STS-124 Processing Latest

[ChrisGebhardt]

Well... I missed the screen cap but sometime today the Endeavour's MLP was moved off of Pad-A.

[Lawntonlookirs]

Any recent updates on when the roll out for STS-124 will be?

[Chris Bergin]

Lawntonlookirs - 19/3/2008  12:49 PM

Any recent updates on when the roll out for STS-124 will be?

Things are on hold. Standby.

[faustod]

Lawntonlookirs - 19/3/2008  7:49 AM

Any recent updates on when the roll out for STS-124 will be?

ET-128 rollout at MAF took place...only yesterday.
It will arrive at KSC on 23 or 24 March.
I think the rollout of STS-124 will be only in May,  the mission can slip in June.

[ChrisGebhardt]

faustod - 19/3/2008  12:23 PM

Lawntonlookirs - 19/3/2008  7:49 AM

Any recent updates on when the roll out for STS-124 will be?

ET-128 rollout at MAF took place...only yesterday.
It will arrive at KSC on 23 or 24 March.
I think the rollout of STS-124 will be only in May,  the mission can slip in June.

Please provide a source for this "the mission can slip in June" part. I have not seen anything to this effect. All Chris said was that things are on hold now.

[shuttlefan]

Chris Bergin - 19/3/2008  10:00 AM

Lawntonlookirs - 19/3/2008  12:49 PM

Any recent updates on when the roll out for STS-124 will be?

Things are on hold. Standby.

Chris what do you mean by "Things are on hold"?

[faustod]

Trekkie07 - 19/3/2008  3:14 PM

faustod - 19/3/2008  12:23 PM

Lawntonlookirs - 19/3/2008  7:49 AM

Any recent updates on when the roll out for STS-124 will be?

ET-128 rollout at MAF took place...only yesterday.
It will arrive at KSC on 23 or 24 March.
I think the rollout of STS-124 will be only in May,  the mission can slip in June.

Please provide a source for this "the mission can slip in June" part. I have not seen anything to this effect. All Chris said was that things are on hold now.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I wrote: " I think .......the mission can slip in June"
This because the time to process ET-128 at KSC.
I will be very happy if the launch take place on May 25.

[ChrisGebhardt]

faustod - 20/3/2008  3:48 AM

Trekkie07 - 19/3/2008  3:14 PM

faustod - 19/3/2008  12:23 PM

Lawntonlookirs - 19/3/2008  7:49 AM

Any recent updates on when the roll out for STS-124 will be?

ET-128 rollout at MAF took place...only yesterday.
It will arrive at KSC on 23 or 24 March.
I think the rollout of STS-124 will be only in May,  the mission can slip in June.

Please provide a source for this "the mission can slip in June" part. I have not seen anything to this effect. All Chris said was that things are on hold now.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I wrote: " I think .......the mission can slip in June"
This because the time to process ET-128 at KSC.
I will be very happy if the launch take place on May 25.

Thanks for clarifying.    Though I believe there's still enough time remaining for ET processing in VAB, ET mate, Orbiter mate, and rollout and pad processing to support May 25.

[Chris Bergin]

The NET launch date is in flux due to large scale ET issues. Same for all flights following.

I will add some info to the current article.

[10W29]

ET-127 is the LON (STS-326) tank for STS-124, not ET-129.

[Chris Bergin]

10W29 - 20/3/2008  9:03 PM

ET-127 is the LON (STS-326) tank for STS-124, not ET-129.

That is what I orginally thought, but according to the FAWG. ET-129 with Endeavour - and she's got STS-326:

(ET-127 with STS-125 and does not have a LON mission).

Or maybe I'm going mad, but I'm specifically told the ET issue relates directly to STS-124 onwards.

[psloss]

Chris Bergin - 20/3/2008  5:21 PM

That is what I orginally thought, but according to the FAWG. ET-129 with Endeavour - and she's got STS-326:

I don't believe that the tanks are mission-specific.  Since I'd assumed that the stack being built up for STS-125 would be the first one available; I'd therefore assumed that would be the one used for STS-326.

[Chris Bergin]

psloss - 20/3/2008  9:28 PM

Chris Bergin - 20/3/2008  5:21 PM

That is what I orginally thought, but according to the FAWG. ET-129 with Endeavour - and she's got STS-326:

I don't believe that the tanks are mission-specific.  Since I'd assumed that the stack being built up for STS-125 would be the first one available; I'd therefore assumed that would be the one used for STS-326.

We can only go with what's manifested and right now ET-127 is with STS-125 and is not an LON tank. ET-129 is with STS-126 - which is also LON for 124 and 125.

The problem (and we don't even think it's just one tank) is not the basis for linking it to the STS-124 NET concern. The information is directly "STS-124 delay due to ET related", so either ways, that's the bottom line.

