-
#200 by Roci Stone on 09 Dec, 2007 11:36
-
We'll go when we get things right. That's as it should be.
Roci -
#201 by Chris Bergin on 09 Dec, 2007 11:37
-
Quote
ShuttleDiscovery - 9/12/2007 12:32 PM
QuoteChris Bergin - 9/12/2007 12:28 PM
Quotedember - 9/12/2007 12:27 PM
When is the earliest we could try again?
To be honest, I think this is now going to be January, as per troubleshooting notes. We'll see what the MMT decide. Too early to say yet. They could even try again tomorrow...we'll see.
Remember, we're also watching the sensors still. They will go through some more tests.
January won't have that bigger impact on the schedule as if all goes to plan we could get 6 in 2008 or 5 in 2008 and then 5 in 2009, so I think we're pretty flexible at the moment...
Correct. To add, if they launch by mid Jan, they can still get 123 off in Feb. The constraint is getting all their reviews from the 122 mission looked at. They were still coming in for STS-120, a few weeks before the opening launch date for STS-122.
Also, the LON timeline needs to be considered, but the flows are green. -
#202 by shuttlefan on 09 Dec, 2007 11:37
-
Quote
MKremer - 9/12/2007 6:34 AM
I'm going to be a Gloomy Gus and predict this will end up being a rollback, and launch maybe even a week or two later than the Jan. 2nd date mentioned.
I'm with you, "Gloomy Gus"!!
-
#203 by psloss on 09 Dec, 2007 11:37
-
Quote
MKremer - 9/12/2007 7:34 AM
It will be interesting to see if they really go all out to find root cause or if they could go into another tanking down the road with this unexplained. It's like the question at the presser last night -- "are we going to be wondering about ECO sensors for the rest of the program?"
I'm going to be a Gloomy Gus and predict this will end up being a rollback, and launch maybe even a week or two later than the Jan. 2nd date mentioned.
-
#204 by Mike_1179 on 09 Dec, 2007 11:37
-
The basis for the launch attempt today was this has happened before and on the second fill, the issue corrected itself. If 4/4 worked, then the issue would have been in the family of those previous problems and they were more comfortable launching. This is the first time they have re-filled the tank and not had a sensor work.
Based on that, this is out-of-family and it becomes more difficult to justify "try again and see if it works" without more data. With that in mind, it makes an attempt in the next day or two unlikely unless the troubleshooting points to something that's quick to fix -
#205 by MKremer on 09 Dec, 2007 11:38
-
Quote
ntschke - 9/12/2007 6:35 AM
Quotejaredgalen - 9/12/2007 7:33 AM Have there been concerns in the past about how all the tanking and detanking may affect the integrity of the ET foam? I seem to remember a change was made to the recently around how long the stack was on the ground after the ET being filled? Not sure exactly...
It was mentioned in yesterday's post MMT that the tank is capable of 13 cycles. I believe that means a fill and drain is 2 cycles (can anyone confirm that for me?)
The tank hardware is good for 13 cycles. Wayne also mentioned they still may need to repair cracks or other foam problems that can develop well before that, though.
-
#206 by shuttlefan on 09 Dec, 2007 11:38
-
Quote
Mike_1179 - 9/12/2007 6:37 AM
The basis for the launch attempt today was this has happened before and on the second fill, the issue corrected itself. If 4/4 worked, then the issue would have been in the family of those previous problems and they were more comfortable launching. This is the first time they have re-filled the tank and not had a sensor work.
Based on that, this is out-of-family and it becomes more difficult to justify "try again and see if it works" without more data. With that in mind, it makes an attempt in the next day or two unlikely unless the troubleshooting points to something that's quick to fix
Did they not have trouble with the ECOs on both STS-114 tanking tests though? -
#207 by psloss on 09 Dec, 2007 11:39
-
Quote
Chris Bergin - 9/12/2007 7:37 AM
From a hardware processing standpoint, this kind of relieves time pressure on the LON...except that they may not want to stack the next ET "on-time" given the current situation...
Also, the LON timeline needs to be considered, but the flows are green.
-
#208 by Ford Mustang on 09 Dec, 2007 11:40
-
Confirmation that LO2 is draining.
-
#209 by psloss on 09 Dec, 2007 11:40
-
Quote
shuttlefan - 9/12/2007 7:38 AM
Yes; however, they changed tanks and a lot of electronics in the orbiter aft after that. (Including the point sensor box.)
Did they not have trouble with the ECOs on both STS-114 tanking tests though?
And still had one of the circuits fail WET on the first launch attempt tanking.
-
#210 by William Graham on 09 Dec, 2007 11:41
-
How will this latest delay affect NRO L-24. If a longer delay is announced today, can the Atlas be launched tomorrow, or not?
-
#211 by Chris Bergin on 09 Dec, 2007 11:41
-
LOX ECO number 3 just failed DRY, per L2. Damn.
-
#212 by Gekko0481 on 09 Dec, 2007 11:43
-
Don't lynch me, but thats a completely separate one to the ones that failed the other time, correct?
-
#213 by ShuttleDiscovery on 09 Dec, 2007 11:44
-
Quote
Chris Bergin - 9/12/2007 12:37 PM
Correct. To add, if they launch by mid Jan, they can still get 123 off in Feb. The constraint is getting all their reviews from the 122 mission looked at. They were still coming in for STS-120, a few weeks before the opening launch date for STS-122.
Also, the LON timeline needs to be considered, but the flows are green.
Leo isn't going to get very long in space! I can predict a 117/118 style crew change alreday whereby Reisman launches on 124!
-
#214 by Michael22090 on 09 Dec, 2007 11:45
-
Quote
Gekko0481 - 9/12/2007 6:43 AM
Don't lynch me, but thats a completely separate one to the ones that failed the other time, correct?
Yes, before it was LH2 sensors, now it's a LOX sensor, which probably is going to make this situation worse. But I would wait for more from Chris before jumping to a conclusion. -
#215 by Chris Bergin on 09 Dec, 2007 11:45
-
Quote
Gekko0481 - 9/12/2007 12:43 PM
Don't lynch me, but thats a completely separate one to the ones that failed the other time, correct?
To summarize:
LH2 ECO Number 3 failed WET
LOX ECO Number 3 failed DRY <--new issue. -
#216 by shuttlefan on 09 Dec, 2007 11:46
-
Quote
Chris Bergin - 9/12/2007 6:41 AM
LOX ECO number 3 just failed DRY, per L2. Damn.
Sorry if I'm jumping on this too early Chris, but is this the first case of a LOX ECO failing in the history of this whole ECO sensor fiasco? -
#217 by Jim on 09 Dec, 2007 11:46
-
Quote
uko - 9/12/2007 7:17 AM
Diller is earsdropping on the flight directors
Flight directors are in Houston.
There is only one Launch Director, Leinbach, -
#218 by DaveS on 09 Dec, 2007 11:48
-
Quote
Jim - 9/12/2007 1:46 PM
Don't forget Doug Lyons! He's the STS-122 LD.Quoteuko - 9/12/2007 7:17 AM
Diller is earsdropping on the flight directors
Flight directors are in Houston.
There is only one Launch Director, Leinbach, -
#219 by shuttlefan on 09 Dec, 2007 11:50
-
Quote
DaveS - 9/12/2007 6:48 AM
QuoteJim - 9/12/2007 1:46 PM
Don't forget Doug Lyons! He's the STS-122 LD.Quoteuko - 9/12/2007 7:17 AM
Diller is earsdropping on the flight directors
Flight directors are in Houston.
There is only one Launch Director, Leinbach,
And all the other launch controllers sitting at their consoles.....
