Author Topic: LIVE: STS-120 Flight Day 13 - Transfers - Hatch Closure (Read 63537 times)

psloss · « **Reply #40 on:** 11/04/2007 12:01 pm »

Quote

Chris Bergin - 4/11/2007 7:34 AM

Wow, that's a turn up for the books. Either the OBSS people totally underestimated how it would perform, by way of a "don't blame us if it doesn't work after five hours unpowered" or they can expect a nice Christmas bonus

Could be a difference in the certs for the sensors and that extra margin is often built in that one would use operationally (i.e., 1.4 factor of safety for some systems).

I agree with Chandonn -- the EVA was successful yesterday; station assembly is the shuttle program's purpose now and the increased possibility of failing the sensors was "traded" for the broader programmatic goal of station assembly. I think losing that wing would have been a large disruption to assembly.

shuttlefan · « **Reply #41 on:** 11/04/2007 12:38 pm »

Quote

ckiki lwai - 4/11/2007 6:22 AM

Quote
DaveS - 4/11/2007 1:18 PM

Sounds like the OBSS have been give a clean bill of health and all of it's sensors are working.

Nice to hear that, now we can really call it a successful EVA

Plus a full inspection capability!!

Gary · « **Reply #42 on:** 11/04/2007 12:42 pm »

Just curious - Not heard much about SSPTS on this flight but I assume it's helped ease the time constraints for undocking?

GioFX · « **Reply #43 on:** 11/04/2007 12:52 pm »

i think so... it helped extending the mission for an extra day.

jmjawors · « **Reply #44 on:** 11/04/2007 12:52 pm »

The Italian interview (w/English translation) just ended. Whoever commented about the speed that that guy talks is right! Sheesh! Fast talker!

DaveS · « **Reply #45 on:** 11/04/2007 12:58 pm »

Quote

Gary - 4/11/2007 2:42 PM

Just curious - Not heard much about SSPTS on this flight but I assume it's helped ease the time constraints for undocking?

Yes. But I think they're down to just one landing contigency day(Nov.

now thanks to the mission extension. So if they can't land on Wednesday, they'll land somewhere on Thursday.

Chandonn · « **Reply #46 on:** 11/04/2007 12:58 pm »

Quote

Gary - 4/11/2007 8:42 AM

Just curious - Not heard much about SSPTS on this flight but I assume it's helped ease the time constraints for undocking?

Yeah, I was a bit concerned that the station was providing power to the shuttle so the shuttle could stay an extra day. And the shuttle was staying an extra day to fix the power problem on the station.
I was a bit concerned with margins as the P6 problem, plus both SARJ's being locked, was reducing the station power... AND the station was still supplying power to the shuttle!

Andy_Small · « **Reply #47 on:** 11/04/2007 01:25 pm »

MSB at 10:30 CST

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #48 on:** 11/04/2007 02:07 pm »

Quote

Gary - 4/11/2007 1:42 PM

Just curious - Not heard much about SSPTS on this flight but I assume it's helped ease the time constraints for undocking?

Written several references on this in my articles (Gary, you're a sinner!)

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5267

Meanwhile, Discovery continues to perform without issue, with her own debuting of the SSPTS (Station-to-Shuttle Power Transfer System) performing without issue. The system made its first flight with an orbiter during STS-118 on Endeavour.

Boeing's SSPTS provides electrical power to the orbiter main busses from the International Space Station (ISS), allowing the fuel cells to operate at lower power levels, thereby consuming less reactant from the PRSD (Power Reactant Storage and Distributation) storage tanks.

'For the second time in history, the ISS is transferring power to the orbiter to allow it to remain docked longer. As per plan, three (of four) OPCUs (Orbiter Power Converter Units, 1A, 1B, & 2A) are currently active, transmitting up to 6.45 kW of power to the Shuttle PTUs (Power Transfer Units),' added the...

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5269

This won't be a problem for Discovery, with her SSPTS (Station-Shuttle Power Transfer System) working fine, allowing for over three days of margin for STS-120's mission duration. EGIL - cryo margins 1d19h (no SSPTS), 3d7h (SSPTS). Looking at adding extra day. Preliminarily looks like we could support.'

STS-500Cmdr · « **Reply #49 on:** 11/04/2007 02:21 pm »

I've been meaning to ask this...what effect does the California fires have on an Edwards landing?..if fires are raging around the Edwards area, you wouldnt want Discovery flying through the smoke and wouldnt want a what..$4 Billion space shuttle dropping into the middle of it. I guess those fires have been contained now but if the fires were going like they were a week or 2 ago---would that make White Sands a bigger player?

Wisi · « **Reply #50 on:** 11/04/2007 02:23 pm »

Quote

DaveS - 4/11/2007 2:58 PM

Quote
Gary - 4/11/2007 2:42 PM

Just curious - Not heard much about SSPTS on this flight but I assume it's helped ease the time constraints for undocking?
Yes. But I think they're down to just one landing contigency day(Nov. now thanks to the mission extension. So if they can't land on Wednesday, they'll land somewhere on Thursday.

What's the weather outlook for Wednesday? How probable is a Landing anywhere else than KSC or Edwards?

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #51 on:** 11/04/2007 02:25 pm »

Clay's got "more famous cities in Nebraska"! It's his last page of over 500 famous cities in the state.

Any Nebraska media picking up on this over his mission?

lcs · « **Reply #52 on:** 11/04/2007 02:25 pm »

I think he's been up there too long.

jcm · « **Reply #53 on:** 11/04/2007 02:46 pm »

Quote

Chris Bergin - 4/11/2007 2:49 AM

Quote
bodge - 4/11/2007 7:46 AM

Note the transfer message, page 30

:laugh:

So I get item 900, what is item 901? I don't think we have the transfer list update file, even on L2?

Bubbinski · « **Reply #54 on:** 11/04/2007 02:48 pm »

Regarding the fires and an Edwards landing: I haven't heard of any wildfires near Mohave, I HIGHLY doubt that would be an issue. The wildfires were much closer to the coast, in the San Diego and Malibu areas, as well as some places north of L.A., I think. Mohave/Edwards is well to the east of the fire zones, in the high desert.

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #55 on:** 11/04/2007 02:52 pm »

Quote

jcm - 4/11/2007 3:46 PM

So I get item 900, what is item 901? I don't think we have the transfer list update file, even on L2?

Not sure, L2 STS-120 is literally bursting at the seams now, but I'll check the middeck layout presentation if there's a manifest associated with it. If not, request on the shopping list as we grabbed about 90 percent of everything (including the wild stuff) on the list.

Lee Jay · « **Reply #56 on:** 11/04/2007 02:57 pm »

Quote

jcm - 4/11/2007 8:46 AM

Quote
Chris Bergin - 4/11/2007 2:49 AM

Quote
bodge - 4/11/2007 7:46 AM

Note the transfer message, page 30

:laugh:

So I get item 900, what is item 901? I don't think we have the transfer list update file, even on L2?

I thought 900 and 901 were Clay Anderson and Daniel Tani.

jmjawors · « **Reply #57 on:** 11/04/2007 02:59 pm »

I think you're right. It's Dan Tani.

ChrisC · « **Reply #58 on:** 11/04/2007 03:02 pm »

Further the shuttle drops in at a steep glideslope, and the smoke is not likely to get to high altitudes like a volcano eruption, so I think the shuttle would never actually fly through any smoke, even if there were fires near Edwards. I'm assuming that the fires have remained south and west of EDW and thus downstream of prevailing winds.

ChrisC · « **Reply #59 on:** 11/04/2007 03:03 pm »

Well they better NOT take Dan Tani back with them!