Author Topic: LIVE: STS-120 Flight Day 3 - RPM and Docking (Read 89399 times)

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #220 on:** 10/25/2007 03:21 pm »

Quote

backspace - 25/10/2007 3:40 PM

Flame trench reporting about the ice hit on the umbilical door- MSM starting to pick up the story. Get your helmets on, folks.

Yeah, that's the message that was sent up to the crew. They've got the message in pdf form, here http://www.floridatoday.com/floridatoday/blogs/spaceteam/

For what it's worth, we've got the RPM images coming through all the time on L2, and everything looks very clean *from what I can see - note, none of us are going to be able to know for sure, that's NASA's job* - but nothing stands out like on some previous flights.

JimO · « **Reply #221 on:** 10/25/2007 03:27 pm »

Has there been any discussion of possible mission extension days?

How 'solid' (ha!!) is the November 6 landing date, compared with
past missions when there was NO solidity at all ??

eeergo · « **Reply #222 on:** 10/25/2007 03:29 pm »

Well, the hit was just after SSME ignition; surely not much damage could have been inflicted then...

Jason Davies · « **Reply #223 on:** 10/25/2007 03:30 pm »

There's a super large hi res RPM image of the LH2 Umbilical door on L2 and it looks clean as a whistle.

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #224 on:** 10/25/2007 03:30 pm »

Quote

JimO - 25/10/2007 4:27 PM

Has there been any discussion of possible mission extension days?

How 'solid' (ha!!) is the November 6 landing date, compared with
past missions when there was NO solidity at all ??

It's not been brought up Jim. Don't they need to wait and see how the SSPTS performs?

eeergo · « **Reply #225 on:** 10/25/2007 03:32 pm »

Quote

JimO - 25/10/2007 5:27 PM Has there been any discussion of possible mission extension days? How 'solid' (ha!!) is the November 6 landing date, compared with past missions when there was NO solidity at all ??

Gernsteinmeier said two days ago that they didn't plan any extension, although that was still open based on how the mission went. However, he let it look like the landing date was firmer than on the last missions, and unless some major contingency arises, the mission timeline will be kept.

John44 · « **Reply #226 on:** 10/25/2007 03:33 pm »

Video STS-120 - Rendezvous Pitch Maneuver / Docking / WELCOME CEREMONY

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=9130&posts=48#M201780

kimmern123 · « **Reply #227 on:** 10/25/2007 03:36 pm »

I'll not mention names, but certain MSM journalists are starting to annoy me. Press conference after press conference these certain journalists are always asking for info on small things that can fuel their "Shuttle in mortal danger"-articles, even when there's no problem at all. I'm smelling articles about rushing the launch, launching when engineers said it was dangerous etc etc and then that the rushed launch led to ice impacting the TPS.

Anyway, great status briefing. I missed the docking due to school so it was nice to see some footage from the docking

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #228 on:** 10/25/2007 03:36 pm »

Quote

Jason Davies - 25/10/2007 4:30 PM

There's a super large hi res RPM image of the LH2 Umbilical door on L2 and it looks clean as a whistle.

I've cropped the door out of that image in question:

Again, we're not NASA imagery guys. They'll be working from a hell of a lot more data etc.

rdale · « **Reply #229 on:** 10/25/2007 03:38 pm »

Quote

JimO - 25/10/2007 11:27 AM

Has there been any discussion of possible mission extension days?

That question has been asked many times in the press conferences (not sure why?) The comment is that the timeline fits all they need already, there's no reason to call for an extension 1) unless something happens to require it and 2) still need SSPTS to work as advertised before even thinking about it...

JimO · « **Reply #230 on:** 10/25/2007 03:39 pm »

Quote

Chris Bergin - 25/10/2007 10:30 AM
It's not been brought up Jim. Don't they need to wait and see how the SSPTS performs?

Not exactly. Last time, as I recall, the 3-day mission extension wasn't approved until after
SSPTS was activated for the first time. I think they planned the baseline mission duration
this time assuming SSPTS will work as well as last time.

My question was regarding the other 'old-fashioned way' of eking out mission extension days, cryo economies due to power savings on the Orbiter. But nowadays, any surplus orbiter cryo gets pumped over to ISS on the day before undocking -- so that option may have gone away.

