-
#400 by Chris Bergin on 30 Dec, 2007 17:49
-
Quote
Justin Wheat - 30/12/2007 6:14 PM
When should the first results from testing of the connector come in from MSFC?
Within a week, but we know they like to give long estimates (so as not to breach them) so could be within days. We got the ET-120 Connector results the same day on L2, so as soon as we get them for ET-125...will be an article.
Speaking of which, it's absolutely stunning what they put the hardware through. Nano XRay etc. The images of the testing showed the connector in better detail that you'd sometimes see on a human
I'll share one of the many from L2 here:
-
#401 by psloss on 30 Dec, 2007 18:00
-
Here's hoping they get to take New Year's off.
-
#402 by Orbiter Obvious on 30 Dec, 2007 22:22
-
Quote
Chris Bergin - 29/12/2007 1:51 PM
As promised, an expanded article on status, from L2 information (and this is only a bit of it), going on now as they've just got the connector out at the pad:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5320
Great article Chris, I enjoyed reading that and seeing how complex this all is. -
#403 by Jorge on 31 Dec, 2007 02:08
-
Quote
Jim - 30/12/2007 9:04 AM
Quotebrihath - 30/12/2007 9:34 AM
The September 2010 date was designed around the premise that the ISS would attain core complete status, and is in effect a planning date for the budget and facilities modification for Constellation. Like any plan it can be subject to change based upon the situation.
Yes, it could change. To an earlier date or the last two missions could be canceled. It is a hard date. There are few spares left and there is the issue of fleet recertification
Recertification should be a non-issue. In 2003, the CAIB recommended recertification because they wanted to place a roadblock in front of NASA's plans to fly the shuttle to 2020 and beyond. The choice of 2010 for the recertification date was completely arbitrary. It was a nice round number between 2003 and 2020 that (under the RTF schedules at the time) allowed ISS assembly to be completed without undue schedule pressure, and it was the only number the CAIB could come to consensus on. There was absolutely no shuttle-related technical rationale for 2010 versus any other date the CAIB could have chosen. For that matter, they did not specify fiscal year versus calendar year 2010. Allowing the last flight to slip past the end of FY2010 does not violate the letter of CAIB R9.2-1 as long as it flies before the end of CY2010. I would argue that the spirit of CAIB R9.2-1 would not be violated even if it slips to early CY2011. The intent of the recommendation, as I've said, was to throw up a roadblock and force a decision on shuttle retirement/replacement, and that intent has been met.
In turn, the Bush administration chose 2010 as the shuttle retirement date to avoid the expense of recertification. It is a hard date only because it is the policy of the current administration and NASA administrator. Neither will be in office at the end of FY2010 so their opinions will no longer matter.
Spares are a non-issue because the issue under discussion is not adding new flights to the manifest, but allowing the last flights to slip beyond the end of FY2010. The fleet spares will get older and over time they will gradually exceed their cert limits, but they will not all magically "expire" at the end of FY2010.
The only reason to cancel the last shuttle flight if it slips a bit past the end of FY2010 is budgetary. NASA wants to free up shuttle funding for Constellation and it is easiest to do that at a fiscal year boundary. But no one should pretend it's a safety issue, a spares issue, a recertification issue, or any other kind of issue. -
#404 by ChrisC on 31 Dec, 2007 02:36
-
I don't usually cheer much, but I have to join in ... nice article Chris. It really made things a lot clearer for me.
The quality of my experience as a space fan has improved dramatically in the past year, and it's virtually all due to this site. And I don't even subscribe to L2
Thanks.
-
#405 by Seattle Dave on 31 Dec, 2007 04:10
-
Quote
ChrisC - 30/12/2007 9:36 PM
I don't usually cheer much, but I have to join in ... nice article Chris. It really made things a lot clearer for me.
The quality of my experience as a space fan has improved dramatically in the past year, and it's virtually all due to this site. And I don't even subscribe to L2 Thanks.
You should, nothing comes close to the experience of being on L2 for a space flight fan. It's a 1000 times better than advertised. -
#406 by Analyst on 31 Dec, 2007 08:11
-
Quote
Jorge - 31/12/2007 4:08 AM
The only reason to cancel the last shuttle flight if it slips a bit past the end of FY2010 is budgetary. NASA wants to free up shuttle funding for Constellation and it is easiest to do that at a fiscal year boundary. But no one should pretend it's a safety issue, a spares issue, a recertification issue, or any other kind of issue.
