Author Topic: LIVE: STS-120 Flight Day 8 - EVA-3 and P5/P6 Events (Read 120677 times)

DaveS · « **Reply #660 on:** 10/30/2007 09:44 pm »

Quote

BigKiai - 30/10/2007 11:17 PM

Does it appear that the wire snagged on a grommet, causing the seam it is on to rip?

They don't know yet. Right now they're going through everything(telemetry, digital photos and videos) to see if there's anything that can tell them what happened. Won't probably have anything until tommorow.

Colds7ream · « **Reply #661 on:** 10/30/2007 09:48 pm »

Quote

Where's Bruce McCandless when you need him?

Now there's a good point - I understand the MMUs are still in storage somewhere?

STS Tony · « **Reply #662 on:** 10/30/2007 09:53 pm »

Quote

Colds7ream - 30/10/2007 5:48 PM

Quote
Where's Bruce McCandless when you need him?

Now there's a good point - I understand the MMUs are still in storage somewhere?

Probably, why did they stop using them?

Colds7ream · « **Reply #663 on:** 10/30/2007 09:54 pm »

Quote

STS Tony - 30/10/2007 11:53 PM

Quote
Colds7ream - 30/10/2007 5:48 PM

Quote
Where's Bruce McCandless when you need him?

Now there's a good point - I understand the MMUs are still in storage somewhere?

Probably, why did they stop using them?

They were deemed unnecessary following the Challenger accident... But they'd be absolutely perfect for this!

gordo · « **Reply #664 on:** 10/30/2007 09:57 pm »

If you go look at the high res pics its quite clear whats happned: The end gromet that slides up and down the wire had got stuck and pulled off the hinge. To recover the situation it might be easy to snip off the end hinge right at the sliding gromet if they can easily get close enough to do it. You then have one panel slight out of tension, but they may well be happy to live with that....they might just have to.

psloss · « **Reply #665 on:** 10/30/2007 09:58 pm »

Quote

Colds7ream - 30/10/2007 6:54 PM

They were deemed unnecessary following the Challenger accident... But they'd be absolutely perfect for this!

They might provide access to the location, but then things get messy -- what do you use for leverage? (No foot restraints.) How long can you station keep? Etc., Etc. (For instance, safety of the crew member.)

Getting there is important, but not if it makes your job harder once you get there.

Marcel-Jan · « **Reply #666 on:** 10/30/2007 10:00 pm »

After Challenger, the MMU was judged too risky. Also, the MMU gas ejecta was considered too damaging. According to Wikipedia MMU flight unit #3 was transferred in 2001 to the National Air and Space Museum. "The remaining MMU are stored at NASA (location not known)."

Ford Mustang · « **Reply #667 on:** 10/30/2007 10:02 pm »

I've read from the rip in the SAW to here, and have not seen it mentioned, but PAO said (about 5 minutes ago) that it is creating about 97% of full power, even with the rip. Not sure if that's good or bad, but...

Please delete if duplicate.

jmjawors · « **Reply #668 on:** 10/30/2007 10:08 pm »

Quote

Ford Mustang - 30/10/2007 6:02 PM
I've read from the rip in the SAW to here, and have not seen it mentioned, but PAO said (about 5 minutes ago) that it is creating about 97% of full power, even with the rip. Not sure if that's good or bad, but... Please delete if duplicate.

That was reported at the press event. The problem is structural integrity... it needs to be fully deployed.

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #669 on:** 10/30/2007 10:10 pm »

Quote

Ford Mustang - 30/10/2007 12:02 AM

I've read from the rip in the SAW to here, and have not seen it mentioned, but PAO said (about 5 minutes ago) that it is creating about 97% of full power, even with the rip. Not sure if that's good or bad, but...

Please delete if duplicate.

It's a long thread, so duplicates are to be expected. So long as the correct answer is forthcoming, that's all that matters.

Ford Mustang · « **Reply #670 on:** 10/30/2007 10:11 pm »

Quote

jmjawors - 30/10/2007 7:08 PM

Quote
Ford Mustang - 30/10/2007 6:02 PM
I've read from the rip in the SAW to here, and have not seen it mentioned, but PAO said (about 5 minutes ago) that it is creating about 97% of full power, even with the rip. Not sure if that's good or bad, but... Please delete if duplicate.

That was reported at the press event. The problem is structural integrity... it needs to be fully deployed.

I understand that, I was just re-stating what PAO said a few minutes ago. Hoping they can get it fixed, though.

Flightstar · « **Reply #671 on:** 10/30/2007 10:11 pm »

NASA Safety would veto MMU for such a repair.

simonbp · « **Reply #672 on:** 10/30/2007 10:32 pm »

Quote

Marcel-Jan - 30/10/2007 4:00 PM

After Challenger, the MMU was judged too risky. Also, the MMU gas ejecta was considered too damaging. According to Wikipedia MMU flight unit #3 was transferred in 2001 to the National Air and Space Museum. "The remaining MMU are stored at NASA (location not known)."

One of the flight MMUs (might be the one owned by the Smithsonian) is on display at the US Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville; the "remove before flight" tags are still attached!

Simon

HIPAR · « **Reply #673 on:** 10/30/2007 10:41 pm »

I'm thinking that lattice structure between the panels is what provides the structural integrity. So if it's not fully deployed where is the integrity compromised? If it's a matter of symmetry with the opposing panels, why not retract those a bit to maintain balance. I would think the damaged panel will rotate just fine in space.

--- CHAS

psloss · « **Reply #674 on:** 10/30/2007 10:44 pm »

Quote

HIPAR - 30/10/2007 7:41 PM

I'm thinking that lattice structure between the panels is what provides the structural integrity. So if it's not fully deployed where is the integrity compromised?

No, the solar array blankets are tensioned when the mast is fully extended to provide structural stability.

vt_hokie · « **Reply #675 on:** 10/30/2007 10:45 pm »

Quote

Ronsmytheiii - 30/10/2007 3:38 PM

Cant something not work just because we are in an unknown environment, and stuff happens? Why is it always someone's fault?

Wish I could tell that to upper management sometimes!

TJL · « **Reply #676 on:** 10/30/2007 10:50 pm »

Couldn't the SAFER be used (similar to MMU...probably a lot less fuel) for this type of repair?

Lee Jay · « **Reply #677 on:** 10/30/2007 10:52 pm »

Quote

TJL - 30/10/2007 5:50 PM

Couldn't the SAFER be used (similar to MMU...probably a lot less fuel) for this type of repair?

No way. It's for emergency use only (as in, save an EVA's life).

Jorge · « **Reply #678 on:** 10/30/2007 10:52 pm »

Quote

TJL - 30/10/2007 6:50 PM

Couldn't the SAFER be used (similar to MMU...probably a lot less fuel) for this type of repair?

No. It's zero-fault-tolerant, for emergency use only. It has the same problems as the MMU (no worksite stabilization, limited stationkeeping availability, high pilot workload), only worse.

Shuttle Man · « **Reply #679 on:** 10/30/2007 10:54 pm »

The one thing I've taken out of today, thanks to this site, is the amount of actual interest in what's happening during a mission. That should be seen as very positive. There have been years where we didn't think anyone was watching, or anyone cared. Now we've got this site, which even gets busy for events such as an ET lift in the VAB. It's a positive shot in the arm.