-
#20
by
Namechange User
on 16 Mar, 2008 05:24
-
Trekkie07 - 27/2/2008 4:00 PM
Chris Bergin - 27/2/2008 1:38 PM
Addditional note from L2 that didn't fit the flow of the article above:
"Looking forward to removing the engines from OV-104, processing in engine shop and returning to OV-104 around May 1 to support STS-125. "
So Atlantis will fly STS-125 with the same 3 SSMEs that she flew with on STS-122 providing no major issues are found with them? I know the engines are reusable, but I thought the turnaround time was longer.
Like many things in this program, it's possible but it just depends. The engines always come out. If they go back in and where depends on their checkout.
-
#21
by
MKremer
on 16 Mar, 2008 05:52
-
OV-106 - 16/3/2008 1:24 AM
Trekkie07 - 27/2/2008 4:00 PM
Chris Bergin - 27/2/2008 1:38 PM
Addditional note from L2 that didn't fit the flow of the article above:
"Looking forward to removing the engines from OV-104, processing in engine shop and returning to OV-104 around May 1 to support STS-125. "
So Atlantis will fly STS-125 with the same 3 SSMEs that she flew with on STS-122 providing no major issues are found with them? I know the engines are reusable, but I thought the turnaround time was longer.
Like many things in this program, it's possible but it just depends. The engines always come out. If they go back in and where depends on their checkout.
That would be really cool if it happens to end up that way, though.
(wondering how many other orbiters ended up launching with the same engines they had previously for their last launch?)
-
#22
by
Chris Bergin
on 20 Mar, 2008 19:31
-
-
#23
by
William Graham
on 20 Mar, 2008 20:17
-
Chris Bergin - 20/3/2008 8:31 PM
NET launch date is in flux due to large scale ET issues.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5386
Assuming that both missions are delayed, if there is a time constraint to get to Hubble before its batteries die, could 125 be launched before 124?
-
#24
by
Chris Bergin
on 20 Mar, 2008 20:30
-
GW_Simulations - 20/3/2008 9:17 PM
Chris Bergin - 20/3/2008 8:31 PM
NET launch date is in flux due to large scale ET issues.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5386
Assuming that both missions are delayed, if there is a time constraint to get to Hubble before its batteries die, could 125 be launched before 124?
Really depends on how this all pans out. We do not believe it is specific to one tank - otherwise that option could come into play. The problem with 125 is you need two flight ready orbiters on the pad at the same time for LON.
The flip side is Mr Shannon is trying to protect the manifest with whatever meetings he's having, so this could all go away, depending on the problem being a really big one with hardware, or an overly-conservative engineering group kicking up a stink over some data (see NESC over the RCC panels).
-
#25
by
astrobrian
on 20 Mar, 2008 20:48
-
Has anyone given any ballpark estimates to how long a delay would be if say it is not an NESC type of deal and is a big one?
-
#26
by
NavySpaceFan
on 21 Mar, 2008 11:24
-
-
#27
by
Bubbinski
on 24 Mar, 2008 19:57
-
As a corrollary to the last note - is there talk of moving STS-126 before 125? Making STS-126 fly with ET-127, say, in September, then moving 125/HST-SM4 to October with ET-129, and making Discovery the LON vehicle (STS-400) for that flight? Then if all goes well, flying Discovery on STS-119 as scheduled in December?
-
#28
by
psloss
on 24 Mar, 2008 20:06
-
Bubbinski - 24/3/2008 4:57 PM
As a corrollary to the last note - is there talk of moving STS-126 before 125? Making STS-126 fly with ET-127, say, in September, then moving 125/HST-SM4 to October with ET-129, and making Discovery the LON vehicle (STS-400) for that flight? Then if all goes well, flying Discovery on STS-119 as scheduled in December?
Leroy Cain did mention that they would be doing some typical exploring of manifest options. No matter when STS-125 flies, the LON shuttle has to be on Pad B ready to launch. In your scenario, Discovery and the tank following ET-129 would have to be out on the pad when STS-125 lifts off. So they would both need to be ready by October. Or, STS-125 would have to slip until that hardware was ready for STS-400.
