-
#280
by
Austin
on 08 Sep, 2006 15:04
-
Decision expected shortly re: ET ECO sensor
-
#281
by
Chris Bergin
on 08 Sep, 2006 15:05
-
MCC is go. Still could be a sting in the tail with the ECOs, I'm hearing.
-
#282
by
psloss
on 08 Sep, 2006 15:06
-
Given the site load, I'm going to stop posting now and throw it back to Chris and Dave for further updates. (Feel free to delete this after you read it, Chris.)
-
#283
by
dougb
on 08 Sep, 2006 15:10
-
scrub@
-
#284
by
Stardust9906
on 08 Sep, 2006 15:11
-
24 Hour Scrub turnaround.
-
#285
by
Chris Bergin
on 08 Sep, 2006 15:11
-
There's the sting in the tail. That's come from Wayne Hale....everyone was go. ET angry as there's absolutely no difference with tomorrow's attempt.
-
#286
by
Chris Bergin
on 08 Sep, 2006 15:15
-
A poll of the MMT showed a majority wanted to fly today.
Flight Crew systems was the one decenting vote,
However MPS integration of JSC engineering did not want to accept the LCC waiver, hence they were no-go. subsequent to the poll, the MMT chairman opted to detank and try again tomorrow.
-
#287
by
jacqmans
on 08 Sep, 2006 15:19
-
-
#288
by
chksix
on 08 Sep, 2006 15:21
-
I concur with Wayne Hale that it's better to have a confirmed failure of a sensor instead of a unknown behaviour.
-
#289
by
Chris Bergin
on 08 Sep, 2006 15:23
-
We're going to registered users only as we're being hit hundreds of times a second. Impossible for the servers.
-
#290
by
astrobrian
on 08 Sep, 2006 15:26
-
How many cryo cycles does that make for this tank?
-
#291
by
Gary
on 08 Sep, 2006 15:27
-
chksix - 8/9/2006 4:08 PM
I concur with Wayne Hale that it's better to have a confirmed failure of a sensor instead of a unknown behaviour.
It would have been better to scrub before tanking began. The stress on the foam could cause problems of its own.
-
#292
by
Earth_Bound_Misfit
on 08 Sep, 2006 15:28
-
Arr the old "denial of service attack" trick, thats caused by being the best site for launch information. Watch the registered user uptake now
-
#293
by
dutch courage
on 08 Sep, 2006 15:29
-
Obvious question is 'What's different tomorrow about the ECO sensors by just retanking again?'
It will probably be all they can do without replacing them.
-
#294
by
DaveS
on 08 Sep, 2006 15:31
-
astrobrian - 8/9/2006 5:13 PM
How many cryo cycles does that make for this tank?
One so far. STS-121 flew with three cryo cycles on the ET.
-
#295
by
uko
on 08 Sep, 2006 15:32
-
as I understand it, they just want to know that the sensors work/fail the same way tomorrow as they did today.. otherwise it would be an erratic unexplained anomaly, whitch is not good
..but yea.. I sure hoped to see a launch today
-
#296
by
Gary
on 08 Sep, 2006 15:32
-
DaveS - 8/9/2006 4:18 PM
astrobrian - 8/9/2006 5:13 PM
How many cryo cycles does that make for this tank?
One so far. STS-121 flew with three cryo cycles on the ET.
I thought it was a lot more! Sure feels like it:)
The crew must be feeling a bit battered as well.
-
#297
by
elmarko
on 08 Sep, 2006 15:34
-
I haven't left for my camping trip yet, so I'm back here to digest this information.
The thinking, as I understand it, is that a 24 hour scrub turnaround would allow them to check if the same sensor fails tomorrow, hence isolating the problem to a single source?
-
#298
by
nathan.moeller
on 08 Sep, 2006 15:35
-
Not so worried about the foam stress. ET-119 went through three fills and two drains before it flew and it's foam performance was excellent. I'm afraid if they keep getting cold feet they'll never get off the ground. This sucks.
-
#299
by
astrobrian
on 08 Sep, 2006 15:37
-
They want to repeat the failure but also more time to verify everything that relates to the ECO.
