-
#140
by
MKremer
on 12 Sep, 2006 15:58
-
dutch courage - 12/9/2006 10:36 AM
Solar panels don't have to be exactly facing the sun to still be able to generating power. On Earth they generate power even when it's cloudy.
P4 won't be electrically connected to the station power grid until the 12A.1 mission, however.
-
#141
by
HKS
on 12 Sep, 2006 16:01
-
MKremer - 12/9/2006 5:45 PM
dutch courage - 12/9/2006 10:36 AM
Solar panels don't have to be exactly facing the sun to still be able to generating power. On Earth they generate power even when it's cloudy.
P4 won't be electrically connected to the station power grid until the 12A.1 mission, however.
I think they are going to rotate that SARJ to check it before deploying the solar blankets...
And untill 12A.1 it will just maintain power for itself (as MKremer said)
-
#142
by
DaveS
on 12 Sep, 2006 16:02
-
EVA End: 6 hours and 26 minutes.
-
#143
by
eeergo
on 12 Sep, 2006 16:02
-
And EVA-1 has officialy finished! Good work, Tanner and Piper, awesome job!
-
#144
by
psloss
on 12 Sep, 2006 16:04
-
DaveS - 12/9/2006 11:23 AM
Correct. Also until 12A.1 P4 will only have survival power as it won't generate any energy.
What I thought I heard was that the 2A and 4A wings on P4 would only power P3/P4 until the power distribution was reconfigured on the next flight...but that's plenty of margin for just that set of electronics...
-
#145
by
nathan.moeller
on 12 Sep, 2006 16:20
-
Beautiful view of the solar array mast on NASA TV.
-
#146
by
MKremer
on 12 Sep, 2006 16:24
-
HKS - 12/9/2006 10:48 AM
I think they are going to rotate that SARJ to check it before deploying the solar blankets...
Yes, after tomorrow's EVA (and assuming there's no problem to prevent it), they'll test the SARJ joint. P4 has to be rotated back to its neutral position before they unfold the arrays, and that needs to be done first because P6 is in the way.
-
#147
by
JimO
on 12 Sep, 2006 16:47
-
"Guess it's a pretty good thing that these things get moving and stay moving in one direction away from the station then huh? "
But they don't, necessarily -- that's the scary part. I wrote up an explanation over at msnbc.com about the only 'safe' way to throw something overboard from a spacecraft. The link might still be good:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11102068/
-
#148
by
yinzer
on 12 Sep, 2006 16:57
-
If something like a nut or a washer drifts away (as opposed to being heaved), isn't its ballistic coefficient going to be low enough that it will appear to continually move away from the station, forward and down?
-
#149
by
Chris Bergin
on 12 Sep, 2006 17:16
-
JimO - 12/9/2006 5:34 PM
"Guess it's a pretty good thing that these things get moving and stay moving in one direction away from the station then huh? "
But they don't, necessarily -- that's the scary part. I wrote up an explanation over at msnbc.com about the only 'safe' way to throw something overboard from a spacecraft. The link might still be good: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11102068/
Link is good - great read.
-
#150
by
stroker
on 12 Sep, 2006 17:37
-
Chris Bergin - 12/9/2006 12:03 PM
JimO - 12/9/2006 5:34 PM
"Guess it's a pretty good thing that these things get moving and stay moving in one direction away from the station then huh? "
But they don't, necessarily -- that's the scary part. I wrote up an explanation over at msnbc.com about the only 'safe' way to throw something overboard from a spacecraft. The link might still be good: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11102068/
Link is good - great read.
Seconded. That's an awesome article. It's just like Heinlein said--if you want to slow down, speed up, and if you want to speed up, slow down.
-
#151
by
Joffan
on 12 Sep, 2006 17:46
-
yinzer - 12/9/2006 10:44 AM
If something like a nut or a washer drifts away (as opposed to being heaved), isn't its ballistic coefficient going to be low enough that it will appear to continually move away from the station, forward and down?
The "drift" description implies that the separation velocity of the orbits was low, so effectively the orbital parameters are the same, and will recross twice each orbit. Look for the nut or washer to reappear! The saving grace might be the drag, especially for a washer, which would indeed tend to take it down (and hence forward).
...and welcome to the board, stroker.
-
#152
by
Flightstar
on 12 Sep, 2006 17:47
-
There's a media conference at the top of the hour, in case no one has mentioned. Good to see you around here Jim, how's Jay Barbee these days?
-
#153
by
MKremer
on 12 Sep, 2006 18:00
-
yinzer - 12/9/2006 11:44 AM
If something like a nut or a washer drifts away (as opposed to being heaved), isn't its ballistic coefficient going to be low enough that it will appear to continually move away from the station, forward and down?
Not especially - it would be about the same as, say, undocking one of the Soyuz or Progress ships and immediately allowing it to free-drift. Its 'new' orbit would bring it back around near the station again.
The only hope with small parts and pieces that drift off is that their lighter mass allows quicker atmospheric friction decay, or that they can be tracked fairly quickly so just one small thruster "burp" is all that's needed to avoid it from then on.
-
#154
by
dutch courage
on 12 Sep, 2006 18:25
-
If I'm not mistaken the screw/spring/washer shouldn't be able to come lose from the thermal protection.
So Tanner is not to blame for that added space junk.
-
#155
by
jacqmans
on 12 Sep, 2006 18:52
-
-
#156
by
nathan.moeller
on 12 Sep, 2006 19:45
-
Wow that's an amazing article. I'm afraid I can't wrap my head around all that. Unbelievable how orbital mechanics work. Very cool! Great day for spacewalking. Truss looks beautiful sitting out there. Can't wait for the array deployment!
-
#157
by
mtakala24
on 12 Sep, 2006 20:18
-
was this the post-MMT-briefing already?
-
#158
by
dutch courage
on 12 Sep, 2006 20:23
-
POST-MMT BRIEFING rescheduled to 3:45 pm CDT / 4:45 EDT
Again with John Shannon and Kirk Shireman.
-
#159
by
nathan.moeller
on 12 Sep, 2006 21:02
-
Briefing starting.