-
#120
by
Chris Bergin
on 30 Jun, 2008 00:50
-
I don't understand why the MPL-1 boosters stack will be switched from VAB HB1 to HB3.
I think that the stacking for STS-400 (126) could be performed in HB3.
Am I wrong?
Two stacks in the VAB at the same time, and with C-Platform retraction in the High Bay, that's why they are doing it this way around.
-
#121
by
Lee Jay
on 30 Jun, 2008 02:02
-
-
#122
by
DeanHFox
on 30 Jun, 2008 04:50
-
Many thanks! I guess my search on "hurricane" didn't locate the original post...sorry for the duplicate.
-
#123
by
faustod
on 30 Jun, 2008 06:11
-
I don't understand why the MPL-1 boosters stack will be switched from VAB HB1 to HB3.
I think that the stacking for STS-400 (126) could be performed in HB3.
Am I wrong?
Two stacks in the VAB at the same time, and with C-Platform retraction in the High Bay, that's why they are doing it this way around.
Thanks for the reply.
-
#124
by
shuttlefan
on 01 Jul, 2008 16:57
-
Did they switch highbays with the boosters yesterday as planned?
-
#125
by
psloss
on 01 Jul, 2008 19:05
-
Did they switch highbays with the boosters yesterday as planned?
Yes.
-
#126
by
anik
on 01 Jul, 2008 19:26
-
Quote from
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5460"To accomplish all five back-to-back EVAs with minimal stress on the crew, mission planners have identified the need for four Extra-vehicular Mobility Units (EMUs), one for each spacewalker.
In the past, HST repair missions have only carried three EMUs for their spacewalkers"
Only STS-82 had three EMUs. All others (STS-61, STS-103 and STS-109) had four.
-
#127
by
collectSPACE
on 02 Jul, 2008 03:45
-
Today, the media was invited to Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, for a series of briefings about STS-125 and the center's role in the mission.
As part of the day's activities, the press was provided an opportunity to view the clean room (the largest in the world) where the STS-125 payloads are being readied for their July 14 departure to Florida.
For more photographs and enlargements,
click here.
-
#128
by
Chris Bergin
on 02 Jul, 2008 04:11
-
Nice set of photos. Didn't actually know the 125 payload elements were yet to arrive at KSC.
-
#129
by
collectSPACE
on 02 Jul, 2008 04:47
-
Didn't actually know the 125 payload elements were yet to arrive at KSC.
Two notes from the briefing with Preston Burch, HST Program Manager:
1. HST hardware won't be ready to support a launch earlier than Oct. 8.
2. There will not be a sixth scheduled EVA.
-
#130
by
Chris Bergin
on 02 Jul, 2008 04:55
-
Two notes from the briefing with Preston Burch, HST Program Manager:
1. HST hardware won't be ready to support a launch earlier than Oct. 8.
Interesting, as the July meeting for the launch date is soley based on the ET shipping dates, with no mention of any payload long pole - as you've seen via the memo we acquired. Suggests that Chuck Shaw's request for everyone to get back to him ahead of the upcoming decision will have that note of no go (to advance the date) via payload? In fact, payload shouldn't be a long pole for Oct.8 as per flow timeline, so was there a suggestion of a problem?
Nothing in the standups from what I can tell.
-
#131
by
collectSPACE
on 02 Jul, 2008 04:59
-
In fact, payload shouldn't be a long pole for Oct.8 as per flow timeline, so has there been a problem?
Burch didn't give any reason to believe there was a problem. They are shipping to KSC as scheduled on July 14, but said that the HST Program would support no earlier than Oct. 8 (saying that reports on the internet about the possibility of an earlier launch date were wrong).
-
#132
by
Chris Bergin
on 02 Jul, 2008 05:06
-
In fact, payload shouldn't be a long pole for Oct.8 as per flow timeline, so has there been a problem?
