Author Topic: STS-120 Processing Latest (Read 153096 times)

Chandonn · « **Reply #340 on:** 08/26/2007 04:58 am »

Quote

shuttlefan - 25/8/2007 1:11 PM

What's the 'sidewall' on Node 2?

If I'm not misstaken, the grapple fixture which will be installed on the sidewall of Node 2 is a Power and Data Grapple Fixure (PDGF) similar to the one which was installed on Unity before the SSRMS arrived. It's just another place to base the SSRMS. I'm sure there will also be PDGFs on Columbus and Kibo to aid in construction and maintenance of Station and payloads.

shuttlepilot · « **Reply #341 on:** 08/26/2007 03:30 pm »

According to CBS News Space Place, LCC PAO for the mission will be Mike Curie. MCC PAO is Kylie Clem.

rdale · « **Reply #342 on:** 08/26/2007 05:25 pm »

Quote

shuttlepilot - 26/8/2007 11:30 AM

According to CBS News Space Place, LCC PAO for the mission will be Mike Curie. MCC PAO is Kylie Clem.

That'd be the second time on this very page that information (which I don't see as connected to STS-120 processing) has been posted ;>

shuttlefan · « **Reply #343 on:** 08/26/2007 06:13 pm »

Quote

MKremer - 25/8/2007 11:54 PM

Quote
shuttlefan - 25/8/2007 10:12 PM

Quote
Jordaxe12 - 25/8/2007 9:58 PM

Quote
James (Lockheed) - 25/8/2007 9:33 PM

So we have to get two mod ETs at KSC in time for STS-125.

Thats a good idea.

That's been standard practice since the STS-107 disaster.

Beg your pardon? When was the last time two ET's were being processed in the VAB at the same time after -107?

I'm thinking of the fact that they prepare potential rescue missions, but I guess that doesn't always mean there were two tanks @ KSC together....Excuse me.

wannamoonbase · « **Reply #344 on:** 08/26/2007 10:33 pm »

Quote

James (Lockheed) - 25/8/2007 9:33 PM
So we have to get two mod ETs at KSC in time for STS-125.

Its great to be checking it out before the HST mission but it is cutting it a little close. If there is a problem the clock on changes starts right before the HST mission.

But given the ET flow its proably the only possible way to handle it.

Really looking forward to the HST mission and the ET problems seem to be getting smaller and better understood all the time. Hopefully this last issue is the last ET problem and we can fly clean from here on out.

Keep up the good work guys.

DaveS · « **Reply #345 on:** 08/26/2007 10:46 pm »

Quote

MKremer - 26/8/2007 6:54 AM
Beg your pardon? When was the last time two ET's were being processed in the VAB at the same time after -107?

STS-114 and STS-121, 2005. ET-120, ET-121 and if I remember correctly ET-119. That was three tanks for three flights, STS-114, STS-121 and STS-115 all in 2005.

That is as far they managed to get with the ETs before the PAL ramp foam loss on 114 broke the schedule.

nathan.moeller · « **Reply #346 on:** 08/27/2007 01:09 am »

Quote

DaveS - 26/8/2007 5:46 PM

Quote
MKremer - 26/8/2007 6:54 AM
Beg your pardon? When was the last time two ET's were being processed in the VAB at the same time after -107?
STS-114 and STS-121, 2005. ET-120, ET-121 and if I remember correctly ET-119. That was three tanks for three flights, STS-114, STS-121 and STS-115 all in 2005.

That is as far they managed to get with the ETs before the PAL ramp foam loss on 114 broke the schedule.

I'm pretty sure ET-119 arrived after Discovery rolled out to the pad for STS-114, but ET-120 and ET-121 had been in the VAB and were even mated to SRBs at the same time. During STS-114, Atlantis was mated to ET-120 for STS-121 in September and ET-119 was being prepared for STS-115 that November. After STS-114 and the foam shedding incident from the PAL ramp, ET-120 and ET-119 were shipped back to MAF.

But let's not forget ET-117. I believe it was in a checkout cell during the period between STS-107 and STS-114. If memory serves me right, it was shipped back to MAF in 2006. So that makes three tanks in the VAB at once. ET-120, ET-121 and ET-117 at one point, then ET-120, ET-119 and ET-117.

