-
#40
by
lbiderman
on 06 Dec, 2007 13:10
-
What I canīt believe is that we had over 100 flights without this problem, and after RTF we have it now and then! Seems the problem is with the batch of sensors
-
#41
by
psloss
on 06 Dec, 2007 13:10
-
SCE2Aux - 6/12/2007 9:07 AM
ECO sensors again? This is beyond ridiculous.
I don't know why it's ridiculous. If this is related to the previous cases, it's still unexplained behavior, which makes it hard to "fix." If it isn't fixed, then I don't see why it couldn't happen again.
-
#42
by
shuttlefan
on 06 Dec, 2007 13:12
-
Are they continuing to fill the external tank until it's full or have they suspended fueling?
-
#43
by
Bruce
on 06 Dec, 2007 13:14
-
It must be disappointing enough for the astronauts for a 24/48 hour postponement. But a "come back after Christmas" must be a real kick in the pants for them
And all the ESA people too. But, that's life in the space industry I guess.
-
#44
by
Gary
on 06 Dec, 2007 13:15
-
Bruce - 6/12/2007 2:14 PM
It must be disappointing enough for the astronauts for a 24/48 hour postponement. But a "come back after Christmas" must be a real kick in the pants for them And all the ESA people too. But, that's life in the space industry I guess.
And for Dan Tani's family. If this is a rollback then he is stuck in orbit over Christmas.
-
#45
by
Bejowawo
on 06 Dec, 2007 13:15
-
On the NASA Launch and Landing page the countdown clock is still running.
So I guess this could mean they are still filling the tank - or the just are not as fast as this website
Thanks for the excellent coverage!
-
#46
by
Lee Jay
on 06 Dec, 2007 13:16
-
Gary - 6/12/2007 7:15 AM
Bruce - 6/12/2007 2:14 PM
It must be disappointing enough for the astronauts for a 24/48 hour postponement. But a "come back after Christmas" must be a real kick in the pants for them And all the ESA people too. But, that's life in the space industry I guess.
And for Dan Tani's family. If this is a rollback then he is stuck in orbit over Christmas.
Heavy on "if". Rollback is far from certain.
-
#47
by
Chris Bergin
on 06 Dec, 2007 13:17
-
They are going to look at the sensors again during detank. Could be electrical connectors/paths at fault. Not sure how long that fix would be at the pad.
-
#48
by
dember
on 06 Dec, 2007 13:20
-
Can this scrub be confirmed?
-
#49
by
Chris Bergin
on 06 Dec, 2007 13:21
-
Bejowawo - 6/12/2007 2:15 PM
So I guess this could mean they are still filling the tank - or the just are not as fast as this website
They stopped loading the tank a while ago.
-
#50
by
dember
on 06 Dec, 2007 13:21
-
ok thanks.
-
#51
by
SCE2Aux
on 06 Dec, 2007 13:23
-
psloss - 5/12/2007 2:10 PM
SCE2Aux - 6/12/2007 9:07 AM
ECO sensors again? This is beyond ridiculous.
I don't know why it's ridiculous. If this is related to the previous cases, it's still unexplained behavior, which makes it hard to "fix." If it isn't fixed, then I don't see why it couldn't happen again.
Whoever made these sensors did a shoddy job, that's what is ridiculous: How hard can it be for supposedly smart people to make a sensor whose sole purpose is to work out whether there's liquid in the tank or not?
-
#52
by
Chris Bergin
on 06 Dec, 2007 13:24
-
SCE2Aux - 6/12/2007 2:23 PM
psloss - 5/12/2007 2:10 PM
SCE2Aux - 6/12/2007 9:07 AM
ECO sensors again? This is beyond ridiculous.
I don't know why it's ridiculous. If this is related to the previous cases, it's still unexplained behavior, which makes it hard to "fix." If it isn't fixed, then I don't see why it couldn't happen again.
Whoever made these sensors did a shoddy job, that's what is ridiculous: How hard can it be for supposedly smart people to make a sensor whose sole purpose is to work out whether there's liquid in the tank or not?
Careful. It might not even be the sensors. Could be electrical paths, GSE, orbiter aft. etc.
-
#53
by
Chandonn
on 06 Dec, 2007 13:27
-
dember - 6/12/2007 9:20 AM
Can this scrub be confirmed?
Good rule of thumb for newbies: this site is always ahead of the other news sites. There are actually people who work for NASA here, and a lot of the info here comes in real-time.
-
#54
by
psloss
on 06 Dec, 2007 13:27
-
SCE2Aux - 6/12/2007 9:23 AM
Whoever made these sensors did a shoddy job, that's what is ridiculous: How hard can it be for supposedly smart people to make a sensor whose sole purpose is to work out whether there's liquid in the tank or not?
There's a whole instrumentation circuit and so far they haven't been able to isolate the problem to a particular location in the circuit. In the meantime, they went through their sensor inventory, reverified the quality controls, and replaced sensors from suspect lots.
How do you know it's the sensors?
-
#55
by
Chandonn
on 06 Dec, 2007 13:28
-
SCE2Aux - 6/12/2007 9:23 AM
Whoever made these sensors did a shoddy job, that's what is ridiculous: How hard can it be for supposedly smart people to make a sensor whose sole purpose is to work out whether there's liquid in the tank or not?
It's safe to say that that we're all a bit frustrated at not having a launch today. But it's pointless to start laying blame or criticizing when we don't even know where the problem is yet.
-
#56
by
Bejowawo
on 06 Dec, 2007 13:35
-
Why wouldn't they use another type of sensor (just as a backup) when they know they cannot fully trust those sensors currently used.
Another question, just for clarification: There will be another lauch attempt tomorrow or is this too early to tell?
-
#57
by
John2375
on 06 Dec, 2007 13:35
-
when it happened on -114, did they roll back or fix at the Pad??
-
#58
by
gordo
on 06 Dec, 2007 13:37
-
They have a short trouble shooting window to have a look before calling a stop to today, but scrub does look very likely.
-
#59
by
shuttlefan
on 06 Dec, 2007 13:38
-
John2375 - 6/12/2007 8:35 AM
when it happened on -114, did they roll back or fix at the Pad??
On the pad.
And all the ESA people too. But, that's life in the space industry I guess.