
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 04:24 am
Post by: JWag on 06/15/2007 04:25 am
Quote
jmjawors - 14/6/2007 11:20 PM Ok... but why the frown? That was really the crux of the question.
I'm worried about my sanity, hence the frown. I might have seen something that wasn't actually there.
I can't make heads nor tails of what they're measuring nor what it might mean. If this was a car or some Earth-side electrical system, I could probably fake it.
Lee and jimvela are much more clued-in.
Post by: JimO on 06/15/2007 04:25 am
Quote
bsegal - 14/6/2007 9:31 PM
20 bucks if you can come up with a Wayne Hale pic circa that timeperiod with a full head of hair.
Bergin has my mailing address.
http://www.jamesoberg.com/image/tony_ceccacci-gary_coen-way.jpg
Gary Coen was Ascent Prop for STS-1 (this pix), later Flight Director
Tony Ceccacci was a trainee -- later Flight Director, now big ISS wheel.
I took the picture.
Post by: gruff68 on 06/15/2007 04:25 am
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 04:28 am
Suni reports the battery is getting pretty used and it blacked out once.
Edit: & Again
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 04:30 am
Cable 1
Batteries seem almost dead... :(
Post by: jmjawors on 06/15/2007 04:32 am
Quote
MondoMor - 14/6/2007 11:25 PMQuotejmjawors - 14/6/2007 11:20 PM Ok... but why the frown? That was really the crux of the question.I'm worried about my sanity, hence the frown. I might have seen something that wasn't actually there.
I can't make heads nor tails of what they're measuring nor what it might mean. If this was a car or some Earth-side electrical system, I could probably fake it.
Lee and jimvela are much more clued-in.
Ok. Just wondered if I was missing some other significance.
Quote
JimO - 14/6/2007 11:25 PMQuotebsegal - 14/6/2007 9:31 PM
20 bucks if you can come up with a Wayne Hale pic circa that timeperiod with a full head of hair.
Bergin has my mailing address.
http://www.jamesoberg.com/image/tony_ceccacci-gary_coen-way.jpg
Gary Coen was Ascent Prop for STS-1 (this pix), later Flight Director
Tony Ceccacci was a trainee -- later Flight Director, now big ISS wheel.
I took the picture.
Hah! Time for someone to pay up!
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 04:32 am
Cable demate time!
Sunrise!
Post by: jimvela on 06/15/2007 04:33 am
Quote
About the only thing I can come up with is that they may be comparing what they're seeing on the station to a setup on the ground, and looking for differences
Almost certainly.
If you've ever watched electronic boxes pull current while they run, many will draw varying amounts of current depending on modes of operation. Especially when zoomed way in at high resolution in the time domain.
An example: things with processors in them even draw different amounts of current depending on what code is executing. That technique has been used to reverse-engineer code in embedded devices.
It gets even harder to see the picture when you're clamped around a big harness instead of individual wires as there can be multiple circuit paths, so you end up just looking for out-of-character behavior.
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 04:34 am
Video of the process.
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 04:34 am
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 04:36 am
Soyuz & Progress docked to ISS.
Notice the solar panels of the Russian segment.
Post by: Ankle-bone12 on 06/15/2007 04:38 am
Post by: reubenb on 06/15/2007 04:39 am
Quote
gruff68 - 14/6/2007 11:25 PM
I'm no electrical engineer either, but what is looking at fluxuation in current draw going to prove?
The power supplies for the computers are designed to run within certain voltage and electrical noise limits and they think that one of the power sources might be out of those limits which is leading to all the computer problems they are having.
Edit: oops i think this was answered above and i didn't really answer as to why they are measuring current. i guess just because the current is proportional to the voltage?
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 04:44 am
Post by: MKremer on 06/15/2007 04:47 am
Post by: Seattle Dave on 06/15/2007 04:50 am
Quote
iloco - 14/6/2007 11:09 PM
I thought the "we're all denying we're electrical engineers up here". I'm no electrician, but that waveform looked weird for sure.
It's fun to assume we're all going "whoa!" at the same time as the astronauts and engineers in Houston :) Sure did seem like the crew thought the same.
Post by: Seattle Dave on 06/15/2007 04:52 am
Quote
JimO - 14/6/2007 11:25 PMQuotebsegal - 14/6/2007 9:31 PM
20 bucks if you can come up with a Wayne Hale pic circa that timeperiod with a full head of hair.
Bergin has my mailing address.
http://www.jamesoberg.com/image/tony_ceccacci-gary_coen-way.jpg
Gary Coen was Ascent Prop for STS-1 (this pix), later Flight Director
Tony Ceccacci was a trainee -- later Flight Director, now big ISS wheel.
