-
#60
by
TFGQ
on 07 Sep, 2006 17:16
-
do u think there will be a LCC waiver issued
-
#61
by
Chris Bergin
on 07 Sep, 2006 17:22
-
TFGQ - 7/9/2006 6:03 PM
do u think there will be a LCC waiver issued
Good call, I'd rather see it than guess though.
Looks like we're in a push for a Go for launch situation here:
Currently being presented: "Probability of Effect on Phase B & Phase C?"
-
#62
by
Chris Bergin
on 07 Sep, 2006 17:24
-
Looks like two options on the table.
Proceed to launch (tomorrow and the launch schedule charts are now complete).
R&R on the pad. No word on daylight restrictions yet (as in Sept. 24 window).
-
#63
by
psloss
on 07 Sep, 2006 17:26
-
FWIW,
NASASpaceflightWeb and others are reporting the MMT meeting start was pushed back to 2 pm Eastern...
-
#64
by
mheney
on 07 Sep, 2006 17:27
-
For us acronym-impaired - R&R stands for what??
-
#65
by
Chris Bergin
on 07 Sep, 2006 17:29
-
psloss - 7/9/2006 6:13 PM
FWIW,
NASASpaceflightWeb and others are reporting the MMT meeting start was pushed back to 2 pm Eastern...
Must still be pre-MMT then, but all the players are there round a table.
-
#66
by
Chris Bergin
on 07 Sep, 2006 17:30
-
mheney - 7/9/2006 6:14 PM
For us acronym-impaired - R&R stands for what??
Remove and Replace.
-
#67
by
DaveS
on 07 Sep, 2006 17:31
-
mheney - 7/9/2006 7:14 PM
For us acronym-impaired - R&R stands for what??
Either Remove&Repair or Remove&Replace.
-
#68
by
mkirk
on 07 Sep, 2006 17:33
-
psloss - 7/9/2006 12:13 PM
FWIW,
NASASpaceflightWeb and others are reporting the MMT meeting start was pushed back to 2 pm Eastern...
Yes is was indeed pushed back, It starts at 1 pm central 2 eastern!!!!
Mark Kirkman
-
#69
by
Mark Dave
on 07 Sep, 2006 18:00
-
The KSC site says Friday is the day, currently on NASA TV it's a repeat of the conference yesterday.
-
#70
by
rdale
on 07 Sep, 2006 18:09
-
MarkD - 7/9/2006 1:47 PM
The KSC site says Friday is the day
That's because the launch was delayed to Friday morning as of yesterday afternoon, you can watch that press conference or scan through yesterday's thread for more of that info.
-
#71
by
psloss
on 07 Sep, 2006 18:11
-
MarkD - 7/9/2006 1:47 PM
The KSC site says Friday is the day, currently on NASA TV it's a repeat of the conference yesterday.
What I see is "NET Friday" -- I don't see any indication of a decision. How about a corroborating source?
-
#72
by
Mark Max Q
on 07 Sep, 2006 18:31
-
I'm going to put my money of go for launch, seen as everything has been set for a go decision with the latest charts.
-
#73
by
edkyle99
on 07 Sep, 2006 18:45
-
I think they are asking for trouble if they launch. The hardware is trying to tell them something.
- Ed Kyle
-
#74
by
rdale
on 07 Sep, 2006 18:48
-
I really don't think hardware "communicates" in any fashion like that. It either works or it does, this one has a phase missing in the electrical flow, but the hardware still works.
-
#75
by
Chris Bergin
on 07 Sep, 2006 19:00
-
Might be 2pm Central, 3pm EDT now.
1300 MMT for AC1 Phase A (==)
Delayed 1 hour at OPO's request for additional time
- launch weather - probability of go 70%, 80%, 80% next 3 days
And there's notes of "We need more printer toners"
-
#76
by
nathan.moeller
on 07 Sep, 2006 19:16
-
I still think it's amazing that it would be of greater risk to the vehicle if they swap out the fuel cell than just flying it as-is. I'm still trying to wrap my head around what exactly the immediate danger to the mission is now that I heard Hale say yesterday that they were not in violation of their launch commit criteria. If the risk of changing the fuel cell out now is greater than just flying then I'll have to side with Svetoslav now and say 'go!' Go Atlantis!
-
#77
by
yinzer
on 07 Sep, 2006 19:18
-
I don't think hardware talks like that either.
But if one fuel cell fails, they have to come home STS-83 style. Whether or not they've completed the TPS inspections, or whether or not they have docked to the ISS. I don't see how they can justify taking that chance - waiving the ET lighting inspections seem much less sketchier in comparison.
-
#78
by
nathan.moeller
on 07 Sep, 2006 19:22
-
yinzer - 7/9/2006 2:05 PM
I don't think hardware talks like that either.
But if one fuel cell fails, they have to come home STS-83 style. Whether or not they've completed the TPS inspections, or whether or not they have docked to the ISS. I don't see how they can justify taking that chance - waiving the ET lighting inspections seem much less sketchier in comparison.
Yeah I got that part, but those letters from Cain and Shannon were pretty clear that it's a greater risk to swap out the cell. I'm just really confused as to what's going on. I know the dangers that they would face if it fails, but what is the realistic chance of it happening with one (out of three) possibly bad phase?
-
#79
by
DaveS
on 07 Sep, 2006 19:22
-
nathan.moeller - 7/9/2006 9:03 PM
I still think it's amazing that it would be of greater risk to the vehicle if they swap out the fuel cell than just flying it as-is. I'm still trying to wrap my head around what exactly the immediate danger to the mission is now that I heard Hale say yesterday that they were not in violation of their launch commit criteria. If the risk of changing the fuel cell out now is greater than just flying then I'll have to side with Svetoslav now and say 'go!' Go Atlantis!
It is not an issue of flight safety, but an issue of flight success. If the FC#1 dies on FD1, then they're Minimum Duration Flight(MDF) which calls for a landing on FD7, cutting the mission by 4 days!
