-
#260
by
DaveS
on 06 Sep, 2006 23:15
-
spaceshuttle - 7/9/2006 1:00 AM
ok...so, what are they going to do about launching?
That is TBD after tommorow's MMT meeting(1 pm EDT).
-
#261
by
dbhyslop
on 06 Sep, 2006 23:21
-
Chris Bergin - 6/9/2006 6:51 PM
And we have the Wayne Hale underwear manifest for STS-115 
Sounds like I'll have to invest in L2 to get the quantitative details?
Anyway, as an enthusiastic layman who lacks detailed understanding of many of these things, it sounds like the scrub is more a matter of gathering engineering data than about crew safety. They mentioned a few times that they could have launched today without breaking flight rules. I had the same impression of Hale's description of the day-launch restriction. That makes sense given that the on-orbit inspection has to trump the ascent videos in terms of resolution. Unfortunately its too easy for the press to not understand this and see NASA as sacrificing safety if they choose the late September window.
Dan
-
#262
by
Norm Hartnett
on 06 Sep, 2006 23:21
-
It sounded to me like senior managment overruled MMT. It is unfortunate that none of the media thought to ask if Wayne Hale's on board U.W. consumables extended thru Sunday.
-
#263
by
nathan.moeller
on 06 Sep, 2006 23:23
-
What time is the launch opportunity on Friday?
-
#264
by
Norm Hartnett
on 06 Sep, 2006 23:24
-
First page of this thread 09/08/06 - Open -11:35:35 AM, Close - 11:40:35 AM.
-
#265
by
Chris Bergin
on 06 Sep, 2006 23:25
-
Right, I'm outta here. I'll do an "agenda" article tomorrow prior to the MMT and start a new thread for tomorrow.
-
#266
by
Mark Max Q
on 06 Sep, 2006 23:46
-
dbhyslop - 6/9/2006 6:08 PM
Sounds like I'll have to invest in L2 to get the quantitative details?
Dan
I'm on L2 and I haven't got a problem is saying that while this site without L2 is still the best, L2 is literally like taking a seat next to Wayne Hale. It's impossible to say how accurate it is to say that without source compromising, but I'm not far off in saying that, as the MMT presentations came in on L2 as they were to the MMT. It is a fantastic section if you want to get deep down and dirty in what's going on, and it's the same for the CEV/CLV stuff too.
-
#267
by
gordo
on 06 Sep, 2006 23:47
-
It gets better and better the FC was the exact same one which was last flown on Columbia on STS93. On 93 the short was on the same phase, but they did correcty put this down to arcing on cable looms. Maybe though that short did some damage to the cooling pump which caused the transient on start up of the FC.
If they do some more hot test of the FC and get comfortable with it does sound like they are happy with it. A juts in case plan seen to be to pull the A Phase CB for launch that would prevent any transient effecting the SSME controllers.
If the phase goes down their is no impact on mission once in orbit, however if it is more serious and they lose the FC then is End of mission, with knock on effects to programme.....roll on 2011!
-
#268
by
James Lowe1
on 06 Sep, 2006 23:49
-
Mark Max Q - 6/9/2006 6:33 PM
dbhyslop - 6/9/2006 6:08 PM
Sounds like I'll have to invest in L2 to get the quantitative details?
Dan
I'm on L2 and I haven't got a problem is saying that while this site without L2 is still the best, L2 is literally like taking a seat next to Wayne Hale. It's impossible to say how accurate it is to say that without source compromising, but I'm not far off in saying that, as the MMT presentations came in on L2 as they were to the MMT. It is a fantastic section if you want to get deep down and dirty in what's going on, and it's the same for the CEV/CLV stuff too.
And there's only a small charge to pay for the running costs of the whole site. So no L2, no site. L2 is a lot more than we advertise or say as its that deep with the source information.
-
#269
by
nathan.moeller
on 07 Sep, 2006 00:05
-
I can't believe that this is the same FC that flew on STS-93. That's insane. You would think someone would've caught that!!
-
#270
by
spaceshuttle
on 07 Sep, 2006 00:06
-
on a lighter note...will we have a LONG "countdown-through-launch playback" video for sts-115 like we had for 121?
-
#271
by
psloss
on 07 Sep, 2006 00:16
-
nathan.moeller - 6/9/2006 7:52 PM
I can't believe that this is the same FC that flew on STS-93. That's insane. You would think someone would've caught that!!
The question is: and done what? Do they have to throw it away because of bad wiring elsewhere in the orbiter? Assuming the fuel cell passed its pre-launch checkouts, to what extent is the fuel cell invalidated based on the STS-93 experience?
These decisions are a lot easier in hindsight.
-
#272
by
nathan.moeller
on 07 Sep, 2006 00:25
-
psloss - 6/9/2006 7:03 PM
nathan.moeller - 6/9/2006 7:52 PM
I can't believe that this is the same FC that flew on STS-93. That's insane. You would think someone would've caught that!!
The question is: and done what? Do they have to throw it away because of bad wiring elsewhere in the orbiter? Assuming the fuel cell passed its pre-launch checkouts, to what extent is the fuel cell invalidated based on the STS-93 experience?
These decisions are a lot easier in hindsight.
First part is a funny coincidence. Second part is a joke. It just seems NASA's had a run of bad luck lately as far as trying to get these things off the ground. I'm really curious to see how they handle this one. Surprising that it doesn't violate launch commit criteria.