-
#29
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 24 Mar, 2008 20:31
-
Bubbinski - 24/3/2008 4:57 PM
As a corrollary to the last note - is there talk of moving STS-126 before 125? Making STS-126 fly with ET-127, say, in September, then moving 125/HST-SM4 to October with ET-129, and making Discovery the LON vehicle (STS-400) for that flight? Then if all goes well, flying Discovery on STS-119 as scheduled in December?
Maybe... but remember that NASA has spent a lot of time preparing for the two pad scenario that has to take place with the Hubble mission. Furthermore, there is a reason why Hubble (STS-125) has always targetted Aug/Sept 08 timeframe because of Pad-B. While I can't speak for TPTB, I can tell you that there are a certain amount of modifications that have to be made to Pad-B before the Ares I-X test flight next year... modifications that won't be made until the Hubble mission LON is called off and the rescue vehicle moved to Pad-A for its primary mission.
Furthermore, tank production has been timelined for this unique two-stack scenario. While there are issues facing these two tanks, their production is still linked for these missions. IMHO, I would expect launch dates to change, but not the order in which the flights are manifested unless we get to a point where we'd want to get Chamitoff back to Earth because of mission duration issues (which assuming a May 25 launch for STS-124 would not come into play until December assuming the traditional six month rotation period).
-
#30
by
faustod
on 26 Mar, 2008 11:50
-
I have a question about ET-127.
Does ET-127 have the new titanium brackets or the old aluminium brackets?
-
#31
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 26 Mar, 2008 22:04
-
faustod - 26/3/2008 8:50 AM
I have a question about ET-127.
Does ET-127 have the new titanium brackets or the old aluminium brackets?
The new ones.
-
#32
by
jbk024
on 28 Mar, 2008 01:35
-
A quick question... (apologies if this has already been asked and answered)...
In the midst of a discussion about our ongoing drought in the southeast US the other day, someone eventually made the standard comment "we just need a hurricane to pass through"...
If I wasn't already sure I was a space geek, I'm sure it was proved beyond any doubt when the only thing I could think of was this...
When 125 is on 39A and the LON shutle is on 39B, how fast could both shuttles be returned to the VAB if a hurricane decided to make a beeline for the cape? And just to make it interesting, let's assume it's a surprise (i.e., a stormi in the gulf unexpectedly makes a right turn and plows across the penninsula.
Would there be time to move both birds to the barn?
If it was a serious possiblility, would they at least move one shuttle back as a precaution? If so, which one?
These are the thoughts that keep me awake at night... Hopefully someone's got the contingency manuals close at hand and can put me out of my misery...
-
#33
by
rdale
on 28 Mar, 2008 03:21
-
The plan indicates they just start the procedure earlier (72 hours in advance vs 48) if more than one shuttle is involved...
http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/status/weatstat/hurrican.htmHurricanes don't make "that" big of surprise turns, as I recall rollbacks are in the 8 hour range which is impossible for a hurricane to beat them to.
-
#34
by
Chris Bergin
on 29 Mar, 2008 14:23
-
-
#35
by
nathan.moeller
on 31 Mar, 2008 04:57
-
JBK - The two can roll simultaneously if they need to. The big issue then would be whether or not both VAB high bays are available to receive the orbiter stacks. If both highy bay 1 and high bay 3 are functional, it's roughly an eight-hour trip on average for each vehicle to the bays. If one high bay is out of operation, there's always the option of using high bay 2 (west side of VAB) to store one. In that case, it's about an extra two hours for the trip, but that's still plenty of margin by which to beat a hurricane to the launch area if the need arises.
-
#36
by
Wisi
on 04 Apr, 2008 23:19
-
nathan.moeller - 31/3/2008 6:57 AM
JBK - The two can roll simultaneously if they need to.
I kinda wish this would happen - just for the photo opportunity this would give...
No, of course I don't!
-
#37
by
Chris Bergin
on 05 Apr, 2008 02:34
-
STS-125 delayed to October as per L2. Article shortly.
-
#38
by
Chris Bergin
on 05 Apr, 2008 04:32
-
-
#39
by
Orbiter Obvious
on 05 Apr, 2008 22:23
-
Great article. Really look forward to reading about all the ins and outs of processing
Shame the mission is delayed, but good that it was only a month or so.