[DaveS]

faustod - 20/3/2008  8:48 AM
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I wrote: " I think .......the mission can slip in June"
This because the time to process ET-128 at KSC.
I will be very happy if the launch take place on May 25.

Time to process ET-128 at KSC? It's a normal tank isn't it? So I don't see why ET-128 would hold up STS-123 as the standard processing time for an ET at KSC is about 3 weeks. Pad stay time for the entire vehicle is minimum 23 days, so if rollout occurs in late April, they would have some contingency time.

[psloss]

Chris Bergin - 20/3/2008  5:35 PM

We can only go with what's manifested and right now ET-127 is with STS-125 and is not an LON tank. ET-129 is with STS-126 - which is also LON for 124 and 125.

The problem (and we don't even think it's just one tank) is not the basis for linking it to the STS-124 NET concern. The information is directly "STS-124 delay due to ET related", so either ways, that's the bottom line.

It's a tangential question, anyway...not a big deal, but I hope that'll get clarified at some point.

[faustod]

DaveS - 20/3/2008  4:37 PM

faustod - 20/3/2008  8:48 AM
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I wrote: " I think .......the mission can slip in June"
This because the time to process ET-128 at KSC.
I will be very happy if the launch take place on May 25.

Time to process ET-128 at KSC? It's a normal tank isn't it? So I don't see why ET-128 would hold up STS-123 as the standard processing time for an ET at KSC is about 3 weeks. Pad stay time for the entire vehicle is minimum 23 days, so if rollout occurs in late April, they would have some contingency time.

Sorry,
I am referring to processing the ET into VAB, stacking on SRB, checkout the stack, stacking the OV and rollout on Pad..
This process took 57 days for ET-125/STS-122.
That tank arrived at KSC on September 14, 2007 and the rollout on Pad took place on November 10, 2007.
The same process took 63 days for ET-120/STS-120.
(arrive at KSC on July 29, 2007 - Rollout on Pad September 30,2007.
The same process took 51 days for ET-123/STS-116.
ET-128 arrive at KSC about on 23 March.
If I consider min.51 days + min. 23 days on Pad = 74 days.
My personal opinion is that the STS-124 launch cannot take place before June 5.
I sincerely hope to take a mistake.
faustod

[jacqmans]

ET-128 Roll out: 18-03-2008

[psloss]

faustod - 21/3/2008  4:47 AM

I am referring to processing the ET into VAB, stacking on SRB, checkout the stack, stacking the OV and rollout on Pad..

You seem to be making incorrect assumptions about how the hardware is processed and how that work is scheduled.  Hardware is not always continuously processed and margins are built into the schedules.

These are generalizations, but in terms of the processing, the elements that can be processed independently until integration can then pretty much sit and wait.  In some of the cases you cited, each of the major hardware elements (boosters, tank, orbiter) "waited" with relatively little work done on them for another element.

Also, if something is known not to be a critical path element, it may not be processed as if it is.  For example, there may be 10 shifts of work to process something, but given knowledge about the overall integrated schedule and integration milestones, that work might be accomplished over 20 shifts.  If something falls behind and becomes a critical path in the overall schedule, though, then those 10 shifts of work may be done in 10 shifts.  (And probably in some cases, less than 10 shifts.)

[NavySpaceFan]

CBS http://www.cbsnews.com/network/news/space/current.html has an article on tank flow from Michoud.  It looks like that 124 is on track since it is going to ISS, but 125 may slip to October.

[Chris Bergin]

That's what Mr Shannon wants, as I've written, but the ET and STS manifest meeting doesn't take place until MAF report back next month...so don't count May 24 - or any date - until at least after that. What MAF can do is an entirely open matter, regardless of what Shannon - and we all - hope for.

Plus CSCS does come into play for 124 - but that is estimated right up to launch and it's guess work if they don't have a solid date on the LON tank. A fluid situation.

In other words, too early to know. We'll see what the MAF summit brings, but right now it's what I've written and based multiple associated centers (sat on the story for four days checking it), and you'll likely see other sites now doing their own inquires off the back of it.

This wasn't a sudden breaking story and everyone's raced to get it out. This was known for many days..weeks in fact on the ET Critical Status PRCB presentations with the flow reports on L2. It came to a head when Shannon flew out to MAF on Monday to request mitigation to protect the manifest.

Here's something to show one tank going south back weeks ago, for example (from L2 and ET-127 has similar red critical paths)...so stay tuned, as we'll have whatever happens over the coming weeks, be it good or bad news on this all. Hope it's not too bad a news (only losing Hubble to October is the absolute best case scenario), as Bill H has quoted Mr Shannon on - which is very useful by the way - but it's an ongoing story.