Very good and correct summary!
Analyst -
#407 by Andy L on 31 Dec, 2007 15:33
-
Quote
Chris Bergin - 29/12/2007 3:00 PM
QuoteAndy L - 29/12/2007 8:53 PM
So you're not being negative about the slip, like some other sites are? Hard to be postive, if you don't mind me saying so.
I don't mind you saying...but remember, they very nearly didn't even get a shot at the December window in the first place, and it's hardly the biggest slip they've suffered since RTF, so there's no point being all doom and gloom over this.
Sure, they would rather have done without the ECO system issue, but think about it from Hale's perspective, one which he believes the system may have been unreliable in the first place. So this issue allows them a big engineering overview of the full system. Hardly something to be negative about.
Thanks for the response Chris, feel a lot better about that now!
Really is interesting to follow the troubleshooting and nearly 50,000 reads of this thread for the post tanking test shows I'm not alone! -
#408 by ChrisC on 31 Dec, 2007 15:42
-
Quote
Seattle Dave - 30/12/2007 12:10 AM
I don't subscribe to L2 because if I did I would never get anything else done with my life. I'd go in and never come back out ...
You should, nothing comes close to the experience of being on L2 for a space flight fan.QuoteIt's a 1000 times better than advertised.
""Ladies and gentlemen, I've been to Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, and I can say without hyperbole that this is a million times worse than all of them put together."
-- Kent Brockman
-
#409 by on 31 Dec, 2007 18:21
-
Pictures of the external connector removal from the tank on the Kennedy Media Gallery now
http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=170
-
#410 by Beerbaron on 01 Jan, 2008 01:21
-
Have they cut the wires behind the external connector ?
If so how do they get good connections to the inner wires when they fit the new external connector. My own experience is that wires joined/spliced tend to be less reliable than a single piece wire, or is there enough slack in the inner cable to solder directly to the new external connector? -
#411 by rgerhards on 01 Jan, 2008 10:54
-
The new media gallery images are indeed excellent and very helpful.
... however, I am now puzzled. As of my understanding, only the external part of the feedthrough connector has been removed, because the internal part "requires tank access". But when I now look at the above-mentioned media gallery link, it not only mentions "feedthrough assembly", the pictures also seem to show both external and internal parts. I've magnified a part from KSC-07PD-3660 (below).
I would deeply appreciate if somebody could clarify.
Thanks,
Rainer
-
#412 by rgerhards on 01 Jan, 2008 12:10
-
... and I just got another (less important to me) question. I took the images from the NASA gallery and removed the duplicate press release text, then combined that to a "picture story":
http://spacelaunch.gerhards.net/2008/01/shuttle-feedthrough-connector-removal.html
I just somehow have the feeling that the 5th image (the one with the xray equipment) is out of sequence.
Am I right with that? Also, on that image, in the lower part, left beneath the tape roll - is that an ECO sensing element? From the pictures I have seen so far, it look pretty close to one.
As always, any feedback is deeply appreciated.
Rainer -
#413 by Martin FL on 01 Jan, 2008 13:27
-
Quote
rgerhards - 1/1/2008 5:54 AM
The new media gallery images are indeed excellent and very helpful.
... however, I am now puzzled. As of my understanding, only the external part of the feedthrough connector has been removed, because the internal part "requires tank access". But when I now look at the above-mentioned media gallery link, it not only mentions "feedthrough assembly", the pictures also seem to show both external and internal parts. I've magnified a part from KSC-07PD-3660 (below).
I would deeply appreciate if somebody could clarify.
Thanks,
Rainer
Yeah, that's internal, though it goes further inside. -
#414 by Martin FL on 01 Jan, 2008 13:33
-
Feedthrough removal images are on the KSC Image site, will do them in order...
http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=4
-
#415 by Martin FL on 01 Jan, 2008 13:34
-
-
#416 by Martin FL on 01 Jan, 2008 13:34
-
-
#417 by Martin FL on 01 Jan, 2008 13:35
-
-
#418 by Martin FL on 01 Jan, 2008 13:36
-
-
#419 by rgerhards on 01 Jan, 2008 13:59
-
Martin,
are these really in order? Feed5 seems out of the order to me (I asked that question before your post, but think it is a good time to re-iterate).
Rainer
Thanks.