When was returning to pad an option?

• When was returning to pad an option? by rdale on 29 Aug, 2006 22:24
• In today's conference, Mike said that most people "in the know" were not surprised by the decision to turn around, that 40-50% back was the last chance to reverse the decision. I think I speak for all of us here that the last thing we expected was a mid-point turnaround.
  
  At yesterday's press conference, he said the last chance for reversing the decision was when the shuttle left the pad.
  
  Both answers cannot be correct. Why was this never mentioned in any form? Or even slightly hinted at? Obviously during the noon presser today, one of the two participants had to know it was being discussed - yet again no news.
  
  Not that it's a big deal, but obviously a lot of people were keeping this away from the public and it seems strange.
• #1 by astrobrian on 29 Aug, 2006 22:45
• probably to avoid an extra 20 minutes of Q&A
• #2 by rdale on 29 Aug, 2006 23:08
• What questions would be different if they said 'last call when we leave the pad' vs 'last call at 40%'? I'm not sure that's a good reason to withhold seemingly harmless info from the public.
  
  NASAWatch is now talking about the weather issue - but Keith leaves out WAY TOO MUCH info to make NASA look bad.
  
  1) Cutoff on the pad is 70kts, which is not in the article
  
  2) The weekly forecast is prepared by 8am, so it used the 5am NHC outlook for the wind speeds and we all know the reason they changed their minds is because the 11am / 2pm updates dramatically reduced the thread. The 45th Weather Squadron doesn't update the weekly planner until tomorrow morning...
• #3 by Avron on 29 Aug, 2006 23:19
• Reviewed the plan on L2.. don't see it in the plan... but I like the call..
• #4 by DaveS on 29 Aug, 2006 23:22
• Quote

  rdale - 30/8/2006  12:55 AM
  What questions would be different if they said 'last call when we leave the pad' vs 'last call at 40%'? I'm not sure that's a good reason to withhold seemingly harmless info from the public.

  LeRoy Cain said that halting at midpoint was an idea that came from Mike Leinbach, during the rollback.
• #5 by astrobrian on 29 Aug, 2006 23:39
• Wonder how much Mike Griffin was in the rollback or if he just stayed out of it and watched it all work itself out
• #6 by Gerald Richling on 29 Aug, 2006 23:48
• Go for it! I am looking forward to Sept. 6 launch of STS-115 Atlantis. Man can get around Murphy's law if he puts his mind to it.
• #7 by Jim on 29 Aug, 2006 23:53
• Quote

  astrobrian - 29/8/2006  7:26 PM
  
  Wonder how much Mike Griffin was in the rollback or if he just stayed out of it and watched it all work itself out

  
  Not his call
• #8 by MKremer on 30 Aug, 2006 00:05
• I tend to doubt Mike Griffirn personally ordered the rollback reverse. I think he's on the cautious side of safety primarily for the crews and personnel, but he also realizes that *too* much caution leads to stagnation and waste.
  
• #9 by astrobrian on 30 Aug, 2006 00:08

• Quote

  MKremer - 29/8/2006  6:52 PM  I tend to doubt Mike Griffirn personally ordered the rollback reverse. I think he's on the cautious side of safety primarily for the crews and personnel, but he also realizes that *too* much caution leads to stagnation and waste.

  That's why I asked.  

• #10 by rdale on 30 Aug, 2006 03:42
• Quote

  astrobrian - 29/8/2006  7:26 PM
  
  Wonder how much Mike Griffin was in the rollback or if he just stayed out of it and watched it all work itself out

  
  Leroy made it clear in the conference that nobody from JSC talked to him about this decision, and nobody wanted to since his bosses made it clear that whatever route he chose was totally acceptable.
  
  I did not hear Leroy say that this was something they didn't consider til after the rollback started - I did hear Mike say that many people "in the know" were not surprised. So somehow this had to have been on the drawing boards.
• #11 by hornet on 30 Aug, 2006 04:00
• this is the best news i have heard all day this is great i hope we make it without anymore delays
• #12 by DaveS on 30 Aug, 2006 10:44
• Quote

  rdale - 30/8/2006  5:29 AM
  I did not hear Leroy say that this was something they didn't consider til after the rollback started - I did hear Mike say that many people "in the know" were not surprised. So somehow this had to have been on the drawing boards.

