-
#1080
by
cb6785
on 31 Oct, 2008 08:05
-
Since it'll be nearly five month inside the OPF maybe some more parts of the "mini-OMDP's" can be accomplished.
-
#1081
by
ShuttleDiscovery
on 31 Oct, 2008 20:58
-
Since it'll be nearly five month inside the OPF maybe some more parts of the "mini-OMDP's" can be accomplished.
Yes, I'm sure they will use this time constructively.
-
#1082
by
Chris Bergin
on 31 Oct, 2008 21:39
-
Since it'll be nearly five month inside the OPF maybe some more parts of the "mini-OMDP's" can be accomplished.
That's a good question! We'll check into that.
-
#1083
by
ShuttleDiscovery
on 31 Oct, 2008 21:52
-
-
#1084
by
yorky10
on 01 Nov, 2008 00:36
-
BBC article on delay...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7701211.stm
Actually an interesting British news article. Makes a change from reading about premiership footballers wives buying a new pair of boots or a former big brother star getting a parking ticket. Because unfortunately over here thats what we seem to deam to be important in the world. All the information was probably taken from here though so I'm not going to cancel my L2 subscription just yet
-
#1085
by
Chris Bergin
on 03 Nov, 2008 14:16
-
De-mate Friday. Atlantis rolls back to the OPF on her wheels on Monday or Tuesday (still being discussed). Will write up an article via L2 processing later today.
-
#1086
by
nathan.moeller
on 04 Nov, 2008 01:42
-
I apologize if this has been answered, but will the use of the ET-127 stack for STS-119 accelerate the February launch date at all?
-
#1087
by
DaveS
on 04 Nov, 2008 01:48
-
No. Launch is still NET Feb. 12.
-
#1088
by
nathan.moeller
on 04 Nov, 2008 01:49
-
No. Launch is still NET Feb. 12.
Thanks Dave. Is that date mostly dependent on Discovery's processing then? Or does it have to do with the upcoming beta-angle cutout?
-
#1089
by
nathan.moeller
on 04 Nov, 2008 02:01
-
No. Launch is still NET Feb. 12.
No, launch is NET May...
Rob - We're talking about STS-119. Apologies if it seems OT for the 125 thread, but it involved the ET-127 stack, so I was unsure about where to ask the question.
-
#1090
by
psloss
on 04 Nov, 2008 12:09
-
Thanks Dave. Is that date mostly dependent on Discovery's processing then? Or does it have to do with the upcoming beta-angle cutout?
Probably both. The sudden schedule "improvement" in the ET/SRB processing doesn't change the orbiter processing schedule much, if at all. Any significant acceleration/compression of the schedule would require a good deal more advance notice and the STS-125 delay was only about five weeks ago.
-
#1091
by
Chris Bergin
on 04 Nov, 2008 14:43
-
-
#1092
by
nathan.moeller
on 04 Nov, 2008 19:01
-
Thanks Dave. Is that date mostly dependent on Discovery's processing then? Or does it have to do with the upcoming beta-angle cutout?
Probably both. The sudden schedule "improvement" in the ET/SRB processing doesn't change the orbiter processing schedule much, if at all. Any significant acceleration/compression of the schedule would require a good deal more advance notice and the STS-125 delay was only about five weeks ago.
Thanks Philip. I knew it wouldn't accelerate orbiter processing, but I wondered if it was one of those cases where the orbiter is ready to go but the ET/SRB stack isn't. Guess not
-
#1093
by
Chris Bergin
on 06 Nov, 2008 14:58
-
-
#1094
by
shuttlefan
on 07 Nov, 2008 15:56
-
-
#1095
by
Chris Bergin
on 07 Nov, 2008 15:57
-
-
#1096
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 07 Nov, 2008 16:07
-
What about the Ares 1X lightning tower modifications is incompatible with a Shuttle launch? If the FSS lightning mast were made taller in preparation for Ares 1X, why couldn't the now delayed STS-400 be launched (if needed) with the modification already in place?
Thanks.
Actually, I just read that the extention to the FSS lightening mast is no longer necessary since there is sufficient time to complete the three lightening towers at Pad-B before Ares 1-X.
-
#1097
by
Chris Bergin
on 07 Nov, 2008 17:16
-
What about the Ares 1X lightning tower modifications is incompatible with a Shuttle launch? If the FSS lightning mast were made taller in preparation for Ares 1X, why couldn't the now delayed STS-400 be launched (if needed) with the modification already in place?
Thanks.
Actually, I just read that the extention to the FSS lightening mast is no longer necessary since there is sufficient time to complete the three lightening towers at Pad-B before Ares 1-X.
Yep. Though that is being studied, not yet the absolute forward plan. A lot will be related to when Ares I-X will launch and how far they progress with the Ares I towers.
-
#1098
by
Chris Bergin
on 07 Nov, 2008 17:17
-
Demating Monday.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2008/11/sts-126-display-processor-125-de-stack/
"“S0030 Orbiter/ET de-mate operations are scheduled as follows: Orbiter/ET de-mate pre-ops are scheduled to begin tomorrow and complete Friday. Orbiter Sling build-up is scheduled for Friday. Orbiter/ET de-mate is scheduled to begin on Monday (11/10).”"
She's technically demated as of right now (umbilicals disconnected. Sling being built up in the transfer aisle for the removal of Atlantis from the stack on Monday.
-
#1099
by
psloss
on 07 Nov, 2008 18:57
-
She's technically demated as of right now (umbilicals disconnected. Sling being built up in the transfer aisle for the removal of Atlantis from the stack on Monday.
Well, the umbilicals aren't the same as the attach points. If they haven't broken the attach point connections, then they haven't broken "hard mate" yet.
