Author Topic: LIVE: STS-120 Flight Day 2 - Inspection Day (Read 66373 times)

charlieb · « **Reply #101 on:** 10/24/2007 06:51 pm »

May be something to do with Fuel Cell Contingency Startup procedures.. They might be thinking ahead for that sort of thing...

FUEL CELL CONTINGENCY POWERUP
PURPOSE
To describe the fuel cell contingency powerup procedures in the STS Flight Data File
(FDF) and the failures that would result in the use of the procedures. This procedure
will be executed per Flight Rule 9-41, Preflight Test Bus Management.

DISCUSSION
Some failures exist that can cause loss of AC power to the fuel cell H2/water separator
and coolant pumps. This, of course, will result in loss of the fuel cell. For some of these
failures, it is possible to implement an In-Flight Maintenance (IFM) procedure to regain
AC power to the fuel cell pump package. This procedure takes advantage of a circuit in
the ECU used preflight to check the pump package (Figure 2.12-1). To accomplish this
procedure, thermal debris traps and lockers must first be removed to access the
applicable Power Controller Assembly (PCA) and MDM LF1. DC utility power
(MNC/MNA, depending on which fuel cell is lost) should be verified OFF. An IFM power
cable is connected between a DC utility outlet (MO30F/FC1) and an IFM breakout box.
One lead from the breakout box is connected to the F10 fuse receptacle on a Forward
Power Controller (FPC) with a fuse cap test lead. This will supply power (28 V DC) to
the fuel cell pump check load driver in a Mid Power Controller (MPC) through the
preflight test bus. The other lead will be connected to launch MDM LF1 (Figure 2.12-1).
This connection will supply 28 V DC power to the enable input of the same pump check
load driver. This final connection will cause relay K7 in the ECU to operate applying AC
power to the pump package.

Zachstar · « **Reply #102 on:** 10/24/2007 07:09 pm »

View of the payload bay with docking ring extended.

Zachstar · « **Reply #103 on:** 10/24/2007 07:10 pm »

View of the bay

View of the rear camera.

25 mins until NC3

Zachstar · « **Reply #104 on:** 10/24/2007 07:15 pm »

View from the RMS. Note part of Node 2 on the left.

View of Node 2.

Zachstar · « **Reply #105 on:** 10/24/2007 07:17 pm »

Post MMT now moved up!

Zachstar · « **Reply #106 on:** 10/24/2007 07:37 pm »

Good NC3 burn.

Michael Z Freeman · « **Reply #107 on:** 10/24/2007 07:54 pm »

Was the NASA TV announcer suggesting that Clay has been up there for too long ?

Boggling.

DJ Barney

Felix · « **Reply #108 on:** 10/24/2007 07:55 pm »

rcaron · « **Reply #109 on:** 10/24/2007 07:59 pm »

Did anybody hear Clay's banter with the ground in full? The commentator was talking over the trivia questions and now I just HAVE to know!

jmjawors · « **Reply #110 on:** 10/24/2007 08:03 pm »

A couple jokes thrown in for good measure, too... with the answers drowned out each time.

Oh well.

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #111 on:** 10/24/2007 08:04 pm »

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5263 - updated with an ET image showing the main foam liberation.

STS-500Cmdr · « **Reply #112 on:** 10/24/2007 08:11 pm »

Seeing this talk of a fuel cell issue immediately makes me think of STS-83. I hope we're not getting into that kind of a situation here.

marshallsplace · « **Reply #113 on:** 10/24/2007 08:18 pm »

I got a couple of Clay's highly technical comments .....

Q "What lies on the bottom of the ocean and shakes....?" - Clay

"We're checking on that" - flight control (can't belive they didn't know that one!)

Q "What's the difference between roast beef and pea soup?" - Clay
A " You can roast beef but you can't..... you fill in the blanks!" - Clay

Gonna miss Clay :laugh:

Zachstar · « **Reply #114 on:** 10/24/2007 08:27 pm »

Beautiful view of the payload bay with the earth above.

nathan.moeller · « **Reply #115 on:** 10/24/2007 08:27 pm »

Quote

STS-500Cmdr - 24/10/2007 3:11 PM

Seeing this talk of a fuel cell issue immediately makes me think of STS-83. I hope we're not getting into that kind of a situation here.

If I remember correctly, STS-83 was forced to land early because of APU issues and not FCs. But you're right. I hope this doesn't force a mission abort.

Andy_Small · « **Reply #116 on:** 10/24/2007 08:34 pm »

listening to the coverage makes me think sometimes the crews should have a degree in information technology all the troubleshooting they have to do with their lap tops

ChrisC · « **Reply #117 on:** 10/24/2007 08:34 pm »

Quote

nathan.moeller - 24/10/2007 4:27 PM
If I remember correctly, STS-83 was forced to land early because of APU issues and not FCs. But you're right. I hope this doesn't force a mission abort.

FCs. Google is your friend

Felix · « **Reply #118 on:** 10/24/2007 08:36 pm »

JesseD · « **Reply #119 on:** 10/24/2007 08:36 pm »

just before the Nasa TV feed switching to the MMT briefing, the orbiter glided over the western wildfires: