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??
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.
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..
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?
Not sure what articles, the limit is 69kts (so 70kts, 79mph = problem.) Maybe they left of knots.
Here's one:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1042According 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.