The question is a lot less simple than it seems!

DwightM · « **Reply #231 on:** 10/25/2007 03:40 pm »

Quote

eeergo - 25/10/2007 7:32 AM

Quote
JimO - 25/10/2007 5:27 PM Has there been any discussion of possible mission extension days? How 'solid' (ha!!) is the November 6 landing date, compared with past missions when there was NO solidity at all ??
Gernsteinmeier said two days ago that they didn't plan any extension, although that was still open based on how the mission went. However, he let it look like the landing date was firmer than on the last missions, and unless some major contingency arises, the mission timeline will be kept.

And I believe that's due to the tight timeline the Station crew will be on for the stage EVA's. In the FAWG you'll often see durations like 11+1 (or 11+1+2), where the first '+1' is a possible additional day they'd add if the consumables are good. This flight just had a 13 (plus the 2 landing contingency days) as they'd set a plan for that (instead of 12+1) and then get them gone.

JimO · « **Reply #232 on:** 10/25/2007 03:42 pm »

Great answers, I knew I could count on getting this profundity and breadth here!

This wasn't an idle question. A media client of mine is already scheduling resources for coverage of landing day and wanted some insight into how wobbly the date was. Less wobbly than before, it seems. Thanks again.

eeergo · « **Reply #233 on:** 10/25/2007 03:43 pm »

The SSRMS is over the OBSS to get hold of it. I know it won't be performed that way, but wouldn't it be a good idea to stow it on the newly installed -in STS-118- OBSS supports on the truss? Too complicated and time-consuming, maybe?

dawei · « **Reply #234 on:** 10/25/2007 03:44 pm »

I was under the impression that the ET umbilical doors were rotated 180 degrees to be flat against the orbiter surface during ascent. Am I incorrect? If the doors were hit with ice at liftoff, wouldn't they have been hit on the "interior" of the doors which would not be exposed to exterior heating on entry? Thanks for the help in clarifying this for me.

psloss · « **Reply #235 on:** 10/25/2007 03:45 pm »

Quote

DwightM - 25/10/2007 11:40 AM

And I believe that's due to the tight timeline the Station crew will be on for the stage EVA's. In the FAWG you'll often see durations like 11+1 (or 11+1+2), where the first '+1' is a possible additional day they'd add if the consumables are good. This flight just had a 13 (plus the 2 landing contingency days) as they'd set a plan for that (instead of 12+1) and then get them gone.

Yeah, an extension of a couple of docked days might reduce the time margins they're planning for during the 10A stage in order to clear ISS-1E/STS-122 for launch. I think Mr. Gerstenmeier was referring to the stage EVAs instead of the relocation ops (PMA-2 to Node 2 forward, Node 2 to Lab forward) when he spoke of "undocking + 10 days" and "undocking + 14 days."

eeergo · « **Reply #236 on:** 10/25/2007 03:47 pm »

Quote

dawei - 25/10/2007 5:44 PM I was under the impression that the ET umbilical doors were rotated 180 degrees to be flat against the orbiter surface during ascent. Am I incorrect? If the doors were hit with ice at liftoff, wouldn't they have been hit on the "interior" of the doors which would not be exposed to exterior heating on entry? Thanks for the help in clarifying this for me.

I suppose they're referring to the outer 'edges' of the ET door, not the door itself.

eeergo · « **Reply #237 on:** 10/25/2007 03:47 pm »

Arm in movement to grapple the OBSS.

psloss · « **Reply #238 on:** 10/25/2007 03:48 pm »

Quote

eeergo - 25/10/2007 11:43 AM

The SSRMS is over the OBSS to get hold of it. I know it won't be performed that way, but wouldn't it be a good idea to stow it on the newly installed -in STS-118- OBSS supports on the truss? Too complicated and time-consuming, maybe?

In a quick undock, you would lose the ability to do late inspection.

dawei · « **Reply #239 on:** 10/25/2007 03:49 pm »

Another question: Why do the flight day execute packages available on the nasa web site often not have the MMT meeting notes that were on the link from the Flame Trench at Florida Today? There is probably a valid reason but it makes it appear that they are witholding info. Of course, they don't have to release everything (in my mind) but if things are readily available elsewhere, why hold them back in the official release?