-
#60
by
Chris Bergin
on 06 Sep, 2006 09:32
-
9/6/2006 8:00 AM
OPO Fuel Cell Meeting
Meeting on whether or not Engineering is comfortable with operating on two phases for the flight.
MMT planned for 9/6/2006 12:00 PM
-
#61
by
hoorenz
on 06 Sep, 2006 09:37
-
(In reply to the Ascension Island / shaded panels on OV-104 - post by Chris; forgot to quote)
I can't make anything of this. What is the relation to the Fuel Cell problem? That we will try again on the 7th?
-
#62
by
Chris Bergin
on 06 Sep, 2006 09:44
-
"lost phase A on the FC coolant pump motor" on Fuel Cell 1.
-
#63
by
Chris Bergin
on 06 Sep, 2006 09:45
-
I've put the full internal report on L2, but will write an article out of it.
"Launch scrubbed for 24 hours due to fuel cell problem. Plan is to meet w/ vendor in the
morning.
Fuel Cell 1 Summary: EGIL and KSC saw indications that FC 1 had lost phase A on the FC coolant
pump motor. There was a current spike on AC1 FA of approximately 0.9 amps. This was followed
by an increased continuous load of 0.11 and 0.07 amps on phases B and C, respectively. Phase A then
dropped to approximately 0.5 amps below the previous run current. FC 1 is currently connected to
MNA in order to bring up the operating temperature. This will place the FC in a better condition if
KSC decides to stop the pump package to evaluate the coolant pump. KSC opened an IPR, 115V-
0146. FC MER Meeting at 0200: No go for launch today. No confidence in phase B and C.
Ascension Island down ETRO 1600 GMT, 7 September They have a computer difficulty which
requires some hardware. There was some word about trying to get up for the next couple of passes, but
the official ETRO remains the same.
Post Insertion Checklist Shaded pictorials on pages 014, 015, A11 do not have panels for OV-104.
non-shaded, boxed switch configurations are correct. Crew has been informed and FCT with FAO."
-
#64
by
Wubbo
on 06 Sep, 2006 09:51
-
Does anyone have any pointers to background docs, or information on how these multiple phases are used and how a flight could happen with one phase unavailable?
Apologies if this is a dumb question, or the wrong place to ask. I've just recently joined the NSF site and am still trying to 'grok' it all.
GJ
-
#65
by
Svetoslav
on 06 Sep, 2006 10:04
-
"Houston, we've had a problem here!"
This situation is known to NASA. We know this happened on Apollo 13 because the explosion damaged the fuel cells. However, we have B and C working, and A partially working. Seems to me that launch as-is is acceptable.
-
#66
by
Chris Bergin
on 06 Sep, 2006 10:05
-
New launch window available from September 24 IF lightning restriction is dropped. Just recieving the document (L2) - will collate and pass on here.
-
#67
by
Chris Bergin
on 06 Sep, 2006 10:19
-
-
#68
by
Svetoslav
on 06 Sep, 2006 10:23
-
Here's the official statement of NASA:
Launch Delayed by Fuel Cell Problem
The launch of Space Shuttle Atlantis was postponed today for at least 24 hours because of an issue with the shuttle's fuel cell number 1. A short (a spike and drop in voltage) in the fuel cell coolant motor was seen shortly after the cell was activated.
The Mission Management Team is scheduled to meet at 1p.m. EDT today, and a news conference will follow.
So, at this moment, no final decision has been made, so... let's wait for the conference.
-
#69
by
spaceshuttle
on 06 Sep, 2006 10:29
-
great. now we have to wait ANOTHER day because of some fuel cell problem...
"Launch Delayed by Fuel Cell Problem
The launch of Space Shuttle Atlantis was postponed today for at least 24 hours because of an issue with the shuttle's fuel cell number 1. A short (a spike and drop in voltage) in the fuel cell coolant motor was seen shortly after the cell was activated.
The Mission Management Team is scheduled to meet at 1 p.m. EDT today, and a news conference will follow."
nasa.gov
(the above post must have been placed as i was typing mine...
)
-
#70
by
Naraht
on 06 Sep, 2006 10:32
-
Svetoslav - 6/9/2006 10:51 AM
"Houston, we've had a problem here!"
This situation is known to NASA. We know this happened on Apollo 13 because the explosion damaged the fuel cells.
I don't think this is at all the same as what happened on Apollo 13...
-
#71
by
Chris Bergin
on 06 Sep, 2006 10:33
-
Svetoslav - 6/9/2006 11:10 AM
So, at this moment, no final decision has been made, so... let's wait for the conference.
