-
#260
by
psloss
on 07 Dec, 2007 12:56
-
Andrewwski - 7/12/2007 8:30 AM
Couldn't agree more, Philip. This isn't "go fever".
Nobody but the MMT and people working on this are qualified to say what is OK and what is not.
For the most part; I'm sure there are other rocket scientists who would be qualified. What I've observed over the years is very little public speculation from that community in these situations.
For us outsiders, here's the thing about whether it's go fever or not: we won't be able to determine that until AFTER the fact unless someone goes public in an unprecedented way.
-
#261
by
Chris Bergin
on 07 Dec, 2007 13:24
-
Analyst - 7/12/2007 1:46 PM
A few weeks ago Chris started a thread about the RCS valve problem with "potentially rollback". While this has been true, my thought was "pretty hard words" for a problem not well understood then. A rollback is always *possible*. Doesn't mean there will be one.
Analyst
So you don't want us to report the *facts* about the options open to managers evaluating status? Fact of the matter is, had the valve been the failure point, then yes, rollback would have been an option as the valve could not of been R&Red at the pad. The other option was to fly as-is with waivers, which we also reported. Thankfully, as written, we followed the process (do we hold back the information until after the event??) the issue was being caused downstream and was corrected.
We're not going to sugarcoat facts, and we sure as hell aren't going to be reporting the style of "can't tell you yet....we'll tell you more after the event". You're on the wrong site if so, as we report live status, as we all follow the process.
We'll be doing that today, from the options of launching tomorrow, delaying, or rollback. Whatever the MMT is evaluating, we'll be reporting it, regardless if it's "harsh words" or not. Facts are facts.
-
#262
by
haywoodfloyd
on 07 Dec, 2007 13:32
-
Chris Bergin - 7/12/2007 9:24 AM
Analyst - 7/12/2007 1:46 PM
A few weeks ago Chris started a thread about the RCS valve problem with "potentially rollback". While this has been true, my thought was "pretty hard words" for a problem not well understood then. A rollback is always *possible*. Doesn't mean there will be one.
Analyst
So you don't want us to report the *facts* about the options open to managers evaluating status? Fact of the matter is, had the valve been the failure point, then yes, rollback would have been the call as the valve could not of been R&Red at the pad. Thankfully, as written, as we followed the process (do we hold back the information until after the event??) the issue was being caused downstream and was corrected.
We're not going to sugarcoat facts, and we sure as hell aren't going to be reporting the style of "can't tell you yet....we'll tell you more after the event". You're on the wrong site if so, as we report live status, as we all follow the process.
We'll be doing that today, from the options of launching tomorrow, delaying, or rollback. Whatever the MMT is evaluating, we'll be reporting it, regardless if it's "harsh words" or not. Facts are facts.
As it should be, Chris.
Well said.
-
#263
by
shuttlefan
on 07 Dec, 2007 13:32
-
Chris Bergin - 7/12/2007 8:24 AM
Analyst - 7/12/2007 1:46 PM
A few weeks ago Chris started a thread about the RCS valve problem with "potentially rollback". While this has been true, my thought was "pretty hard words" for a problem not well understood then. A rollback is always *possible*. Doesn't mean there will be one.
Analyst
So you don't want us to report the *facts* about the options open to managers evaluating status? Fact of the matter is, had the valve been the failure point, then yes, rollback would have been the call as the valve could not of been R&Red at the pad. Thankfully, as written, as we followed the process (do we hold back the information until after the event??) the issue was being caused downstream and was corrected.
We're not going to sugarcoat facts, and we sure as hell aren't going to be reporting the style of "can't tell you yet....we'll tell you more after the event". You're on the wrong site if so, as we report live status, as we all follow the process.
We'll be doing that today, from the options of launching tomorrow, delaying, or rollback. Whatever the MMT is evaluating, we'll be reporting it, regardless if it's "harsh words" or not. Facts are facts.
I'm totally with you Chris!! This site is wonderful on reporting all the possibilities firsthand.
-
#264
by
Chris Bergin
on 07 Dec, 2007 14:18
-
psloss - 7/12/2007 11:06 AM
L2 plug: if you review the STS-93 ascent video, you can hear that event called out on one of the booster console's loops.
It's about a 100mb video, but I'll cut some of the end and publish it into this thread.
-
#265
by
Chris Bergin
on 07 Dec, 2007 14:28
-
-
#266
by
JimO
on 07 Dec, 2007 14:33
-
mark147 - 7/12/2007 7:01 AM
The cost would be that they would then have an abort condition which would mean a TAL, AOA or ATO, none of which would get Columbus attached to the station and two of which would create delay in getting Atlantis back to KSC (considerably so in the case of a TAL!).