  Yes, but only after the rollback had started. The MMT has a seperate meeting area in the Firing Room, so when the launch team saw Mike leave his console they pretty much figured that the rollback was about to be cancelled before they hit the last turn in the Crawlerway.
• #13 by Svetoslav on 30 Aug, 2006 12:56
• I don't understand why they had to start the rollback and cancel it... Do they get weather forecast all the time and this is the last-second decision?
• #14 by rdale on 30 Aug, 2006 13:11
• Read through the Weather thread and/or News thread, or watch yesterday's press conference. All explained...
• #15 by Mark Dave on 30 Aug, 2006 16:22
• I heard this morning the storm had 45mph winds. And now is a depression.
  
  I did hear that September 6th or 7 is when they might launch. Anymore to back that up?
• #16 by rdale on 30 Aug, 2006 17:18
• "I heard this morning the storm had 45mph winds. And now is a depression."
  
  45mph winds would be a storm, it does not have 45mph winds. Try the "weather" thread here or the NHC website.
  
  "I did hear that September 6th or 7 is when they might launch. Anymore to back that up?"
  
  I'm not sure that's in any way related to the timing of the return to pad, you might find more info in the "news" thread here.
• #17 by Zoomer30 on 31 Aug, 2006 06:09
• They better hope the weather man is right...oh wait weather men are NEVER wrong
  
  They better nail that thing down good, they might find out if a shuttle can take over 50 mph wind on the pad.
• #18 by rdale on 31 Aug, 2006 14:59
• Zoomer - the "storm" is long over. Peak winds at the SLF as I can find were in the 20mph range. The shuttle can take up to 79mph winds at the pad.
• #19 by Flightstar on 02 Sep, 2006 22:18
• Over 60mph is undesirable.
• #20 by Avron on 04 Sep, 2006 00:34
• Quote

  Flightstar - 2/9/2006  6:05 PM
  
  Over 60mph is undesirable.

  
  But if it is forcast it does not trigger a rule of rollback.. or are the rules not really rules but guidelines??
• #21 by rdale on 04 Sep, 2006 00:47
• 79mph winds are the reason they rollback... AF/NHC forecasters were concerned that Ernie could have 79mph winds, they moved even after downgrading to a 70mph max forecast because it was close. When it came down to 60mph, they reversed course.
• #22 by Avron on 04 Sep, 2006 00:50
• Quote

  rdale - 3/9/2006  8:34 PM
  
  79mph winds are the reason they rollback... AF/NHC forecasters were concerned that Ernie could have 79mph winds, they moved even after downgrading to a 70mph max forecast because it was close. When it came down to 60mph, they reversed course.

  
  79mph  forecast  would have triggered the rule.. makes me a lot happier now..
• #23 by Rocket Guy on 04 Sep, 2006 01:29
• All the articles for Ernesto reported that the rules say 79 mph is the pad limit. But last year, for 114, articles said it was 69.
  
  Was there a change in rules or perhaps a mistake this time around?
• #24 by rdale on 04 Sep, 2006 02:26
• Not sure what articles, the limit is 69kts (so 70kts, 79mph = problem.) Maybe they left of knots.
• #25 by Rocket Guy on 04 Sep, 2006 03:03
• Here's one:
  http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1042
  
  According to NASA KSC PAO this morning, with regard to a possible rollback of the Discovery from the pad, if forecasts show unacceptable conditions from the periphery of the storm "the plan is we will roll back if there is a good possibility that winds will exceed a sustained velocity of 60 knots (69 MPH).
  
  And another on SFN:
  
  http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts114/status3.html
  
  "Rules call for the shuttle to be moved off its launch pad and returned to the 52-story Vehicle Assembly Building if there's a possibility that winds could exceed a sustained speed of 60 knots (69 mph). "
  
  And a google search reveals more that say that.
  
  This time around, everyone is quoting 70 knots (79 mph) instead of 60 knots (69mph).
  
  I also note that the actual conversion shows that 60 knots is indeed 69 mph, while 70 knots would be 81 mph.