-
#80
by
nathan.moeller
on 07 Sep, 2006 19:27
-
I know all the possibilities of what can go wrong and cutting the mission short, but I guess the bigger question is how dangerous swapping the cell out can be. Cain and Shannon seemed very concerned about the idea.
-
#81
by
Mark Dave
on 07 Sep, 2006 19:28
-
So what is the best option. IMO given the worry over FC1, I'd say replace it with a new one. Even though it would delay the launch, it's better to be safe than sorry. I want to see OV-104 launch, but if it make so much of a worry, then fix the problem to get it out of the way.
-
#82
by
shuttle_buff
on 07 Sep, 2006 19:32
-
I've watched all the briefings and understand enough about 3 phase motors but I'm still confused. Is one phase totally out or dropped out and is back?
Three phase motors can't run very long on only two phases (if one is out completely). The motor will overheat assuming this motor is running when one phase is lost. IN most cases, the motor can't event start itself if only two phases exist.
I heard a manager say the FC#1 runs fine so I'm totally confused?
-
#83
by
Chris Bergin
on 07 Sep, 2006 19:35
-
We have source information, not official and not documented (which is what we've been going off) claiming they are preparing for a go for launch decision. Wait until we get official news...these things have been known to change, but that info is from pretty high up.
-
#84
by
nathan.moeller
on 07 Sep, 2006 19:35
-
MarkD - 7/9/2006 2:15 PM
So what is the best option. IMO given the worry over FC1, I'd say replace it with a new one. Even though it would delay the launch, it's better to be safe than sorry. I want to see OV-104 launch, but if it make so much of a worry, then fix the problem to get it out of the way.
This is what I'm wondering. I'd stand down for a few weeks, swap out the cell and THEN go fly. So what if it requires a rollback? It sounds like it'd be less risky to R&R the cell and fly with hardware they know works. I'm confused as to where Cain and Shannon are coming from so I guess we'll just have to wait and see what they say during the press briefing.
-
#85
by
rdale
on 07 Sep, 2006 19:40
-
yinzer - 7/9/2006 3:05 PM
I don't think hardware talks like that either.
But if one fuel cell fails, they have to come home STS-83 style.
MDF was developed before CSCS. There was discussion of still going to ISS, at least getting the truss mounted and doing EVA1 before returning even if the FC went out on liftoff.
-
#86
by
galileo
on 07 Sep, 2006 19:40
-
As an ET engineer at KSC all i can say is its nice to not have the tank be the source of the drama for once. As for all the orbiter folks.....i know first hand that they are all working hard to get us cleared for flight.
Looking forward to reporting to console in the LCC tonight for the pre-tanking meeting.....assuming all the rumors im hearing in the OSB are true
-
#87
by
yinzer
on 07 Sep, 2006 19:40
-
If the flight rules say "come home as soon as possible" vs. "come home right away", then it might be worth giving it a shot. I'd think that they could do the first two EVAs and have the station crew do the tasks of the 3rd over the time between now and the next shuttle mission.
-
#88
by
Shuttle Man
on 07 Sep, 2006 19:44
-
galileo - 7/9/2006 2:27 PM
As an ET engineer at KSC all i can say is its nice to not have the tank be the source of the drama for once. As for all the orbiter folks.....i know first hand that they are all working hard to get us cleared for flight.
Looking forward to reporting to console in the LCC tonight for the pre-tanking meeting.....assuming all the rumors im hearing in the OSB are true
I hear ya! But let's not jinx those damn tanks just yet!
-
#89
by
nathan.moeller
on 07 Sep, 2006 19:47
-
Speaking of tanks, how did those three anomolous cracks/scratches turn out?
-
#90
by
astrobrian
on 07 Sep, 2006 19:47
-
Yesterday in the press briefing they made it clear they were not thinking this was a flight risk. If it went out on the way up so be it, then they would impliment the MDF of 7 days, hook the panels up and come home. Subsequent ISS/shuttle crews would be assigned the remaining tasks to catch up. So as I understand it, it is a come home as soon as possible scenerio
-
#91
by
Flightstar
on 07 Sep, 2006 19:48
-
I'm for us proceeding to launch.
-
#92
by
galileo
on 07 Sep, 2006 19:48
-
nathan.moeller - 7/9/2006 2:34 PM
Speaking of tanks, how did those three anomolous cracks/scratches turn out?
MR Fly-as-is
-
#93
by
nathan.moeller
on 07 Sep, 2006 19:49
-
galileo - 7/9/2006 2:35 PM
nathan.moeller - 7/9/2006 2:34 PM
Speaking of tanks, how did those three anomolous cracks/scratches turn out?
MR Fly-as-is
Good to know! Still looking at 2 PM CDT for the MMT?
-
#94
by
psloss
on 07 Sep, 2006 19:57
-
nathan.moeller - 7/9/2006 3:22 PM
This is what I'm wondering. I'd stand down for a few weeks, swap out the cell and THEN go fly. So what if it requires a rollback? It sounds like it'd be less risky to R&R the cell and fly with hardware they know works.
FYI, the turnaround time for horizontal changeout in the OPF was on the order of 50 days, due to the amount of work that has to be undone and then redone.
-
#95
by
nathan.moeller
on 07 Sep, 2006 19:58
-
Yeah but I was under the impression that they'd do the changeout in the VAB.
-
#96
by
Mark Dave
on 07 Sep, 2006 19:59
-
Or at the pad.
So any confirming that Friday is a Go for launch?
-
#97
by
nathan.moeller
on 07 Sep, 2006 20:00
-
Yeah hopefully at the pad if at all. No word yet. MMT's still meeting.
-
#98
by
Mark Dave
on 07 Sep, 2006 20:02
-
Ok. I do recall once on an orbiter something was changed out in the aft compartment while in the VAB or at the pad, Endeavour I believe.
-
#99
by
nathan.moeller
on 07 Sep, 2006 20:04
-
Don't forget swapping out the avionics in the aft for Discovery after it scrubbed for STS-114. Also the many engine swaps that took place at the pad!
