-
#120
by
DaveS
on 06 Sep, 2006 14:19
-
c.steven - 6/9/2006 4:01 PM
The only question is when and where to replace it. Won't opening up the floor of the bay present FOD and other hazards to P3/P4? I would think for accessibility they would at least have to pull the payload out of the bay and put it in the canister temporarily if they attempt something at the pad.
No need to load it into the canister. There's plenty of room in the Payload Changeout Room with the truss attached to the Payload Ground Handling Mechanism(PGHM).
-
#121
by
Chris Bergin
on 06 Sep, 2006 14:20
-
Getting a bit stressful over at KSC
Took the names out as that wouldn't be fair...
"Problem with cell phones (--------)
I've spoken to 3 people regarding cell phone use in the MCC, and all three just left the room while still talking on their phones. One was ---------. One of them was spotted by ---------- using his cell phone again an hour or so later. I informed Malise about him.
When management (--------) ignores the rule, it is difficult to get anyone else to pay attention."
-
#122
by
Bubbinski
on 06 Sep, 2006 14:21
-
If this truly means a standdown and possibly a week to replace the fuel cell, are there any plans to talk with the Russians so that the window can be extended back to 9/13? Or is allowing night launches later on a more realistic option?
-
#123
by
Chris Bergin
on 06 Sep, 2006 14:22
-
Update:
"APU 2 Tank Surface Temp Bias?
"The last few flights of OV-104 have had the APU 2 Tank temp (V46T0202A) lower than the other tanks by 3 deg F pretty consistently. The other vehicles do not show this delta during prelaunch so it's probably an instrumentation bias."
-
#124
by
Chris Bergin
on 06 Sep, 2006 14:22
-
Vendors involved: UTC + Kearfott
-
#125
by
Chris Bergin
on 06 Sep, 2006 14:24
-
Bubbinski - 6/9/2006 3:08 PM
If this truly means a standdown and possibly a week to replace the fuel cell, are there any plans to talk with the Russians so that the window can be extended back to 9/13? Or is allowing night launches later on a more realistic option?
No.
Oppotunities:
Sept 26 if lighing restriction is dropped (unlikely)
End of Oct.
-
#126
by
c.steven
on 06 Sep, 2006 14:25
-
So are we actually talking about having to replace FC1, or is the cooling pump that is suspect a separate device that is not integral to the fuel cell?
-
#127
by
Chris Bergin
on 06 Sep, 2006 14:25
-
Tanking Delay (------)
Problem. Trouble shooting the Fuel Cell issue. Possible LCC violation so delaying tanking until it is resolved or given a go to launch as-is.
-
#128
by
Chris Bergin
on 06 Sep, 2006 14:26
-
Equipment checkouts after several years (------)
----- called with a question from Wayne regarding any other equipment that has not been checked out/fired up in several years. Fuel Cell 1 had not been fully activated in 3 years. The concern is that we could end up with a similar situation with other equipment. So, we may want to verify the functionality of that equipment sooner rather than after while we are currently in S0007."
Sounds like they want to do a load of checks on other cells etc.
-
#129
by
mkirk
on 06 Sep, 2006 14:32
-
c.steven - 6/9/2006 9:12 AM
So are we actually talking about having to replace FC1, or is the cooling pump that is suspect a separate device that is not integral to the fuel cell?
If it is the pump then you need to swap fuel cells (internal to the accessory section of the fuel cell).
Mark Kirkman
-
#130
by
astrobrian
on 06 Sep, 2006 14:43
-
Will the RSS be put back? Or is that going to be based on the fly/no fly as is decision
-
#131
by
David BAE
on 06 Sep, 2006 14:45
-
I would be shocked if they fly without a replacement unit.
Is access ok? Is the payload in the way?
-
#132
by
astrobrian
on 06 Sep, 2006 14:47
-
Diagrams Mark posted earlier showed they were in the payload bay from what I saw so to get to them they would need to get inside correct?
-
#133
by
rdale
on 06 Sep, 2006 14:51
-
astro - why would RSS be rotated back at this stage?
David BAE - scroll back a page or two and you'll see plenty of discussions about access issues.
-
#134
by
psloss
on 06 Sep, 2006 14:57
-
DaveS - 6/9/2006 10:06 AM
c.steven - 6/9/2006 4:01 PM
The only question is when and where to replace it. Won't opening up the floor of the bay present FOD and other hazards to P3/P4? I would think for accessibility they would at least have to pull the payload out of the bay and put it in the canister temporarily if they attempt something at the pad.
No need to load it into the canister. There's plenty of room in the Payload Changeout Room with the truss attached to the Payload Ground Handling Mechanism(PGHM).
If past experience is worth anything, they left P1 in Endeavour's payload bay during the issues with a GOX line in the orbiter midbody during the STS-113 launch campaign, so I would guess FOD is not an issue in terms of removing payload bay liners. There are pictures in the KSC MMedia archive of the STS-113 activities...
Doing lift operations with something as hefty as a fuel cell would be a bigger concern to me.
-
#135
by
MKremer
on 06 Sep, 2006 14:57
-
Hopefully someone in the meeting will mention something about any access problems and R&R estimates once in the OPF.
-
#136
by
astrobrian
on 06 Sep, 2006 14:58
-
From the discussion here it is leaning towards replacement more than a fly as is. In that case I would think RSS rollback would be the next step would it not?
-
#137
by
dutch courage
on 06 Sep, 2006 14:59
-
Fuel cells are located under the forward portion of the payload bay.
-
#138
by
Chris Bergin
on 06 Sep, 2006 15:03
-
They've restarted the fuel cell. Waiting for results (will be a document - which have to go on L2 - as per source instructions).
-
#139
by
kneecaps
on 06 Sep, 2006 15:04
-
Looking at the presentation on L2 its interesting what the root cause of this will be......why the big spike on the bus only when power cycled? If its shorted I would expect it to stay shorted. I'm no expert on the intracacies of 3 phase motors/pumps but I know the principles :/
Its going to be an interesting one for sure!