They can trade crew safety against the risk to the programme (due to an abort) but the cost is there in one or the other. Those are no doubt the issues they will be working through today.
Mark
Mark, I seem to recall that landing with undeployed payload was 'possible but not recommended' due to much heavier than nominal touchdown forces, that in the old days would have called for a total orbiter structural inspection and overhaul -- and possibly just writing it off as 'probably damaged and non-verifiable'. An intact orbit might have been the last mission for that particular orbiter, even if the landing was made perfectly.
-
#267
by
Martin FL
on 07 Dec, 2007 15:01
-
Mr Oberg. What in your experience do you think NASA will decide to do?
-
#268
by
montmein69
on 07 Dec, 2007 15:15
-
rfoshaug - 7/12/2007 7:32 AM
Gary - 7/12/2007 1:15 PM
montmein69 - 7/12/2007 11:09 AM
Has ESA any say in the matter ? (two astronauts in the crew and Columbus in the bay)
Any say over what? ESA can't force NASA to launch.
I think montmein69 meant if ESA could refuse to launch with their astronauts and their cargo if they are not comfortable with the safety situation.
That was exactly my mind in case the safety rules are modified.
My opinion is that ESA do not know the details of the inner workings of the shuttle system. NASA and USA do, and when ESA originally decided to lift their cargo and astronauts to orbit on the shuttle, they entrusted that cargo and those astronauts to the engineers and managers of the shuttle program.
Yes, but the deal was made with the "3 of 4" .. and maybe it could be changed to launch in the december window.
I see no reason why ESA should not trust any decision made by shuttle managers and engineers, whether it is to fly as is or to roll back and fix the problem.
My question was not to discuss about NASA skills but only "Would ESA be consulted or not ?" before the decision is taken to launch as is.
-
#269
by
ras391
on 07 Dec, 2007 15:51
-
ESA is a customer as well as a partner. They are always consulted. As for a rush to launch, not true!! If there was a rush to launch, we would be trying to fly today. By not going into the shuttle or ET, we keep all options open. By topping off the fuel, we keep all options open. Remember, they call it a launch "window" because they keep all options open.
-
#270
by
Orbiter Obvious
on 07 Dec, 2007 15:52
-
Chris Bergin - 7/12/2007 9:28 AM
Ok, cut it down and reduced the quality to make it fit as an attachment in this thread.
STS-93 (very eventful). Full video (100mb) on L2. There's another clip at the start here (second post): http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=9944&start=1
See below for attachment to download the ECO element of the launch:
Thanks! That's awesome!
-
#271
by
Yegor
on 07 Dec, 2007 15:53
-
When NASA are going to make the decision if they can fly with two faulty sensors?
-
#272
by
Chris Bergin
on 07 Dec, 2007 15:56
-
Yegor - 7/12/2007 4:53 PM
When NASA are going to make the decision if they can fly with two faulty sensors?
MMT meet at 2pm Eastern (two hours time). Engineering data is still being collected, though I'm close to getting a new article on site with the latest. I'll have that up as the MMT meets and then update as that proceeds (will be a long MMT).
Also remember, "two faulty sensors" is not exactly the case.
-
#273
by
Yegor
on 07 Dec, 2007 16:08
-
Thank you very much for a quick reply!
-
#274
by
APAagent
on 07 Dec, 2007 16:52
-
I sure hope it liftoffs tommorrow!!!
-
#275
by
JimO
on 07 Dec, 2007 16:52
-
I think the decision will rest on how mature the Booster console's decision charts
are for all permutations of sensor failure modes. My suspicion is that their charts
were pretty mature yesterday, and in the past 24 hrs have fully ripened.
If the MMT isn't convinced, they can give them a few more days and more test resources.
-
#276
by
dember
on 07 Dec, 2007 17:19
-
I would assume that if nasa is going to attempt a launch tomorrow the RSS would be retracted sometime this evening. Any more news?
I have been away for most of the morning.
-
#277
by
William Graham
on 07 Dec, 2007 17:20
-
If this gets delayed any further, will the Atlas scheduled for 10 December wait for the Shuttle, or will the Shuttle be expected to wait?
-
#278
by
dember
on 07 Dec, 2007 17:42
-
They will work with ULA if it gets to that point. The way i understand it.
-
#279
by
Chris Bergin
on 07 Dec, 2007 17:50
-
MMT delayed. There's a huge effort going on with this. Still 50/50 on flying tomorrow.
Incidently, there's bigger news brewing...so it's going to be a long night folks!
