-
#320
by
daj24
on 13 Feb, 2008 20:47
-
Considering her usual line of questioning, a fairly positive tone. Not bad.
-
#321
by
erioladastra
on 13 Feb, 2008 20:48
-
"If it's a software problem (as I hear), how does changing the hardware fix anything? "
Not really changing the hardware. Just the only way to reboot the software.
-
#322
by
Felix
on 13 Feb, 2008 20:48
-
-
#323
by
erioladastra
on 13 Feb, 2008 20:50
-
"They are about to switch the Columbus C&C (command & control) computers so the C&C #2 will be prime and the C&C #1 will be a backup (that is the one they are having comm trouble with), this switch will take 30 - 45 minutes and during that time there will be NO KU from ISS and a period of short comm loss with ISS.
The MMT has also cleared all the TPS on Atlantis for entry according to the PAO today pending late inspection of course. "
Ack, Columbus does not have Command and Control computers. You mean the USOS lab C&C MDMs. The Primary C&C can't talk to the Columbus Mass Memory COmputer MMC.
-
#324
by
erioladastra
on 13 Feb, 2008 20:50
-
"The MMT has decided to add an additional FD to STS-122!"
Don't really need it but ESA is pushing (were before the mission).
-
#325
by
dember
on 13 Feb, 2008 20:51
-
I guess they wanted as much help as they could get with outfitting.
-
#326
by
DaveS
on 13 Feb, 2008 20:54
-
erioladastra - 13/2/2008 10:50 PM
Ack, Columbus does not have Command and Control computers. You mean the USOS lab C&C MDMs. The Primary C&C can't talk to the Columbus Mass Memory COmputer MMC.
OH why does this bring back memories of STS-100/6A? Any forward progress on why the prime lab C&C can't have a nice chat with the COL MMC?
-
#327
by
sts1canada
on 13 Feb, 2008 20:57
-
erioladastra - 13/2/2008 4:50 PM
"They are about to switch the Columbus C&C (command & control) computers so the C&C #2 will be prime and the C&C #1 will be a backup (that is the one they are having comm trouble with), this switch will take 30 - 45 minutes and during that time there will be NO KU from ISS and a period of short comm loss with ISS.
The MMT has also cleared all the TPS on Atlantis for entry according to the PAO today pending late inspection of course. "
Ack, Columbus does not have Command and Control computers. You mean the USOS lab C&C MDMs. The Primary C&C can't talk to the Columbus Mass Memory COmputer MMC.
Sorry for the confusion, I was typing while the ISS Capcom was relaying the big picture words to the ISS/shuttle crew and I must have got confused with all the 'C's I heard in that exchange (C&C strings, Columbus computers etc.). I am not trying to confuse anyone, just trying to keep everyone informed, I think I am going to stop posting for the day
Richard
-
#328
by
erioladastra
on 13 Feb, 2008 20:58
-
"OH why does this bring back memories of STS-100/6A? Any forward progress on why the prime lab C&C can't have a nice chat with the COL MMC?"
My first thought but really a small software glitch. Not hardware failure like at 6A.
-
#329
by
JimO
on 13 Feb, 2008 21:05
-
I have confirmed the problem -- and the less-than-we're-all-gonna-die urgency of it -- with several inside sources, and filed my advisory with NBC -- so expect Jay Barbree to ask some questions. It's nice to see the discussion here, too, which remains private to this group per the host's rules, but is good additional corroboration.
This thread is the nerve center of the planetary spaceflight brain. May it live long and prosper!!
And may all its autonomous but interlocked neurons -- every one of us -- do the same.
-
#330
by
ApolloLee
on 13 Feb, 2008 21:06
-
Felix - 13/2/2008 1:13 PM
Okay i am taking a break. Hope someone can take over and keep up the coverage. There should be a Mission Status Briefing in about 90 min unless i am not mistaken
and PLEASE no Columbus is doomed chatter in the live thread. Thanks!
As the usual proprietor of the "is doomed" chatter, I'll refrain....
On a more serious note, jsut how serious is this computer problem... If is something that will likely be fixed with a simple patch or is this more complex, and threatening to the mission, than that?
-
#331
by
eeergo
on 13 Feb, 2008 21:07
-
Completely unrelated to the computer issues, but interesting nontheless: I was watching the recorded SRB videos in SpaceMultimedia, and at the end there's a "forward skirt dome" clip at the end of those replays showing the left SRB parachutes deploy. And, surprise! One of them actually fail to deploy! I'm not sure how many times this has happened, or why the problem arose, but it's undoubtedly of note.
