-
#160
by
Avron
on 29 Aug, 2006 16:44
-
Based on what we seen right now off the south of FL .. max winds are 40 kts... unless this thing builds up speed over FL (I dont think that will happen) this move should be stopped right NOW.. it the biggest error made todate... the rules are not been followed... get it back to the PAD its safer and closer than the VAB and it will be quicker to look after the batteries etc..
-
#161
by
rdale
on 29 Aug, 2006 16:45
-
Wayne says December launch still on even with an October 115!
"discussing their lightning restrictions for launch"
Lighting - not lightning ;>
-
#162
by
jacqmans
on 29 Aug, 2006 16:48
-
-
#163
by
jacqmans
on 29 Aug, 2006 16:52
-
-
#164
by
Radioheaded
on 29 Aug, 2006 16:57
-
Anybody else see the buzzard? (of course they did just mention it on the conference call) Where is that compression gun when you need it!
-
#165
by
jacqmans
on 29 Aug, 2006 16:59
-
-
#166
by
Chris Bergin
on 29 Aug, 2006 17:03
-
Well, the Russians don't want to delay Soyuz, which is very interesting, as we hear they would have been open to it. Although NASA appear to be making their own excuses for not going past the 7th.
-
#167
by
triddirt
on 29 Aug, 2006 17:04
-
Does having only 3 vehicles make the program even more risk aversage to ANY possibility of preventable damage to any single vehicle OR do folks think i'm way off base here and that never enters into the decision making?
-
#168
by
jacqmans
on 29 Aug, 2006 17:05
-
-
#169
by
rdale
on 29 Aug, 2006 17:06
-
triddirt - 29/8/2006 12:51 PM
Does having only 3 vehicles make the program even more risk aversage to ANY possibility of preventable damage to any single vehicle?
Can't see why.
-
#170
by
jacqmans
on 29 Aug, 2006 17:08
-
There is a possibillity that the Soyuz fly's first and then STS-115 can launch in late September...
-
#171
by
Chris Bergin
on 29 Aug, 2006 17:08
-
triddirt - 29/8/2006 5:51 PM
Does having only 3 vehicles make the program even more risk aversage to ANY possibility of preventable damage to any single vehicle OR do folks think i'm way off base here and that never enters into the decision making?
Obviously not something we want to think too much about, but NASA could run with two orbiters.
-
#172
by
Jim
on 29 Aug, 2006 17:08
-
Avron - 29/8/2006 12:31 PM
get it back to the PAD its safer .
It is not safer than the VAB
-
#173
by
Stardust9906
on 29 Aug, 2006 17:08
-
-
#174
by
spaceshuttle
on 29 Aug, 2006 17:10
-
very good! according to wayne, 115 may be the last flight in which they'll have to worry about as far as the mandatory day-launch commitment...
-
#175
by
jacqmans
on 29 Aug, 2006 17:10
-
-
#176
by
rdale
on 29 Aug, 2006 17:12
-
Jim - 29/8/2006 12:55 PM
Avron - 29/8/2006 12:31 PM
get it back to the PAD its safer .
It is not safer than the VAB
I think he's referring to the fact that lightning is likely late this afternoon, more of a concern moving it today than protected from some breezes tomorrow.
-
#177
by
edkyle99
on 29 Aug, 2006 17:12
-
Is there any chance that the lightning strike is still figuring into this rollback? I know that NASA says it has cleared the initiator hardware, but it never said exactly *how* it was able to do that without actually testing the hardware. Once the stack rolls back, and shuttle misses its window, NASA will be able to revisit the lightning questions by doing actual tests.
- Ed Kyle
-
#178
by
Avron
on 29 Aug, 2006 17:15
-
Jim - 29/8/2006 12:55 PM
Avron - 29/8/2006 12:31 PM
get it back to the PAD its safer .
It is not safer than the VAB
Its closer to the Pad now.. getting to the VAB risks later afternoon thunderstorms and maybe even flying debris from the TS...
As time ticks on that changes
-
#179
by
rdale
on 29 Aug, 2006 17:15
-
"Is there any chance that the lightning strike is still figuring into this rollback?"
No, if you listen to any of the conferences the past day and/or read this thread, you'll see the lightning hit from Friday was cleared completely. This move (per Wayne Hale) is because their forecasters say there is a good chance of 70mph winds at the pad tomorrow. I think they're dead wrong and being WAY WAY WAY too conservative. We'll see tomorrow...