I took the picture.
You are too cool Mr Oberg!
Post by: jimvela on 06/15/2007 04:56 am
Quote
i didn't really answer as to why they are measuring current. i guess just because the current is proportional to the voltage?
Measuring current with a clamp on probe is easy- you don't have to de-mate any cables, poke any wires, insert probes, or do anything really dangerous. You just put that clamp around the cable you want to measure and watch the results.
Measuring voltage without a test point means finding some way to connect the probe leads to the voltage source. Doing that with a tech is relatively easy, doing that with pilots or engineers- that's downright scary. :)
If you know the electrical characteristics of the circuit you are looking at, you can calculate the voltage and or current based on the other measurement. For example one way to measure current draw in circuit is to measure the voltage drop across a precise small resistance, say .001 Ohm. Doing so with a high-impedance meter or A-to-D circuit will allow precise calculation of current by application of Ohm's law. I know of several places that this technique is used in my EGSE and in some of the flight boxes that my EGSE tests.
I assume that since they have no easy way to do something like that, the clamp on meter is what is in use. (plus, the meter is on hand- always easier to use the tool that you have instead of the one you don't) :cool:
Post by: NASA_Twix_JSC on 06/15/2007 05:18 am
Post by: Ankle-bone12 on 06/15/2007 05:30 am
And sorry for getting of topic ;)
Post by: NASA_Twix_JSC on 06/15/2007 05:31 am
Quote
Launch Fan - 14/6/2007 10:50 PM
Or this, from Chris' new article:
'It appears the computers are sensitive to noise. Problems occurred when the truss was attached,' added another note. 'It's possible that the ground path changed with the addition of the truss, which increased the noise level. There will be some troubleshooting later today. The crew will use a scope meter to check for noise.'
Yep, that's what you've seen them use.
Post by: MKremer on 06/15/2007 05:44 am
Quote
Ankle-bone12 - 15/6/2007 12:30 AMGood lord, man, it's the middle of an exciting/dramatic Shuttle mission! What's wrong with you?! :laugh:
sadly, I will not be home for the rest of the week because I am leaving for florida tomorrow and I will not have internet access.
Quote
Hopefully I will see the shuttle land when we go out to KSC.OK, well, then if you're at least planning to show up for the landing, you're excused. ;) ;) :laugh:
Post by: Naraht on 06/15/2007 08:05 am
Quote
JimO - 14/6/2007 11:25 PMQuotebsegal - 14/6/2007 9:31 PM
20 bucks if you can come up with a Wayne Hale pic circa that timeperiod with a full head of hair.
Bergin has my mailing address.
http://www.jamesoberg.com/image/tony_ceccacci-gary_coen-way.jpg
Gary Coen was Ascent Prop for STS-1 (this pix), later Flight Director
Tony Ceccacci was a trainee -- later Flight Director, now big ISS wheel.
I took the picture.
Great picture! Who is the fellow at the bottom left? I've seen him before, and he looks like he's about sixteen...
Post by: mark147 on 06/15/2007 08:54 am
3:24 CDT (0824 UTC) - restart attempted
All computers have power
Lane 1 central : running
Lane 2 terminal : coming in and out
Others are not working
PAO: All this not unexpected - not expecting a Eureka moment
Station now out of coverage of Russian ground sites again until the next pass
Russians aboard station talking to Russian ground controllers to give updates
Americans asleep
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 10:09 am
Thanks.
ISS Director Update coming up.
Post by: jaredgalen on 06/15/2007 10:11 am
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 10:26 am
Unable to communicate with the single lane properly.
Turned the US power back on.
Letting the crew get some sleep while they will make a plan.
Post by: Zachstar on 06/15/2007 10:29 am
Post by: kneecaps on 06/15/2007 10:33 am
Is that all that was said in the interview also? No smoking guns?
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/15/2007 11:14 am
Quote
mark147 - 15/6/2007 9:54 AM
Russian computers now totally disconnected from US power
3:24 CDT (0824 UTC) - restart attempted
All computers have power
Lane 1 central : running
Lane 2 terminal : coming in and out
Others are not working
PAO: All this not unexpected - not expecting a Eureka moment
Station now out of coverage of Russian ground sites again until the next pass
Russians aboard station talking to Russian ground controllers to give updates
Americans asleep
They're getting closer though, that's at least hopeful news.
Post by: whitewatcher on 06/15/2007 11:35 am
Are there galvanic separations between the segments of the power supply?
What about grounding scheme?
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/15/2007 11:41 am
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=8405&posts=1&start=1
Post by: Chandonn on 06/15/2007 11:44 am
Post by: James Lowe1 on 06/18/2007 05:16 pm