-
#140
by
nathan.moeller
on 13 Sep, 2006 23:44
-
DaveS - 13/9/2006 6:29 PM
Is anyone else but me thinking on the bolt that Joe Tanner lost and was last seen heading towards P3 could be a cause for the problems?
Crossed my mind but to the knowledge of most people they believe of the components flew away from the station. Then again Steve MacLean lost one today too.
-
#141
by
nathan.moeller
on 13 Sep, 2006 23:45
-
SARJ rotating?! What's going on? I may be seeing it wrong but it appears to be moving. Someone confirm/deny?
-
#142
by
psloss
on 13 Sep, 2006 23:48
-
PAO says that the initial checkout went well, but later there was a point in the checkout where the DLA was to be re-engaged from neutral. At that point, the flight control team didn't get an indication that the DLA was in the engaged position. PAO says that after going through a "backup" procedure to verify alignment of the DLA with the SARJ gear, they still couldn't get an indication that it was engaged. At that point, the checkout was stopped.
Hope I'm transcribing that reasonably...
-
#143
by
MKremer
on 13 Sep, 2006 23:49
-
We'll have to see what their troubleshooting shows. Could be as simple as an intermittent pin on one of the connectors or a software-based configuration problem.
-
#144
by
DaveS
on 13 Sep, 2006 23:50
-
nathan.moeller - 14/9/2006 1:32 AM
SARJ rotating?! What's going on? I may be seeing it wrong but it appears to be moving. Someone confirm/deny?
I'm not seeing any motion on the P4.
-
#145
by
nathan.moeller
on 13 Sep, 2006 23:52
-
DaveS - 13/9/2006 6:37 PM
nathan.moeller - 14/9/2006 1:32 AM
SARJ rotating?! What's going on? I may be seeing it wrong but it appears to be moving. Someone confirm/deny?
I'm not seeing any motion on the P4.
Yeah with the snowy screen it made it look like it was rotating...but after several seconds it was clear that it wasn't. Wasn't sure if they were trying to reposition it or what. I bet the crew's gonna be glad they were asleep for all this!
-
#146
by
Joffan
on 14 Sep, 2006 00:13
-
Can the controllers walk the Station Arm over there and take a closer look?
-
#147
by
psloss
on 14 Sep, 2006 00:13
-
The problem described earlier apparently is with DLA #2...
-
#148
by
lcs
on 14 Sep, 2006 00:16
-
Yes, but you won't get to see it. Time to watch the home movies (over and over and over).
-
#149
by
nathan.moeller
on 14 Sep, 2006 00:17
-
FD5 highlights rolling.
-
#150
by
psloss
on 14 Sep, 2006 00:18
-
-
#151
by
MKremer
on 14 Sep, 2006 00:22
-
If it's due to the 2nd/redundant drive, and it really is an alignment problem, the 3rd EVA should be just a little more intesting.
-
#152
by
nathan.moeller
on 14 Sep, 2006 00:25
-
So could we be seeing a mission extension in action if they don't get this problem solved? They won't able to get the arrays out until they get this SARJ in place.
-
#153
by
MKremer
on 14 Sep, 2006 00:32
-
One SARJ drive does work. To me it doesn't make much sense to delay the solar array deployment because of that. If *both* drives had failed, maybe yes.
-
#154
by
nathan.moeller
on 14 Sep, 2006 00:35
-
MKremer - 13/9/2006 7:19 PM
One SARJ drive does work. To me it doesn't make much sense to delay the solar array deployment because of that. If *both* drives had failed, maybe yes.
Kind of predictable though. One of three phases one one of three fuel cells gave an "odd" reading and they scrubbed a launch attempt because of it. They want to make sure they still have redundancy before they give something the chance to go wrong.
-
#155
by
DaveS
on 14 Sep, 2006 00:41
-
nathan.moeller - 14/9/2006 2:22 AM
Kind of predictable though. One of three phases one one of three fuel cells gave an "odd" reading and they scrubbed a launch attempt because of it. They want to make sure they still have redundancy before they give something the chance to go wrong.
Not a similar situation. If FC#1 had failed there's little you can do about it other than declare a "Minimum Duration Flight" and come home early. Here you can do something about it.
Also not having the SARJ moving during this mission is not a loss of success as the SARJ won't be operational until after STS-116/12A.1 leaves the station.
-
#156
by
nathan.moeller
on 14 Sep, 2006 00:44
-
DaveS - 13/9/2006 7:28 PM
nathan.moeller - 14/9/2006 2:22 AM
Kind of predictable though. One of three phases one one of three fuel cells gave an "odd" reading and they scrubbed a launch attempt because of it. They want to make sure they still have redundancy before they give something the chance to go wrong.
Not a similar situation. If FC#1 had failed there's little you can do about it other than declare a "Minimum Duration Flight" and come home early. Here you can do something about it.
Also not having the SARJ moving during this mission is not a loss of success as the SARJ won't be operational until after STS-116/12A.1 leaves the station.
Yeah I know, but I'm thinking they're holding off just in case something is actually out of alignment. If it really is out couldn't it cause trouble if they try to move it? I just think they'd want to avoid complicating tasks on EVA-3 as much as possible. What do they plan to do at this point?
-
#157
by
MKremer
on 14 Sep, 2006 01:15
-
nathan.moeller - 13/9/2006 7:31 PM
Yeah I know, but I'm thinking they're holding off just in case something is actually out of alignment. If it really is out couldn't it cause trouble if they try to move it? I just think they'd want to avoid complicating tasks on EVA-3 as much as possible. What do they plan to do at this point?
If being out of alignment would have caused an immediately detectable problem, the first 5 degree move, then the long pause, then the rest of the 180° rotation would have had them scrambling right away. Didn't happen.
What I think they'll do first is, when it's conventient in the EVA timeline, re-align the applicable drive motor. Remember, during EVA-1 Heidi Piper had to go through a number of steps with each motor using the PGT to move them from the launch position to their working alignment. I imagine there's a number of sensors for each motor to flag the smallest operational problem, and one or more of them were flagged after the motor was commanded to move P4. (to me, the key point is *after* the motor was commanded to engage, otherwise they would have detected a problem long before)
-
#158
by
DaveS
on 14 Sep, 2006 01:47
-
MKremer - 14/9/2006 3:02 AM
If being out of alignment would have caused an immediately detectable problem, the first 5 degree move, then the long pause, then the rest of the 180° rotation would have had them scrambling right away. Didn't happen.
Actually, there's two Drive Lock Assemblies(DLAs). For those two initial movements they only used one of the DLAs. When they tried to do a full 360 using the other DLA, the SARJ didn't move and the DLA gave a out of alignment reading.
-
#159
by
Chris Bergin
on 14 Sep, 2006 02:17
-
Totally missed it, but I was not best pleased to read some comments about boring PAO commentary on this thread, relating to NASA TV coverage.
Not only does it have f' all to do with this live update thread, but it is totally uncalled for. Remember, we're ZERO tolerance to any level of crap on here, that's what makes this place different to the usual pie throwing contests on the net.
I can't be everywhere at all times, so if anyone does this again, please PM me asap...and I'll delete their comments faster than you can say "jeez, I was just saying...".
Thanks.