-
#273
by
dbhyslop
on 07 Sep, 2006 00:34
-
Mark Max Q - 6/9/2006 7:33 PM
I'm on L2 and I haven't got a problem is saying that while this site without L2 is still the best, L2 is literally like taking a seat next to Wayne Hale. It's impossible to say how accurate it is to say that without source compromising, but I'm not far off in saying that, as the MMT presentations came in on L2 as they were to the MMT. It is a fantastic section if you want to get deep down and dirty in what's going on, and it's the same for the CEV/CLV stuff too.
I know, I know. I'm thinking about it just for the CaLV and lander documents I've seen on the ticker lately.
The L2 comment I made was just a wisecrack on the "Wayne Hale Underwear Manifest." I didn't mean to imply anything was being held back to drum up L2 revenue. I just wondered what specific information (boxers vs briefs, prime contractor, waist size) I might be missing out on.
Dan
-
#274
by
psloss
on 07 Sep, 2006 00:56
-
nathan.moeller - 6/9/2006 8:12 PM
First part is a funny coincidence. Second part is a joke. It just seems NASA's had a run of bad luck lately as far as trying to get these things off the ground. I'm really curious to see how they handle this one. Surprising that it doesn't violate launch commit criteria.
OK -- thought you were serious.
Yes it's bad luck, but it's only been a week and a half -- delays like this are unusual, but not unprecedented. If they choose to or are forced to wait to fly until after the Expedition crew rotation, it would only be a one month hit or thereabouts if they wave the lighting requirements to document tank foam performance.
The only bad feeling I'm getting about this is that there seems to be some programmatic urge to launch this mission, even to the extent of waving some of their in-flight flexibility -- I was surprised to hear Wayne Hale's comment towards the end of the briefing about the program's willingness to accept a higher risk of a minimum duration flight.
-
#275
by
Jamie Young
on 07 Sep, 2006 00:59
-
dbhyslop - 6/9/2006 7:21 PM
I'm thinking about it just for the CaLV and lander documents I've seen on the ticker lately.
The best thing about that is, not only do you get the presentation, but on a lot of the Constellation stuff you get the guys who are actually working on the vehicles throwing data at each other about problems with it! So it's not just documents, its the guys working on what you're reading commenting on it too
That place totally rocks.
-
#276
by
Jamie Young
on 07 Sep, 2006 01:02
-
On today, here's what I've learnt.
When NASA has a problem, they go way indepth in ensuring it's solvable.
They sleep on it and make sure what they've reccomended is right.
People can say something's not right, which was the problem with people not being able to do that with things like Challenger.
If they launch on Friday, it's a big pat on the back to NASA. If they don't, they really didn't want to chance any risk. Don't think anyone can say they have schedule pressure as this could go either way and the data will decide. Very cool day.
-
#277
by
psloss
on 07 Sep, 2006 01:08
-
Jamie Young - 6/9/2006 8:49 PM
Don't think anyone can say they have schedule pressure as this could go either way and the data will decide. Very cool day.
Disagree -- there are two biggies right now that are working: the lighted launch/lighted ET sep constraint and the end FY 2010 deadline for shuttle flights.
As has been said by program officials, they need to balance that schedule pressure
properly with other factors.
-
#278
by
nathan.moeller
on 07 Sep, 2006 01:37
-
psloss - 6/9/2006 7:43 PM
nathan.moeller - 6/9/2006 8:12 PM
First part is a funny coincidence. Second part is a joke. It just seems NASA's had a run of bad luck lately as far as trying to get these things off the ground. I'm really curious to see how they handle this one. Surprising that it doesn't violate launch commit criteria.
OK -- thought you were serious.
Yes it's bad luck, but it's only been a week and a half -- delays like this are unusual, but not unprecedented. If they choose to or are forced to wait to fly until after the Expedition crew rotation, it would only be a one month hit or thereabouts if they wave the lighting requirements to document tank foam performance.
The only bad feeling I'm getting about this is that there seems to be some programmatic urge to launch this mission, even to the extent of waving some of their in-flight flexibility -- I was surprised to hear Wayne Hale's comment towards the end of the briefing about the program's willingness to accept a higher risk of a minimum duration flight.
Yeah I was surprised too. I just hope that 2010 deadline doesn't come back to haunt NASA and the international partners. One thing I have to wonder about is how our next president will see our space ventures. Who knows he may move for an extension of that deadline. And you're right, another week and a half isn't that bad...and on the upside I'll be able to watch it if it slips to a pre-dawn liftoff at the end of the month. I'm a little confused though. If Atlantis isn't off the ground by Friday, I know the Russians will launch on September 14. But most websites say that the Soyuz will return on September 29. Wouldn't it be September 24? That would be nice because if they lift the lighted launch requirement Atlantis can lift off on September 25. We'll see! Go Atlantis!
-
#279
by
rdale
on 07 Sep, 2006 02:06
-
"Who knows he may move for an extension of that deadline."
Why would anyone change that deadline given current financial / political environments? The public doesn't care (or even know) about 2010.
"But most websites say that the Soyuz will return on September 29."
I don't see that on any website, but regardless it'll come back the night of the 24th (for US, 25th at 3Z-ish globally)
