-
#780
by
mkirk
on 11 Mar, 2008 23:44
-
Lee Jay - 11/3/2008 7:00 PM
I'm a bit surprised about the FES system issue on STS-123. The FD2 execute package basically says the problem is to be handled by simply using the B system for the rest of the flight. No trouble shooting activities are planned that I can see. Is there another backup if FES B fails (Ammonia boilers, perhaps?) during reentry and landing, thus creating the lack of concern for a failure of a primary system?
For the FES you two evaporators and three controllers; PRI A (which is what was lost on ascent), PRI B which is what Dom switched over to on Ascent, and the SECONDARY.
And yes, There are work arounds (including ammonia boiler) for a total loss of FES and they are dependent on the time of system loss, amount of cold soak available, time remaining to touchdown etc.
Mark Kirkman
-
#781
by
Lee Jay
on 11 Mar, 2008 23:51
-
Thanks Mark!
-
#782
by
Jim
on 12 Mar, 2008 00:37
-
Skywalka - 11/3/2008 7:13 PM
Ok since it was killed in the STS-123 Day 2 Thread I'll repost it here.
Why is JLM going up first and not JEM? The answer given was "because JEM is too heavy with all racks installed JLM contains some of JEM's experimental racks".
IMHO this doesn't answer the question. The weight of JEM and JLM added together stays the same. t.
It does answer. KIBO can't be launched with all the systems racks installed. JLM has system racks
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=12230&start=1
-
#783
by
Discoveryov103
on 12 Mar, 2008 02:53
-
I was just curious to know what the purpose of the brown colored paperlike squares that surround the orbiters side hatch are for. Predominately you will see what I am talking about during roll-over, Rollout, and even in Whiteroom pics if you look carefully.
I'll take a stab at it and probably answer my own question, but I am thinking it is to help seal the hatch upon closure, or possibly even help preserve any abnormal wear and tear on the actual seals?
If someone knows, I certainly would be interested in knowing...it's been boggling my mind for quite some time now!
Thanks,
Andrew P. Smith
-
#784
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 12 Mar, 2008 03:27
-
I believe they're there to provide an added layer of protection to the TPS tiles while work crews are entering and exiting the vehicle in the OPF, VAB and Pad.
-
#785
by
Skywalka
on 12 Mar, 2008 04:58
-
Jim - 11/3/2008 8:37 PM
Skywalka - 11/3/2008 7:13 PM
Ok since it was killed in the STS-123 Day 2 Thread I'll repost it here.
Why is JLM going up first and not JEM? The answer given was "because JEM is too heavy with all racks installed JLM contains some of JEM's experimental racks".
IMHO this doesn't answer the question. The weight of JEM and JLM added together stays the same. t.
It does answer. KIBO can't be launched with all the systems racks installed. JLM has system racks
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=12230&start=1
(irony) Thank you for linking that thread. (/irony) I came from that thread. My question got deleted there.
My question wasn't answered there so please take some time to try and understand me :-)
Why has the JLM (with the racks, with additional weight yadda yadda) to go up first and the JEM later on? The only thing that gets explained is why the weight is distributed from JEM to JLM and not why the JLM has to go up first. I guessed because of the OBSS. I was told I was wrong because "The payloads were decided long before OBSS was planned to be left at the station".
I could use a different example, maybe it's easier then.
Lets say you have a large box and a small box. The small box has 3 Oranges. The Large One 9. You can only lift 7 at a time. You move 2 Oranges from the larger box to the smaller box. You put the small box in your car. Then the larger box. But since the large box has to be in the back you need the small box to the front now which costs additional energy.
So again: why the shuffling? Why don't they send up the "big box" (JEM) first and spare themselves the shuffling they have to do later on? (-> moving JLM from Harmony zenith to JEM zenith later on).
Are they using the time to get the racks up and running and then just move them to the JEM once it's there so everything gets up and running faster? Or what's the reason?
I mean my question isn't THAT hard to understand is it? :-)
-
#786
by
The-Hammer
on 12 Mar, 2008 05:21
-
Here is how I understand it.
The JEM ELM-PS (JLP) has both research racks and system racks (things like power distribution and thermal control).
The JEM PM (JPM) will need those system racks to operate but can't launch with them already in place because of weight restrictions.
EDIT: The JPM can launch with the most basic system racks but there is no redundancy. For instance: without the system racks from the JLP the JPM will only have one power channel available which means if that power channel were to fail, the JPM would lose heaters, ventilation and such.
The racks from the JLP allows for the redundancy to be available as soon as the JPM is launched.
-
#787
by
Bejowawo
on 12 Mar, 2008 05:29
-
Skywalka - 12/3/2008 7:58 AM
(So again: why the shuffling? Why don't they send up the "big box" (JEM) first and spare themselves the shuffling they have to do later on? (-> moving JLM from Harmony zenith to JEM zenith later on).
Are they using the time to get the racks up and running and then just move them to the JEM once it's there so everything gets up and running faster? Or what's the reason?
I mean my question isn't THAT hard to understand is it? :-)
Hope this answers your question:
The JLM is sent up first because it contains racks necessary for activation of the JEM and must be at the station once JEM arrives (on STS-124) - but it doesn't fit "weightwise" into the STS-124 schedule.