OV-107 · « **Reply #347 on:** 08/27/2007 01:53 am »

Quote

rdale - 26/8/2007 7:25 PM

Quote
shuttlepilot - 26/8/2007 11:30 AM

According to CBS News Space Place, LCC PAO for the mission will be Mike Curie. MCC PAO is Kylie Clem.

That'd be the second time on this very page that information (which I don't see as connected to STS-120 processing) has been posted ;>

Good to see that George is not the only launch PAO. This question is connected to sts 120-processing but not if the thread is only about the orbiter-processing and not about the flight crew, the ground crew etc.

Na I hope they will come away on october 23 and no more ET will sink the launch dates!

STS Tony · « **Reply #348 on:** 08/27/2007 02:10 am »

The thread is about the shuttle preparing to be rolled out to the pad. Whatever monotonous talking head will be on NASA TV is about as relevant and interesting as counting the blades of grass at the press site.

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #349 on:** 08/27/2007 06:14 pm »

ET-120 repairs on track. All foam is now removed from the four brackets, with re-application starting today. Might do an article tonight, if not tomorrow.

shuttle_buff · « **Reply #350 on:** 08/27/2007 07:17 pm »

This is probably a question for James (Lockheed) but anyone can answer.

1) If ET-120 repairs become an issue and have to use next tank, what's the schedule
2) Are all tanks accounted for (in other words assigned to a mission) or are there leftovers? For example, ET-095 was never used and is a heavier tank and is probably not assigned. ET-094 was a test article. (that's two?)

Thanks,

shuttle_buff

TJL · « **Reply #351 on:** 08/27/2007 07:58 pm »

Is ET # 122 assigned to a flight.
Don't see it listed as such.
Thanks

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #352 on:** 08/27/2007 08:01 pm »

Quote

TJL - 27/8/2007 8:58 PM

Is ET # 122 assigned to a flight.
Don't see it listed as such.
Thanks

Checked the manifest, there's no ET-122.

lsullivan411 · « **Reply #353 on:** 08/27/2007 11:02 pm »

Some pics of the bracket repairs now on KSC media archives.

http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=4

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #354 on:** 08/28/2007 12:10 am »

Quote

lsullivan411 - 27/8/2007 12:02 AM

Some pics of the bracket repairs now on KSC media archives.

http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=4

Nice one. Was wondering when we'd see some of the MAF guys digging into some foam

Lee Jay · « **Reply #355 on:** 08/28/2007 12:15 am »

Guide lines, duct tape, knives, Scotch Brite. Some actual by-hand craftsmanship!!! I love it.

RafaelCE · « **Reply #356 on:** 08/28/2007 12:46 am »

These pics are awesome! Just a little crack caused such a commotion throughout the whole STS-118. Cannot avoid thinking of 107, since TPS is involved, although in the ramps. I doubt X-Ray was performed those days. Were they?

ChrisGebhardt · « **Reply #357 on:** 08/28/2007 01:02 am »

Quote

Chris Bergin - 27/8/2007 4:01 PM

Quote
TJL - 27/8/2007 8:58 PM

Is ET # 122 assigned to a flight.
Don't see it listed as such.
Thanks

Checked the manifest, there's no ET-122.

Wait.... how can there not be an ET-122?

shuttlefan · « **Reply #358 on:** 08/28/2007 02:36 am »

Quote

Chris Bergin - 27/8/2007 7:10 PM

Quote
lsullivan411 - 27/8/2007 12:02 AM

Some pics of the bracket repairs now on KSC media archives.

http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=4

Nice one. Was wondering when we'd see some of the MAF guys digging into some foam

I can't get over the size of the LOX feedline when seen close up. :cool:

Lee Jay · « **Reply #359 on:** 08/28/2007 03:02 am »

Quote

shuttlefan - 27/8/2007 8:36 PM
I can't get over the size of the LOX feedline when seen close up. :cool:

Big rockets really are ridiculous.

People are always impressed by the stats from a Top Fuel dragster. "12 gallons of fuel in 4.5 seconds!" How does 1000 gallons per second sound to you? "Over 20 psi of boost!" How does 4000-6000 psi sound?

Amazingly it seems like there are more engine explosions in Top Fuel and Funny Car than there are in big rocketry.

With engines having to eat the amount of LOX that can pass through that feedline, it's amazing they stay together at all, much less for over 100 times longer than a Top Fuel engine does!