-
#20
by
dutch courage
on 10 Sep, 2006 09:40
-
-
#21
by
DaveS
on 10 Sep, 2006 09:42
-
LDRI starboard wing scan underway.
-
#22
by
DaveS
on 10 Sep, 2006 10:34
-
Starboard wing survey complete! Moving on to the nosecap survey attitude.
-
#23
by
Chris Bergin
on 10 Sep, 2006 11:08
-
jeffgibson - 10/9/2006 6:25 AM
Time for the Wake Up Call...
Moonriver???
LOL!! I think I would hit the snooze button if I had to wake up to that song!!
Yikes, sleepy music!
"Good morning Crew, time to get to work, here's a song you'll like......Mooooooooooooooooooooooon Riiiiiiiiiiiver..."
Liked that overview of the crew just then. Almost up to Arianespace Ariane 5 ECA quality presentation (the best by far). Those that watch the Ariane 5 ECA launches will know how slick they open up.
-
#24
by
dutch courage
on 10 Sep, 2006 11:30
-
Chris Bergin - 10/9/2006 12:55 PM
Liked that overview of the crew just then. Almost up to Arianespace Ariane 5 ECA quality presentation (the best by far). Those that watch the Ariane 5 ECA launches will know how slick they open up.
Some might say that the smooth Ariane 5 show is always the same. Only the name of the satellite companies change.
-
#25
by
MKremer
on 10 Sep, 2006 11:35
-
Wow, didn't get to hear it, but if they're playing Andy Williams for wakeup music it's much easier to go back to sleep.
-
#26
by
Thomas ESA
on 10 Sep, 2006 11:36
-
Anyone see any problems via the scans so far? Looks a very clean Atlantis.
And on the Ariane TV, Jean Michel Jarre had involvement, which is why it's so good.
-
#27
by
dutch courage
on 10 Sep, 2006 11:45
-
Thomas ESA - 10/9/2006 1:23 PM
Anyone see any problems via the scans so far? Looks a very clean Atlantis.
Hardly any debris came off the ET so I would be surprised if they found anything.
-
#28
by
MKremer
on 10 Sep, 2006 11:47
-
Thomas ESA - 10/9/2006 6:23 AM
And on the Ariane TV, Jean Michel Jarre had involvement, which is why it's so good.
Well, sure
, but private enterprise can usually be more 'in tune' with viewers' expectations and likes than a typical gov't bureaucracy.
I've always been impressed with the Ariane launch commentators and launch production telecasts.
-
#29
by
Chris Bergin
on 10 Sep, 2006 11:47
-
Yep. Chips and Gap Fillers will be what we should keep an eye out for.
-
#30
by
MKremer
on 10 Sep, 2006 11:50
-
Thomas ESA - 10/9/2006 6:23 AM
Anyone see any problems via the scans so far? Looks a very clean Atlantis.
the nose cap area, so far, looks practrically spotless!
-
#31
by
Gary
on 10 Sep, 2006 11:51
-
What's the 'force fight' issue with the speed brake noted in FD02 execute package?
-
#32
by
DaveS
on 10 Sep, 2006 11:52
-
Chris Bergin - 10/9/2006 1:34 PM
Yep. Chips and Gap Fillers will be what we should keep an eye out for.
Speaking of gap fillers, I think I saw something that looked like two gap fillers during the starboard wing scan, around where the ET umbilical wells are.
-
#33
by
cabbage
on 10 Sep, 2006 11:58
-
Force fight: each channel of the flight control electronics drives a hydraulic channel and they are mechanically summed - if one channel goes wrong and tries to command the speedbrake the opposite way to the others you get a force fight (3 against 1, I think - assuming there are 4 channels for the speedbrake).
I imagine they could just shut down channel 3 for entry if it still misbehaves.
Edit: worth saying that this is how the redundant set of 4 PASS computers commands - the "strings" are the independent paths from the GPCs to the hydraulic actuators (with several things between) if one goes wrong the others can still win the forcefight.
Caveat: I'm a handbook reader, not an expert! Others can probably give more accurate explanations.
-
#34
by
psloss
on 10 Sep, 2006 12:16
-
cabbage - 10/9/2006 7:45 AM
I imagine they could just shut down channel 3 for entry if it still misbehaves.
That's what the execute package says in the workaround:
A bypass of Speedbrake channel 3 will keep the problem from generating a force fight and may be required for Entry.
