TrueBlueWitt - 31/10/2007 5:46 PMThe only reason I can think of for removing one EVA is to give the spacewalkers more time to run through simulations and planning for the Repairs on the Solar Array. If the plan is available tomorrow, they'll want to spend as much time as possible reviewing it. This is more complicated than SARJ inspection... and they have had ZERO tank time.
Norm Hartnett - 31/10/2007 12:35 PMI had forgotten EVA consumables, that may be the limiting factor. EVA4 was planned as a short one and EVA5 was a full one plus they need consumables for the stage. The OBSS shouldn’t be an issue since 5 EVAs were planned in any case.Campout time shouldn’t be an issue since they still have up to two days on Discovery if necessary.Priorities are one thing and good planning is another, this is looking almost panicky.
uko - 31/10/2007 12:53 PMomg.. they are still using floppy drives on orbit :O
Ronsmytheiii - 31/10/2007 11:26 AMQuoterdale - 31/10/2007 12:24 PMOBSS will still be there on Saturday... He's saying since we already pushed EVA5's tasks to the stage, why not use EVA4 tomorrow for SARJ, then EVA5 on Saturday dedicated to SAW with the OBSS.Not enough time for a campout for a full eva.
rdale - 31/10/2007 12:24 PMOBSS will still be there on Saturday... He's saying since we already pushed EVA5's tasks to the stage, why not use EVA4 tomorrow for SARJ, then EVA5 on Saturday dedicated to SAW with the OBSS.
ETEE - 31/10/2007 11:56 AMShame they can't swap SARJs from port to starboard and look at replacing or repairing P6 SAW & SARJ on a future mission
Kel - 31/10/2007 6:00 PMQuoteETEE - 31/10/2007 11:56 AMShame they can't swap SARJs from port to starboard and look at replacing or repairing P6 SAW & SARJ on a future missionOr move P6 to starboard and start up the port SARJ....
JimO - 31/10/2007 8:54 AMTo raise another half-baked idea again, what are the showstoppers arguing against a third EVA crewmember?It worked on STS-49, as I recall. It really was needed then, too.
DwightM - 31/10/2007 12:13 PMQuoteJimO - 31/10/2007 8:54 AMTo raise another half-baked idea again, what are the showstoppers arguing against a third EVA crewmember?It worked on STS-49, as I recall. It really was needed then, too.Can they fit 3 people in the crew lock?
DwightM - 31/10/2007 1:13 PMQuoteJimO - 31/10/2007 8:54 AMTo raise another half-baked idea again, what are the showstoppers arguing against a third EVA crewmember?It worked on STS-49, as I recall. It really was needed then, too.Can they fit 3 people in the crew lock?
nathan.moeller - 31/10/2007 12:19 PMQuoteDwightM - 31/10/2007 12:13 PMQuoteJimO - 31/10/2007 8:54 AMTo raise another half-baked idea again, what are the showstoppers arguing against a third EVA crewmember?It worked on STS-49, as I recall. It really was needed then, too.Can they fit 3 people in the crew lock?They did it on STS-49 somehow. But that was the shuttle airlock, not Quest's crewlock. But what would the third EVA be doing?
MKremer - 31/10/2007 1:23 PMQuotenathan.moeller - 31/10/2007 12:19 PMQuoteDwightM - 31/10/2007 12:13 PMQuoteJimO - 31/10/2007 8:54 AMTo raise another half-baked idea again, what are the showstoppers arguing against a third EVA crewmember?It worked on STS-49, as I recall. It really was needed then, too.Can they fit 3 people in the crew lock?They did it on STS-49 somehow. But that was the shuttle airlock, not Quest's crewlock. But what would the third EVA be doing?Quest can't fit 3. Not to mention it doesn't have the hardware or umbilicals to handle 3 EMUs at once.