The effect of the missing chute is clearly noticeable in the "down-facing" camera: the sea approaches too fast, and there's very little time difference from when the nozzle jettisons and when the main body of the SRB splashes down (effectively making the booster almost fall on top of the expended nozzle)
-
#332
by
sts1canada
on 13 Feb, 2008 21:08
-
From Bill Harwood's Space Place site daily mission update,
http://www.cbsnews.com/network/news/space/current.htmlHe writes what I thought I heard before, they are going to swap Columbus's computers around, read his excerpt below from the site I linked to above:
From Bill Harwood, this is his quote from his article above, he says: "Columbus was attached to the space station Monday and European Space Agency engineers working through a complex activation process have been having problems getting commands into the module's computer system. They decided today to designate the backup computer as primary and to put the primary computer in standby mode in an attempt to clear out buffers and re-enable normal commanding."
Richard
-
#333
by
erioladastra
on 13 Feb, 2008 21:10
-
Harwood is incorrect. Sorry. He is just confused on what computers is what.
-
#334
by
erioladastra
on 13 Feb, 2008 21:11
-
"On a more serious note, jsut how serious is this computer problem... If is something that will likely be fixed with a simple patch or is this more complex, and threatening to the mission, than that?"
No doom - it will be fixed very soon. Just took a little while to figure it out (though new earlier today, didn't want to swap computers during the EVA)
-
#335
by
Seattle Dave
on 13 Feb, 2008 21:12
-
eeergo - 13/2/2008 4:07 PM
Completely unrelated to the computer issues, but interesting nontheless: I was watching the recorded SRB videos in SpaceMultimedia, and at the end there's a "forward skirt dome" clip at the end of those replays showing the left SRB parachutes deploy. And, surprise! One of them actually fail to deploy! I'm not sure how many times this has happened, or why the problem arose, but it's undoubtedly of note.
The effect of the missing chute is clearly noticeable in the "down-facing" camera: the sea approaches too fast, and there's very little time difference from when the nozzle jettisons and when the main body of the SRB splashes down (effectively making the booster almost fall on top of the expended nozzle)
We know
It was observed last night. The booster fell at a much higher rate due to the paracute issue.
-
#336
by
Chris Bergin
on 13 Feb, 2008 21:13
-
ApolloLee - 13/2/2008 10:06 PM
Felix - 13/2/2008 1:13 PM
Okay i am taking a break. Hope someone can take over and keep up the coverage. There should be a Mission Status Briefing in about 90 min unless i am not mistaken
and PLEASE no Columbus is doomed chatter in the live thread. Thanks!
As the usual proprietor of the "is doomed" chatter, I'll refrain....
On a more serious note, jsut how serious is this computer problem... If is something that will likely be fixed with a simple patch or is this more complex, and threatening to the mission, than that?
They are still working a forward plan, from what I quoted in the article that's on the front page of the site.
-
#337
by
sts1canada
on 13 Feb, 2008 21:16
-
eeergo - 13/2/2008 5:07 PM
Completely unrelated to the computer issues, but interesting nontheless: I was watching the recorded SRB videos in SpaceMultimedia, and at the end there's a "forward skirt dome" clip at the end of those replays showing the left SRB parachutes deploy. And, surprise! One of them actually fail to deploy! I'm not sure how many times this has happened, or why the problem arose, but it's undoubtedly of note.
The effect of the missing chute is clearly noticeable in the "down-facing" camera: the sea approaches too fast, and there's very little time difference from when the nozzle jettisons and when the main body of the SRB splashes down (effectively making the booster almost fall on top of the expended nozzle)
It appears that one of the parachutes on the left SRB (there are three main parachutes on each SRB) developed a tear during deployment (reason unknown) and that caused that one parachute to not inflate properly. The booster splashed down at about 95 feet per second instead of the usual 70 - 75 feet per second speeds at splashdown. This is according to what the PAO said last night around 8 PM EST when the replays of the SRB videos were shown on NASA-TV.
Richard
-
#338
by
sts1canada
on 13 Feb, 2008 21:18
-
erioladastra - 13/2/2008 5:10 PM
Harwood is incorrect. Sorry. He is just confused on what computers is what.
Fine, no more posting for me today
See everyone for EVA #3 on Friday.
Have a good evening/day everyone!
Richard
-
#339
by
Chris Bergin
on 13 Feb, 2008 21:20
-
erioladastra - 13/2/2008 10:11 PM
"On a more serious note, jsut how serious is this computer problem... If is something that will likely be fixed with a simple patch or is this more complex, and threatening to the mission, than that?"
No doom - it will be fixed very soon. Just took a little while to figure it out (though new earlier today, didn't want to swap computers during the EVA)
That's great. Really appreciate you taking time to keep this nice and calm (on here).
And thanks for your contributions during the EVA sts1canada