Therefore the following procedure has been set up:
1) Launch and install JLM during STS-123
2) Launch and install JEM during STS-124
3) Transfer JLM to JEM zenith during STS-124
4) Transfer racks from JLM to JEM, neccessary for JEM activation
5) Activate JEM
-
#788
by
Jim
on 12 Mar, 2008 10:48
-
Lets say you have a JEM and a JLM . The small box has Zero racks. The JEM needs 9* racks in it to operate onorbit. The shuttle can only lift the JEM with only 6 racks . You move 3 racks from the JEM to the JLM. You delivery the JLM to orbit first . Then once the JEM is delivered, the racks can be transferred and the JEM can operate.
* I don't know the real number
-
#789
by
Jim
on 12 Mar, 2008 10:53
-
Discoveryov103 - 11/3/2008 11:53 PM
I was just curious to know what the purpose of the brown colored paperlike squares that surround the orbiters side hatch are for. Predominately you will see what I am talking about during roll-over, Rollout, and even in Whiteroom pics if you look carefully.
I'll take a stab at it and probably answer my own question, but I am thinking it is to help seal the hatch upon closure, or possibly even help preserve any abnormal wear and tear on the actual seals?
It is not for the hatch seals. It is to allow the the tiles on the hatch to slide past the tiles on the orbiter without causing damage. The paper is removed after the hatch is closed (which would have to be removed before hatch closing if it was to protect the seals)
-
#790
by
Bejowawo
on 12 Mar, 2008 12:22
-
-
#791
by
mkirk
on 12 Mar, 2008 14:03
-
Bejowawo - 12/3/2008 8:22 AM
Don't know where to post but here:
Has the Space Shuttle Processing Status Report Feature been discontinued on the NASA-Homepage?
(see here: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/shuttleoperations/status/2008/index.html)
The last entry reads February 1st as date - therefore I would say it's quite a bit outdated
Anybody here who knows about that?
No as far as I know they haven't stopped.
The PAO office at KSC has been a little short handed over the passed few months and they just moved in some new personnel. It will take a little time for them to get into the routine - especially given the rapid turn around between these two flights.
Mark Kirkman
-
#792
by
Skywalka
on 12 Mar, 2008 14:19
-
The-Hammer - 12/3/2008 1:21 AM
Here is how I understand it.
The JEM ELM-PS (JLP) has both research racks and system racks (things like power distribution and thermal control).
The JEM PM (JPM) will need those system racks to operate but can't launch with them already in place because of weight restrictions.
EDIT: The JPM can launch with the most basic system racks but there is no redundancy. For instance: without the system racks from the JLP the JPM will only have one power channel available which means if that power channel were to fail, the JPM would lose heaters, ventilation and such.
The racks from the JLP allows for the redundancy to be available as soon as the JPM is launched.
Ah redundancy - that's _always_ a good point.
Thanks :-)
-
#793
by
ApolloLee
on 14 Mar, 2008 03:49
-
The ipod picture on Endeavour's "dashboard," seen on Keith Cowling's site (
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1274), appears to be the bigger, hard-drive variety...
Two questions..... How does its hard drive survive the vibrations of launch (is it a specially conditioned ipod?) and why not use a flash-drive version?
-
#794
by
Jim
on 14 Mar, 2008 10:53
-
ApolloLee - 14/3/2008 12:49 AM
The ipod picture on Endeavour's "dashboard," seen on Keith Cowling's site (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1274), appears to be the bigger, hard-drive variety...
Two questions..... How does its hard drive survive the vibrations of launch (is it a specially conditioned ipod?) and why not use a flash-drive version?
Most of the laptops have hard drives. They are stowed in foam so that the vibration isn't that severe
-
#795
by
sandrot
on 14 Mar, 2008 13:46
-
Question: during the current STS-123, would Endeavour as she undocks from ISS have enough fuel to rendez-vous with Jules Verne?
-
#796
by
sandrot
on 14 Mar, 2008 14:05
-
To ckeck-out if everything is ok
or for reasons similar to the ISS flyaround at undock.
-
#797
by
rdale
on 14 Mar, 2008 14:30
-
Checkouts are based on internal reports - nothing that is visualized.
ISS flyarounds are for picture taking, we already have pictures of ATV and will be able to take more when it approaches ISS.
-
#798
by
Andrewwski
on 16 Mar, 2008 18:19
-
I was just asked this, and it left me wondering too as I realized I hadn't a clue. It may have already been asked, but I can't find it.
With the original intention of launching shuttles from Vandenberg, how was the stack going to be assembled without the VAB? Was a similar building going to be built?
-
#799
by
psloss
on 16 Mar, 2008 18:27
-
Andrewwski - 16/3/2008 3:19 PM
With the original intention of launching shuttles from Vandenberg, how was the stack going to be assembled without the VAB? Was a similar building going to be built?
The vehicle was stacked at the pad. The pad was enclosed by the Mobile Service Tower and the Shuttle Assembly Building (still is, I believe). Some shots from Bill Hartenstein's web site:
http://www.ktb.net/~billmeco/Slc62.html(There are lots of others, though...)
or for reasons similar to the ISS flyaround at undock.