-
#35
by
sbt
on 10 Sep, 2006 12:17
-
Ok, maybe the launch wasn't as trouble-free as I thought yesterday, there was an issue with the Speedbrake that I missed. Here is the list of current failures for FD 2 from the Execute Package, tidied up with my understanding of the meaning. Can 'those who know' correct it where I have, inevitably, messed up. Posted for info for those who don't want to or can't download and wade through the package and to check my own understanding.
Version 2
a) SYSTEM
b) FAILURE
c) IMPACT
d) WORK AROUND
e) My understanding
a) APU
b) APU 3 EGT 2 was erratic during APU operation.
c) None.
d) None. APU 3 EGT 1 is available on BFS SM SYS SUMM 2.
e) I presume EGT is Exhaust Gas Temperature, as per aviation usage. In any case they have what looks like a failed sensor on APU 3 but will switch to the redundant sensor
a) EPS
b) Loss of Fuel Cell 1 coolant pump Phase A.
c) Loss of redundancy on Fuel Cell 1.
d) Fuel Cell 1 Phase A sensor is unpowered with the cb open. L4:C cb AC1 FC1 PUMPS Phase A was opened to protect against further damage and will remain open. If AC1 Phase B or Phase C is lost, Fuel Cell 1 shutdown will be required.
e) (Previously known issue) They are still operating with Phase A on the Fuel Cell 1 coolant pump disbled (ie. 2 phase). If another phase fails then they will have to shut the FC down and shorten the mission.
a) GNC
b) Speedbrake Ch 3 transient degradation of driver output. The momentary degradation of driver outputs generated a force fight several times during ascent and after powered flight.
c) Speedbrake Ch 3 is considered failed for mission duration. The root cause of the problem is not known, and the rest of the actuators on ASA 3 have not been exonerated.
d) A bypass of Speedbrake Ch 3 will keep the problem from generating a force fight and may be required for Entry.
e) There is a failure on one of the redundant flight control circuits for the Speedbrake (Split rudder) that makes it physically fight the other three channels. This may be common to other actuators on that channel(?). The appropriate channels control of the Speedbrake has been cut and will probably remain so for entry.
a) PLBD 1
b) Stbd Dr Aft Close microsw failed on.
c) Stbd Dr will close single motor.
d) None. Mech SSR-6 available to regain motor 2 drive if needed.
e) The Aft section of Payload Bay Door 1 (Starboard / Right) had a microswitch failure that means one of its two motors will not be available for closure. (The switch is telling the system that the door is already closed) It can be closed on a single motor but there is a procedure to work round the microswitch to reactivate the motor.
a) PLBD 2
b) Port Dr Fwd Close microsw went off prematurely.
c) PBD CONFIG msg during opening.
d) None. MANUAL mode necessary for door closure if microsw not regained using AUTO mode.
e) The Forward section of Payload Bay Door 2 (Port / Left) had a microswitch failure that indicated the door was open before it should have. Manual control may be required when closing this door.
Summary added by SBT MExPkg
a) FES
e) Water in the common ducts from recent rains caused an issue with both Flash Evaporator Systems. The result was a drop in temperatures in the Hi Load Ducts (anybody care to explain what there are) prior to the systems being switched on at SRB separation. The Hi Load Duct heaters had to be switched on to prevent ice formation. This is a known issue that has been seen before. The temperature had, however, not stabilised after this procedure sufficiently at FES activation and the FES system automatically shut itself down. Cycling the systems off and then on caused a 'restart' at a point where the temperatures were stable. No further problems were encountered. The FES are used to cool the Orbiter prior to the Radiators on the inside of the Payload Bay Doors being exposed when the doors are opened.
Rick
-
#36
by
psloss
on 10 Sep, 2006 12:22
-
The fuel cell issue was known -- that's what stopped them from launch attempts on Wednesday and Thursday to troubleshoot.
Also, the execute package has some extra detail on the issue with the FES during ascent that they see from time to time.
-
#37
by
Polecat
on 10 Sep, 2006 12:32
-
How long till the first press conference, not the post-MMT one?
-
#38
by
psloss
on 10 Sep, 2006 12:35
-
-
#39
by
sbt
on 10 Sep, 2006 12:52
-
psloss - 10/9/2006 1:09 PM
The fuel cell issue was known -- that's what stopped them from launch attempts on Wednesday and Thursday to troubleshoot.
Yeah, I should have made that clearer (_I_ knew, but does the reader?)
Also, the execute package has some extra detail on the issue with the FES during ascent that they see from time to time.
Good catch, I read it then jumped to the failure table, forgetting about the FES issue
Relevant changes have been Incorporated into my 'issues' post.
Rick
"Good morning Crew, time to get to work, here's a song you'll like......Mooooooooooooooooooooooon Riiiiiiiiiiiver..."