Burch didn't give any reason to believe there was a problem. They are shipping to KSC as scheduled on July 14, but said that the HST Program would support no earlier than Oct. 8 (that reports on the internet about the possibility of an earlier launch date were wrong).
Reports on the internet about the possibility of an earlier launch date were wrong? What the.....! It's a memo from Chuck Shaw, Mission Director, Hubble Servicing Mission 4! Wow, I'm really going after that tomorrow, as that's simply not true.
Thanks!
-
#133
by
collectSPACE
on 02 Jul, 2008 14:32
-
I owe an apology to Preston Burch for misquoting what he said. I was working off a tired memory and had combined two different comments he had made on separate issues. For the record, here is the transcript of his comments with regards to the launch date:
We're planning to launch on October 8. You may also have heard, I understand was the scuttlebutt on the internet about us going early. I can tell you that we are working very, very closely with our counterparts on the shuttle program. Yes, they right now think they can be ready to launch as much as six or seven days earlier than this launch date, however we don't have that type of flexibility. Our hardware hasn't left Goddard yet, we're finishing up the test program. The hardware will be shipping here within the next week and a half, or two weeks from Goddard to go to the Cape and so there is not a lot of flexibility. The remaining couple of weeks that we have here at Goddard are to finish up our work. At the Cape, approximately half of that time at the Cape is shuttle orbiter processing activities that go on. They don't have a lot of flexibility to compress that time more than what they are currently advertising. As far as Hubble goes, we've got, at most, maybe three days of embedded slack in our schedule. If everything goes extremely well for us, it might be possible for us to be one or two days earlier to launch and the shuttle program, in theory, will be poised to take advantage of that. I wouldn't put a whole lot of money on us going much earlier than October 8. So, that's the real story, so our chances of going a week early, like someone was telling me a while ago are zero, I would say.
-
#134
by
Chris Bergin
on 02 Jul, 2008 15:00
-
And that's all good. Thanks for transcribing that out Robert!
-
#135
by
Chris Bergin
on 02 Jul, 2008 17:41
-
-
#136
by
usn_skwerl
on 03 Jul, 2008 07:13
-
I have a question in regards to this mission. If I'm in the wrong place, please move it.
I watched the series "When We Left Earth" and Kathryn Thornton commented saying that when they snagged the HST on STS-61, they only had 49% of the propellant onboard. I don't remember the exact quote, but I'm assuming this was in reference to the OMS propellant. With that, how critical will the prop be for the return? Obviously it should be enough, but how close might it be for the deorbit burn?
-
#137
by
Chris Bergin
on 03 Jul, 2008 11:36
-
Looking good on the second option of using a RCC panel from Discovery with "thermography inspections completed."
-
#138
by
Jorge
on 03 Jul, 2008 12:28
-
I have a question in regards to this mission. If I'm in the wrong place, please move it.
I watched the series "When We Left Earth" and Kathryn Thornton commented saying that when they snagged the HST on STS-61, they only had 49% of the propellant onboard. I don't remember the exact quote, but I'm assuming this was in reference to the OMS propellant.
Yes.
With that, how critical will the prop be for the return? Obviously it should be enough, but how close might it be for the deorbit burn?
Very critical. HST flights are fairly unique that way. They burn half their OMS prop on the combination of OMS-2 and NH, the other half on deorbit. Generally all other burns are performed with the RCS.
-
#139
by
Chris Bergin
on 04 Jul, 2008 10:11
-
MAF have three shifts running constant throughout this weekend to try and mitigate, but the shipping dates for both ET-127 and ET-129 and now slipping to the right again, so the advancement of the launch date has no chance, and October 8 is now under some strain.
Hell of an effort by MAF all the same. They got ET-127 up to July 6 shipping at one point, this is now back down to around July 11. ET-129 for STS-400 is still about a week outside of the required Aug 2 (for advancement). Too far off to deterime if outside requirement for support of Oct 8 for STS-125.
Writing an article.
