Author Topic: STS-124 Processing Latest (Read 117264 times)

Fuji · « **Reply #180 on:** 03/21/2008 08:55 pm »

Quote

Chris Bergin - 19/3/2008 5:21 PM

Quote
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.

Very good information for me.
ET-127 with STS-125 and does not have a LON mission, because STS-125 does not have ODS.
Can't support the ISS LON mission.

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #181 on:** 03/21/2008 09:06 pm »

Quote

Fuji - 21/3/2008 9:55 PM

Quote
Chris Bergin - 19/3/2008 5:21 PM

Quote
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.

Very good information for me.
ET-127 with STS-125 and does not have a LON mission, because STS-125 does not have ODS.
Can't support the ISS LON mission.

Correct, but 10W29 is right with the way the flow works for the stacks (minus the orbiter) - upon checking the Ground Ops Documents on L2. I was going on the FAWG manifest. (Doesn't change the situation as it's not one tank specific).

I.e. If the launch dates are in the right alignment with the processing flows, and STS-124 was thrown into safe haven at the ISS. ET-127, stacked in the VAB for 125, becomes the nearest tank, so - in an emergancy - they would stack Endeavour with ET-127 (which is not the plan for STS-126) and launch LON that way.

Complicated I know!

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #182 on:** 03/24/2008 02:03 pm »

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5388 - Shannon is continuing to push for May, but MAF meeting will decide next week. Mitigation involves boosting CSCS.

Note, the issue at MAF is NOT just "sheer amount of work" though related. The reason for the sheer amount of work is the actual issue. We'll report that when MAF/Lockheed give us permission to use documentation.

Analyst · « **Reply #183 on:** 03/24/2008 02:56 pm »

Quote

Chris Bergin - 24/3/2008 5:03 PM

.. is the actual issue.

Do we know anything about this "issue". Or can't you report this?

Analyst

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #184 on:** 03/24/2008 03:25 pm »

Quote

Analyst - 24/3/2008 3:56 PM

Quote
Chris Bergin - 24/3/2008 5:03 PM

.. is the actual issue.

Do we know anything about this "issue". Or can't you report this?

Analyst

Not yet.

ChrisGebhardt · « **Reply #185 on:** 03/24/2008 06:30 pm »

With Shannon pushing for May still, can it be assumed then that this issue does not pertain to Discovery's tank... just the tanks down stream? Or am I way off base here?

Thanks.

psloss · « **Reply #186 on:** 03/24/2008 06:49 pm »

Leroy Cain was asked about the tanks during today's STS-123 briefing after the shuttle MMT...he says that they'll process the 124 hardware and go down to the FRR in mid-May and set a launch date.

psloss · « **Reply #187 on:** 03/24/2008 06:52 pm »

Quote

psloss - 24/3/2008 3:49 PM

Leroy Cain was asked about the tanks during today's STS-123 briefing after the shuttle MMT...he says that they'll process the 124 hardware and go down to the FRR in mid-May and set a launch date.

He also mentioned a couple of areas on the tanks in general that are in discussion...if I heard it correctly, one was an intertank to LO2 tank flange (

) and one was I think a closeout on an aft longeron...

psloss · « **Reply #188 on:** 03/24/2008 06:57 pm »

Quote

psloss - 24/3/2008 3:49 PM

Leroy Cain was asked about the tanks during today's STS-123 briefing after the shuttle MMT...he says that they'll process the 124 hardware and go down to the FRR in mid-May and set a launch date.

Just asked specifically about the LON tank vs. CSCS, and he said he doesn't anticipate a delay to STS-124 based on the LON tank schedule.

Bubbinski · « **Reply #189 on:** 03/24/2008 07:47 pm »

That's good news. If they launch on May 25, with 3 month CSCS, then I would assume ET-127 delivery by late July/early August, to support a LON launch in late August, would this be correct?

psloss · « **Reply #190 on:** 03/24/2008 08:00 pm »

Quote

Bubbinski - 24/3/2008 4:47 PM

That's good news. If they launch on May 25, with 3 month CSCS, then I would assume ET-127 delivery by late July/early August, to support a LON launch in late August, would this be correct?

Not sure. I haven't seen any of those numbers. If they press ahead to the FRR, we'd probably have a good idea then (mid-May or thereabouts). And in between, I'm sure Chris will have many updates.