-
#100
by
Stardust9906
on 08 Sep, 2006 10:08
-
-
#101
by
Chris Bergin
on 08 Sep, 2006 10:14
-
Boeing Cons/Veh Mgr IMU Cals are good (====)
KSC reports that IMU cals were successful
-
#102
by
Chris Bergin
on 08 Sep, 2006 10:15
-
LCC violated:
2006:251:09:55:19
09/08/06 04:55:19 Boeing Safety IPR 115V-0422 -LCC GNC-74 violated
2006:251:06:34 (nq721c)
ADTA-1 and -3 pressure differences greater than 0.064 inches of Mercury. May be due to water and wind loading at the pad. Troubleshooting will be to allow water to evaporate when rain is over and observe pressure differential.
LCC GNC-74 violated.
-
#103
by
hoorenz
on 08 Sep, 2006 10:18
-
What about a seperate thread for screenshots from NASA-TV?
-
#104
by
nethegauner
on 08 Sep, 2006 10:18
-
Chris Bergin - 8/9/2006 12:01 PM
Boeing Cons/Veh Mgr IMU Cals are good (====)
KSC reports that IMU cals were successful
Great...
Uhm, what's IMU? And who are those Cons and Veh guys?
OK, "Veh Mgr" is vehicle manager, right?
-
#105
by
jacqmans
on 08 Sep, 2006 10:19
-
-
#106
by
nethegauner
on 08 Sep, 2006 10:20
-
-
#107
by
Chris Bergin
on 08 Sep, 2006 10:21
-
Screenshots are ok, so long as it's just occasional and new.
-
#108
by
Chris Bergin
on 08 Sep, 2006 10:22
-
IPR 115V-0426 LH2 ECO Sensor 2 Failed - MPS 22 violated.
2006:251:08:12 (=====)
LH2 Liquid Level Sensor #3 indicated 'Wet' when the Sim command was driven to 'Dry'. Troubleshooting to include preplanned step to verify the anomaly is not MDM related. If MDM failure, then we have a waiver and can proceed per MPS-22.
2006:251:10:00 (nq721c)
MDM not anomaly source.
-
#109
by
psloss
on 08 Sep, 2006 10:22
-
Hopefully this remains visible for a little bit before the next surge of pictures, but IMU = Inertial Measurement Unit.
-
#110
by
DaveS
on 08 Sep, 2006 10:22
-
IMU = Inertial Measurement Unit.
-
#111
by
rfoshaug
on 08 Sep, 2006 10:22
-
-
#112
by
Chris Bergin
on 08 Sep, 2006 10:22
-
2006:251:10:03:33
09/08/06 05:03:33 MPS Integ LLCO Sim Check (-----)
S00FF0.204 - LH2 LLCO ECO #3 Remains 'WET'
-
#113
by
rfoshaug
on 08 Sep, 2006 10:24
-
Chris Bergin - 8/9/2006 12:09 PM
IPR 115V-0426 LH2 ECO Sensor 2 Failed - MPS 22 violated.
Problems with both ECO sensor 2 AND 3?
-
#114
by
Chris Bergin
on 08 Sep, 2006 10:24
-
Problem is believed to be orbiter electronics, not the LH2 ECO sensor (source).
-
#115
by
nethegauner
on 08 Sep, 2006 10:24
-
-
#116
by
jacqmans
on 08 Sep, 2006 10:25
-
close out crew at the pad...
-
#117
by
psloss
on 08 Sep, 2006 10:26
-
Chris Bergin - 8/9/2006 6:09 AM
IPR 115V-0426 LH2 ECO Sensor 2 Failed - MPS 22 violated.
2006:251:08:12 (=====)
LH2 Liquid Level Sensor #3 indicated 'Wet' when the Sim command was driven to 'Dry'. Troubleshooting to include preplanned step to verify the anomaly is not MDM related. If MDM failure, then we have a waiver and can proceed per MPS-22.
2006:251:10:00 (nq721c)
MDM not anomaly source.
Sounds in line with the pre-121 troubleshooting plan, which would point to detanking -- and sadly, not the 8 1/2 minute kind. But who knows what has changed between then and now...I'll be curious to see if the crew goes out to the pad in this situation.
-
#118
by
psloss
on 08 Sep, 2006 10:27
-
Chris Bergin - 8/9/2006 6:11 AM
Problem is believed to be orbiter electronics, not the LH2 ECO sensor (source).
Point sensor box?
-
#119
by
elmarko
on 08 Sep, 2006 10:27
-
Chris Bergin - 8/9/2006 11:11 AM
Problem is believed to be orbiter electronics, not the LH2 ECO sensor (source).
Is that bad enough to cause a scrub? If the Orbiter can't determine what the status of the tank is, that wouldn't be good, I guess...
