LIVE: STS-120 Flight Day 8 - EVA-3 and P5/P6 Events

[Jim]

bsegal - 30/10/2007  8:36 PM
if there's room in the payload bay to fit one along with Columbus.

no "room"/performance.

[Avron]

Jim - 30/10/2007  9:04 PM

Marcel-Jan - 30/10/2007  7:00 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)."

"gas ejecta"?   It was only GN2, which is not damaging

unless you crash into an array, while trying to station keep and fix an array...

[nathan.moeller]

Jim - 30/10/2007  8:08 PM

bsegal - 30/10/2007  8:36 PM
if there's room in the payload bay to fit one along with Columbus.

no "room"/performance.

Bear in mind that they always fill the cargo bay.  But 'fill' doesn't mean fill the volume.  The mass limits are usually maxed.

[vt_hokie]

gordo - 30/10/2007  9:03 PM

So does that mean that if they get the hang sorted and deployed fully, they can live with the small tear?

I was under the impression that they cannot fully deploy the array and stress the hinges with the tear, based on the status briefing comments.

[nathan.moeller]

vt_hokie - 30/10/2007  8:12 PM

gordo - 30/10/2007  9:03 PM

So does that mean that if they get the hang sorted and deployed fully, they can live with the small tear?

I was under the impression that they cannot fully deploy the array and stress the hinges with the tear, based on the status briefing comments.

They can live with the tear as long as it doesn't worsen.  The big issue is getting the array fully extended so they can rotate the SARJ and maximize the power output.  With the SARJ rotating, they'll still be able to generate 97% of P6-4Bs maximum power and activate Columbus and Kibo.  The tear isn't the big issue.  It's a smaller issue standing in the way of the big issue.

[Jim]

fully extended array would be 100% power.  The tear isn't reducing the output, the partial extension is.  The tear is the issue.  The tear is preventing full extension  of the array to provide rigidity.

[Avron]

Jim - 30/10/2007  9:37 PM

fully extended array would be 100% power.  The tear isn't reducing the output, the partial extension is.  The tear is the issue.  The tear is preventing full extension  of the array to provide rigidity.

Jim, your thinking on this option.. we need tension on the mast to be rigid.. so basically  leave the array as is, but lock the guide lines at the base, the put on the 70  lbs f tension.. and R&R when there is a chance. I don't believe for one second  that NASA folks could not find a way to get a new array box on orbit..

[nathan.moeller]

Jim - 30/10/2007  8:37 PM

fully extended array would be 100% power.  The tear isn't reducing the output, the partial extension is.  The tear is the issue.  The tear is preventing full extension  of the array to provide rigidity.

Even better news!  I was having a hard time getting my head around how a tiny tear like that could reduce the power output by 3%.  Now I know!  It's not Thanks Jim.

[Jim]

Avron - 30/10/2007  9:59 PM

Jim - 30/10/2007  9:37 PM

fully extended array would be 100% power.  The tear isn't reducing the output, the partial extension is.  The tear is the issue.  The tear is preventing full extension  of the array to provide rigidity.

Jim, your thinking on this option.. we need tension on the mast to be rigid.. so basically  leave the array as is, but lock the guide lines at the base, the put on the 70  lbs f tension.. and R&R when there is a chance. I don't believe for one second  that NASA folks could not find a way to get a new array box on orbit..

That doesn't do any good.  The tear has to be "stabilized"  so it can take tension

[redgryphon]

ISS FD update coming up.

[davcbow]

I heard someone in the post eva conference say something like a needle and thread to repair it with, how about duct tape.....

[rdale]

That's been mentioned in the guess thread, but probably not stable over time.

[jmjawors]

That shadowy "thing" in the foreground of this view of station is the S1 radiators.  Watching them rotate now.

[jmjawors]

redgryphon - 30/10/2007  9:29 PM  

ISS FD update coming up.

Did I miss it?  What was said? 

[Chris Bergin]

Can't say I caught it, sorry to say.

Time to move to FD9's thread. Was going to be a relatively boring off duty and transfer day, but I've got a feeling we'll have solar arrays and SARJs on our breakfast tables.

[James Lowe1]

Bump and Lock. Realignment of Flight Day threads into order.