-
Forum Opinion - Go / No-Go for Friday Launch by Mark Nguyen on 07 Sep, 2006 20:29
-
I hope I'm not too presumptuous by doing something like this so soon after registering to the forums, but I'd like to quantify what everyone's opinion is regarding the upcoming decision for a Friday launch. What do you all think - go, or no-go? No need to justify your choice. But in your view, should they set for a Friday attempt?
Mark -
#1 by spaceshuttle on 07 Sep, 2006 20:38
-
i'll justify. i'm actually on the iffy side. sure, they could fly with a bad fuel cell--this leading to a minimum duration flight (mdf) in order to prevent a relapse of sts-83, but at the same time...if they wait till october, or even december (if needed to be destacked, atlantis would have to wait nearly 50 days in the orbiter processing facility, thus pushing 115 into 116's window) they'll have more confindence in that everything (or NEARLY everything) is fixed.
-
#2 by paulhbell07 on 07 Sep, 2006 20:47
-
GO
-
#3 by HKS on 07 Sep, 2006 20:56
-
Go!
I think the risk of either stading down and doiung R&R on the pad, or removing the day-launch restrictions on this flight is greater than risking a minimum duration flight. -
#4 by spaceshuttle on 07 Sep, 2006 20:57
-
Quote
HKS - 7/9/2006 3:43 PM
Go!
I think the risk of either stading down and doiung R&R on the pad, or removing the day-launch restrictions on this flight is greater than risking a minimum duration flight.
true. btw, what is "R&R"? -
#5 by waf102 on 07 Sep, 2006 21:00
-
Man, I have no real expertise, but Risk Analysis is a tricky business...even for the "experts".
I know/agree that choices should not be based on public relations considerations...but...
If the proverbial crap hits the fan at any point in the mission...even if it is crap unrelated to the fuel cell issue, the media will beat them with it to within an inch of the programs life.
I keep think of the Richard Feynman quote...
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool. "
Regardless of when they launch...I'll still be sweating it with all extremities crossed. -
#6 by gordo on 07 Sep, 2006 21:01
-
Do you understand the ET or FC issue best? try the case for going against lighting flight rules against flying with something thats not understood
-
#7 by rdale on 07 Sep, 2006 21:06
-
Quote
paulhbell07 - 7/9/2006 4:34 PM
GO
To enter your vote - you click the selection above, not replying... -
#8 by TFGQ on 07 Sep, 2006 21:06
-
NO-GO
because they hafta be 100 percent sure that the other 2 phases are not going to act up and stand a chance of a MDM mim duration mission i would replace the fuel cell to be on the safe side -
#9 by rdale on 07 Sep, 2006 21:07
-
Not saying your opinion is wrong - just wanted to highlight some mistakes:
1) You can lose another phrase and possibly keep the FC going just fine
2) A MDF mission would still at least get the truss up and EVA1 complete, and could be extended for the full 7 days. -
#10 by MKremer on 07 Sep, 2006 21:22
-
There's 4 possible scenarios -
(a) fly now and complete the mission with no recurring FC issues
(b) fly now and have to abort for an early return because FC1 acts up again or fails (no ISS docking)
(c) R&R on the pad and try a Sept launch (waive any ET lighting restrictions)
(d) R&R on the pad and use the current Oct window
If (b) occurs the assembly schedule is really screwed because even an Oct launch is then impossible.
My preference would be (d). I think the delay is worth it to help ensure mission success and the additional ET information.
-
#11 by paulhbell07 on 07 Sep, 2006 21:33
-
sorry rdale. i did vote. as for my opinion. i have read a lot on this forum for both sides of the argument, but my heart says lets fly tomorrow.
-
#12 by punkboi on 07 Sep, 2006 22:38
-
Quote
paulhbell07 - 7/9/2006 2:20 PM sorry rdale. i did vote. as for my opinion. i have read a lot on this forum for both sides of the argument, but my heart says lets fly tomorrow.
Guys, I need medication. I have GO FEVER.
-
#13 by zinfab on 07 Sep, 2006 23:08
-
I voted go.
Looks like MMT agreed with me.
Even at minimum duration, we'll get the truss installed, and that's the extent of risk on FC1. -
#14 by Jurschen on 07 Sep, 2006 23:40
-
Go for Friday Launch
go,go,go -
#15 by shuttlefan on 07 Sep, 2006 23:45
-
I am aware that they decided to proceed Friday, however, for what it's worth now, my vote is still NO-GO.
-
#16 by shuttlefan on 07 Sep, 2006 23:52
-
I just heard on a local radio station that this is the most delayed shuttle flight.
Not true--61-C and STS-73, need I say more?
-
#17 by Stardust9906 on 08 Sep, 2006 08:41
-
Because I know they have taken the time to study the issue carefully and I trust that the people making the call know what they are doing, I voted Go.
-
#18 by chksix on 08 Sep, 2006 09:36
-
I voted No yesterday. Today it looks like more problems are cropping up, making this even more No Go. The lightning strike must have done more damage than previously thought...
-
#19 by paulhbell07 on 08 Sep, 2006 10:26
-
i voted go yesterday. i would like to see atlantis fly today, as she has always been my fav orbiter. to many problems today, so i do not think she will fly. maybe the strike last week caused to much damage. i think see should rollback and have a full systems check. would hate to lose atlantis. safer to try later in the year.
