LIVE: STS-124 Flight Day 3 - RPM/Docking

[Ford Mustang]

There are more pictures over on L2. As always, this site is ahead of the game and it's been interesting to see the same pics from L2 on NASA TV!

What's more interesting is the fact that we get the information here (on L2) a day or more before other news sites or NASA releases it.

[Ronsmytheiii]

Ken Ham is happy with that!

(sorry, but its such a great picture)

[Chris Bergin]

The damage to the launch pad is going to be an interesting story to follow.

Anyone on the inside have any additional info on this?

Opened with some notes on the news site this morning ( www.nasaspaceflight.com ) and will be following it up. Remember, they only just sent out an investigation team today, so causes etc won't be for a while.

Bottom line is it's an old pad. Some of those bricks are from the 60s apparently.

[marshallsplace]

OK, the pad is from the 1960's.  Surely the maintenance of the pad has been to keep it structually sound? 

[Bubbinski]

"Concerns about the future missions." "Discussions about using Pad B".

Would these discussions about using Pad B be only for the LON mission, or would they be for the next few flights?  Obviously if it's for the next few flights (and Pad A unavailable/being fixed) they'd have to either delay the Hubble flight and launch ISS missions only until Pad A is fixed, or do "launch to launch" for STS-125.

[Chris Bergin]

"Concerns about the future missions." "Discussions about using Pad B".

Would these discussions about using Pad B be only for the LON mission, or would they be for the next few flights?  Obviously if it's for the next few flights (and Pad A unavailable/being fixed) they'd have to either delay the Hubble flight and launch ISS missions only until Pad A is fixed, or do "launch to launch" for STS-125.

Well time will tell, it's day one of the investigation. Will likely take a week at least.

[Shadow Spork]

OK, the pad is from the 1960's.  Surely the maintenance of the pad has been to keep it structually sound? 

I'm pretty sure that the folks who maintain the pad maintain it at a regular basis. Although we'll obviously have to wait until reports are released on how deep this problem is and why the pad was damage to this extent, and how this will affect future missions in all 3 programs (Shuttle, Station, Constellation) as what Mr. Cain was saying in the briefing.

[SpaceNutz SA]

I suppose it depends on what comes out of the investigation.  If it is an 'age' issue then Pad B might be equally compromised.  If it is a 'use' issue then it may be OK.  Either way I think this is an issue which will (and should) receive a lot of attention.

[ChrisGebhardt]

"Concerns about the future missions." "Discussions about using Pad B".

Would these discussions about using Pad B be only for the LON mission, or would they be for the next few flights?  Obviously if it's for the next few flights (and Pad A unavailable/being fixed) they'd have to either
delay the Hubble flight and launch ISS missions only until Pad A is fixed, or do "launch to launch" for STS-125.

Can't do launch-to-launch for Hubble.  Atlantis only has enough prop for ~16days on orbit. It would take 33days for launch-to-launch.  Both pads are needed for the Hubble mission.

[marshallsplace]

I suppose it depends on what comes out of the investigation.  If it is an 'age' issue then Pad B might be equally compromised.  If it is a 'use' issue then it may be OK.  Either way I think this is an issue which will (and should) receive a lot of attention.

Would a tiger team assignment be the best way to help sort the problem for STS 125 launch?

[Jeff Lerner]

I have to believe on a LON mission that anything goes including launching on a Pad that sustained substancial damage as this one did...bottomline is that if a rescue mission needs to be launched, if there is any way, shape or form, they will launch the rescue shuttle.

[Lee Jay]

Can't do launch-to-launch for Hubble.  Atlantis only has enough prop for ~16days on orbit. It would take 33days for launch-to-launch.  Both pads are needed for the Hubble mission.

By "prop" did you mean cryo?

[Ford Mustang]

I have to believe on a LON mission that anything goes including launching on a Pad that sustained substancial damage as this one did...bottomline is that if a rescue mission needs to be launched, if there is any way, shape or form, they will launch the rescue shuttle.

If the pad could not sustain a launch (such as the thrust causing it to collapse), they would not launch.

[kneecaps]

Cryo tank heater reconfig in work.

[Andy_Small]

currently getting working the airlock getting ready for the camp out

[kneecaps]

Hope somebody is recording this..never seen so much footage from the flight deck during docking. You can REALLY see the training paying off here, they are so calm and collected.

[Martin FL]

Can't do launch-to-launch for Hubble.  Atlantis only has enough prop for ~16days on orbit. It would take 33days for launch-to-launch.  Both pads are needed for the Hubble mission.

I've bumped the pad-to-pad vs dual pad presentation on L2 STS-125, as it is possible, but dual was prefered.

[ChrisGebhardt]

I've bumped the pad-to-pad vs dual pad presentation on L2 STS-125, as it is possible, but dual was prefered.

Yeah... But Cain said in the post-MMT briefing that dual pad was non-negotiable.

[nathan.moeller]

Yeah... But Cain said in the post-MMT briefing that dual pad was non-negotiable.

Doesn't mean it's impossible.  It just means they won't sway from the dual pad option, as it's the safest and most sensible option they have.

[jmjawors]

The amount of on-board video shot by this crew is astounding!