Yep. What we need to hear is that they don't need to replace it. Or the window closes during that replacement.
Any troubleshoot on the pad and we've got a chance.
Technical data on the issue in article form:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=4761
-
#72
by
Chris Bergin
on 06 Sep, 2006 10:35
-
Newsflash:
8am meeting with vendor called.
"0800 CDT OPO Meeting with the vendor to look at whether or not they could get comfortable with flying on 2 phases and to get MMT slides ready. MER Conference Room"
There's hope!
-
#73
by
spaceshuttle
on 06 Sep, 2006 10:35
-
Chris Bergin - 6/9/2006 5:20 AM
Svetoslav - 6/9/2006 11:10 AM
So, at this moment, no final decision has been made, so... let's wait for the conference.
Yep. What we need to hear is that they don't need to replace it. Or the window closes during that replacement.
Any troubleshoot on the pad and we've got a chance.
Technical data on the issue in article form: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=4761
but wasn't something like this the reason that sts-83 died, and was revived as "94" (if you know what i mean...)?
-
#74
by
Svetoslav
on 06 Sep, 2006 10:41
-
I think that flying as-is good. The fuel cell is not out completely as we have phase B and C. Neither A is completely out. Atlantis could launch even with two cells if that one fails completely.
-
#75
by
DaveS
on 06 Sep, 2006 10:47
-
spaceshuttle - 6/9/2006 12:22 PM
but wasn't something like this the reason that sts-83 died, and was revived as "94" (if you know what i mean...)?
Nope. There the FC#2 died while on-orbit, cutting the mission short. Was reflown with the same vehicle, same payloads and the same crew on mission STS-94.
That's why they decided to scrub the launch now as they're afraid that FC#1 could die while on-orbit causing the mission to be shortend significantly.
-
#76
by
joncz
on 06 Sep, 2006 10:57
-
From:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/orbiter/eps/pwrplants.htmlEach fuel cell is capable of supplying 12 kilowatts peak and 7 kilowatts maximum continuous power. The three fuel cells are capable of a maximum continuous output of 21,000 watts with 15-minute peaks of 36,000 watts. The average power consumption of the orbiter is expected to be approximately 14,000 watts, or 14 kilowatts, leaving 7 kilowatts average available for payloads.
So one cell dropping out is cause to come home now.
{PIMF}
-
#77
by
spaceshuttle
on 06 Sep, 2006 11:12
-
joncz - 6/9/2006 5:44 AM
From:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/orbiter/eps/pwrplants.html
Each fuel cell is capable of supplying 12 kilowatts peak and 7 kilowatts maximum continuous power. The three fuel cells are capable of a maximum continuous output of 21,000 watts with 15-minute peaks of 36,000 watts. The average power consumption of the orbiter is expected to be approximately 14,000 watts, or 14 kilowatts, leaving 7 kilowatts average available for payloads.
So one cell dropping out is cause to come home now.
{PIMF}
wow...well, all i can say is that i hope for the better next time...i DOUBT they'll leave tomorrow...
-
#78
by
gordo
on 06 Sep, 2006 11:13
-
Svetoslav - 6/9/2006 11:28 AM
I think that flying as-is good. The fuel cell is not out completely as we have phase B and C. Neither A is completely out. Atlantis could launch even with two cells if that one fails completely.
Nope, Mission rules prevent any opps on anything other than 3 fuel cells. What you might get is a waver from the vendor explaining the phase A issue as minor, but should FC2 or FC3 have issues on orbit then you don't have the confidence of still having 2 good ones.
In this post Columbia climate, it would not be appropriate to launch with a dicky fuel cell unless you had 100% confidence in it.
-
#79
by
mkirk
on 06 Sep, 2006 11:15
-
Since this thread is already 6 pages long I have not read any of it yet so I am sorry If I am repeating what has been said but here is my opinion/info:
The team is discussing the issue with the fuel cell vendor right now and there will be an MMT around 1 pm eastern to determine the forward plan.
Unless the vendor can convince everyone on the MMT that the anomalous currents on phase A of AC1 are okay and that the coolant pump is not the problem than I would expect an R&R of the fuel cell to be required.
Fuel Cell 1 is under the payload bay floor near the forward bulkhead. I believe a fuel cell can be changed out at the Pad, however, the airlock may be in the way I just dont know. Even if you have easy access to the Fuel Cell I dont believe it can be changed out in time to make a 24 of 48 hour opportunity.
Mark Kirkman
)