Author Topic: LIVE: STS-120 Flight Day 7 - P6 Handoff and Off-Duty (Read 63898 times)

pechisbeque · « **Reply #120 on:** 10/29/2007 02:55 pm »

Quote

DaveS - 29/10/2007 4:21 PM

Quote
pechisbeque - 29/10/2007 4:18 PM

In one of the earlier flights, one of the astronauts lost a screw when he was removing some launch restraints.

I don't know in which part of the station he was, but couldn't one of those screws or bolts be causing the problem?
That was on the port SARJ(STS-115). The SARJ talked about is the starboard SARJ(STS-117).

That would be Joe Tanner, right?
But wasn't there another occurrence in a later flight? I think I remember that they compared this later one with what had happened with Joe Tanner.

rdale · « **Reply #121 on:** 10/29/2007 02:55 pm »

Quote

Chris Bergin - 29/10/2007 11:10 AM

Still evaluating confirmation on the power abilities on the JAXA flight (123). Columbus is fine though (apparently someone reported that was under threat as per FD6 thread?)

Florida Today's headline most of yesterday (still in their blog): "Station power problem threatens next mission"

"The current situation raises the stakes for an ongoing bid to move a set of solar wings to the port side of the central truss. It's unlikely NASA could proceed with the launch of Columbus if the stowed wings on the P6 solar array truss cannot be unfurled during a spacewalk scheduled for Tuesday."

http://www.floridatoday.com/floridatoday/blogs/spaceteam/2007/10/live-in-orbit-power-problem-threatens.html

Felix · « **Reply #122 on:** 10/29/2007 03:00 pm »

Discovery and P6

hutchel · « **Reply #123 on:** 10/29/2007 03:05 pm »

I am assuming that this tape doesn't leave a residue that will make matters worse with friction - ala duct tape that leaves lots of adhesive behind when removed.

Lee

Felix · « **Reply #124 on:** 10/29/2007 03:11 pm »

P6 (from Shuttle payload bay)

collectSPACE · « **Reply #125 on:** 10/29/2007 03:13 pm »

Quote

Chris Bergin - 29/10/2007 11:10 AM

Columbus is fine though (apparently someone reported that was under threat as per FD6 thread?)

As Suffredini reiterated during's today's press conference, Columbus should be fine to dock, however he said yesterday that it was still not known if there would be enough power available without a functioning starboard SARJ to support Columbus' science payloads.

Quote

rdale - 29/10/2007 10:55 AM

[Quoting Florida Today] "It's unlikely NASA could proceed with the launch of Columbus if the stowed wings on the P6 solar array truss cannot be unfurled during a spacewalk scheduled for Tuesday."

Suffredini confirmed this yesterday.

jmjawors · « **Reply #126 on:** 10/29/2007 03:13 pm »

Quote

pechisbeque - 29/10/2007 10:55 AM
That would be Joe Tanner, right? But wasn't there another occurrence in a later flight? I think I remember that they compared this later one with what had happened with Joe Tanner.

Yes, and it seems to me that someone else on 115 did as well. I also seem to recall that another bolt was lost later in the year, but again that would have been on the port side.

Really doesn't matter one way or the other though.

rdale · « **Reply #127 on:** 10/29/2007 03:13 pm »

Quote

hutchel - 29/10/2007 12:05 PM

I am assuming that this tape doesn't leave a residue that will make matters worse with friction - ala duct tape that leaves lots of adhesive behind when removed.

Lee

If you check the diagram, where he found the residue doesn't appear to be part of the mechanical operation "hot zone"

rdale · « **Reply #128 on:** 10/29/2007 03:15 pm »

Quote

collectSPACE - 29/10/2007 12:13 PM

Suffredini confirmed this yesterday.

He confirmed what? I don't think the P6 deploy is in any way connected to debris on the SARJ and impacts on Columbus?

Lee Jay · « **Reply #129 on:** 10/29/2007 03:19 pm »

Quote

rdale - 29/10/2007 10:15 AM

Quote
collectSPACE - 29/10/2007 12:13 PM

Suffredini confirmed this yesterday.

He confirmed what? I don't think the P6 deploy is in any way connected to debris on the SARJ and impacts on Columbus?

Yesterday someone answered my question about the SARJ being a show-stopper by pointing out that a deployed P6 will greatly relax the power constraints on the ISS for the 122 mission.

todd5ski · « **Reply #130 on:** 10/29/2007 03:19 pm »

I know Harmony has been attached for a couple of days so forgive my lateness, but I just think it is cool that all 6 ports of Unity are occupied even if only temporarily.

collectSPACE · « **Reply #131 on:** 10/29/2007 03:22 pm »

Quote

rdale - 29/10/2007 11:15 AM

He confirmed what? I don't think the P6 deploy is in any way connected to debris on the SARJ and impacts on Columbus?

He said that if for some reason P6 cannot be deployed, then it would be difficult, if not impossible to support Columbus without a functioning SARJ.

Martin FL · « **Reply #132 on:** 10/29/2007 03:27 pm »

Yeah but Robert, what about the things you cover. Will there be enough power for Luke Skywalker's light saber!

rdale · « **Reply #133 on:** 10/29/2007 03:27 pm »

Quote

collectSPACE - 29/10/2007 12:22 PM

He said that if for some reason P6 cannot be deployed, then it would be difficult, if not impossible to support Columbus without a functioning SARJ.

I guess I hardly consider P6 deploy concerns to be a "threat" but I guess wording is all in the eye of the author :>

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #134 on:** 10/29/2007 03:31 pm »

Quote

collectSPACE - 29/10/2007 5:13 PM

Quote
Chris Bergin - 29/10/2007 11:10 AM

Columbus is fine though (apparently someone reported that was under threat as per FD6 thread?)
As Suffredini reiterated during's today's press conference, Columbus should be fine to dock, however he said yesterday that it was still not known if there would be enough power available without a functioning starboard SARJ to support Columbus' science payloads.

Quote
rdale - 29/10/2007 10:55 AM

[Quoting Florida Today] "It's unlikely NASA could proceed with the launch of Columbus if the stowed wings on the P6 solar array truss cannot be unfurled during a spacewalk scheduled for Tuesday."

Suffredini confirmed this yesterday.

Ah, without successful P6 deploy. Yeah, that'd make things "sporty" in the words of John Young. Thanking you.

DaveS · « **Reply #135 on:** 10/29/2007 03:31 pm »

Quote

rdale - 29/10/2007 5:27 PM

Quote
collectSPACE - 29/10/2007 12:22 PM

He said that if for some reason P6 cannot be deployed, then it would be difficult, if not impossible to support Columbus without a functioning SARJ.

I guess I hardly consider P6 deploy concerns to be a "threat" but I guess wording is all in the eye of the author :>

It's because they're going to be short on power with only P4 arrays providing power. So essentially, they're back in 12A stage(P4 arrays deployed but not providing power and P6 is only arrays providing power) seen from a power perspective.