-
#220 by ApolloLee on 01 Mar, 2007 22:49
-
Quote
Zoomer30 - 1/3/2007 11:55 AM
Makes me wish they had kept the "Mobile Service Structure" system they had in Apollo. Just enclose the whole stack, this is an expensive issue they have now.
Brings up the question of how an Ares I or Ares V rocket will be protected.
All the literature I've seen certainly has a launch tower on the MLP but I've seen nothing about a mobile or fixed service structure..... Will Ares just be open to the elements? -
#221 by jmjawors on 01 Mar, 2007 22:50
-
Quote
alan w - 1/3/2007 5:38 PM
is this really true, can anyone comment on this statement? thanks
From what I have gathered in the past, Anik works in high places and knows his stuff. His info is currently at odds with the newest NET date, but remember that an April launch is by no means guaranteed even from a processing and repair standpoint. -
#222 by Chris Bergin on 01 Mar, 2007 23:10
-
Quote
alan w - 1/3/2007 11:38 PM
Quoteanik - 1/3/2007 12:13 PM
These events can not be postponed, therefore it means that STS-117 launch is possible from the beginning of May only...
is this really true, can anyone comment on this statement? thanks
If that's what he says, then that will be true. We'll have to see how this pans out, but remember, NET April 22 is very much a No Earlier Than date. -
#223 by mkirk on 01 Mar, 2007 23:16
-
I know I helped confuse things this morning because I had old/different information so let me clarify a couple of things.
The hypergolic deservicing is NOT a complete off load of ALL of the hypergolic propellant. They are just taking off a significant portion of the OMS propellant (i.e. OMS Quantity Adjustment). This is a lot more propellant than I thought at first and it is due to a Safety Requirement for the OPF and not because of the slight overload that occurred on the OMS fuel earlier this week as I indicated earlier in the thread.
The RCS will not be deserviced. A couple of news organizations have said the APUs will be deserviced before rollback to the VAB – that should go pretty quickly since they were never loaded this week in the first place.
Payload removal is tomorrow morning and Rollback is early Sunday.
Initial processing plans are targeting Rollout to the Pad on March 31 with launch on April 23. Obviously April 23 is written in sand and may change after further assessment of the hail damage or negotiations with the International Partners.
That is the situation as I know it, if someone has more accurate info feel free to correct me.
Mark Kirkman
-
#224 by jmjawors on 01 Mar, 2007 23:24
-
Thanks for that info, Mark. Hard to get more accurate than that!
-
#225 by Lee Jay on 01 Mar, 2007 23:45
-
Quote
mkirk - 1/3/2007 5:16 PM
The OPF? Are you (the collective "you") still worried that the orbiter will have to be demated and returned to the OPF? Or am I just missing something obvious...
The hypergolic deservicing is NOT a complete off load of ALL of the hypergolic propellant. They are just taking off a significant portion of the OMS propellant (i.e. OMS Quantity Adjustment). This is a lot more propellant than I thought at first and it is due to a Safety Requirement for the OPF and not because of the slight overload that occurred on the OMS fuel earlier this week as I indicated earlier in the thread.
Lee Jay -
#226 by jmjawors on 01 Mar, 2007 23:53
-
Quote
Lee Jay - 1/3/2007 6:45 PM
The OPF? Are you (the collective "you") still worried that the orbiter will have to be demated and returned to the OPF? Or am I just missing something obvious...
Lee Jay
EDIT :: Oops... totally misread the question. Nevermind. -
#227 by mkirk on 01 Mar, 2007 23:53
-
Quote
Lee Jay - 1/3/2007 6:45 PM
Quotemkirk - 1/3/2007 5:16 PM
The OPF? Are you (the collective "you") still worried that the orbiter will have to be demated and returned to the OPF? Or am I just missing something obvious...
The hypergolic deservicing is NOT a complete off load of ALL of the hypergolic propellant. They are just taking off a significant portion of the OMS propellant (i.e. OMS Quantity Adjustment). This is a lot more propellant than I thought at first and it is due to a Safety Requirement for the OPF and not because of the slight overload that occurred on the OMS fuel earlier this week as I indicated earlier in the thread.
Lee Jay
There is no plan for the OPF at this point, this is just a precaution in case the OPF comes into play after further assessments.
Mark Kirkman -
#228 by Lee Jay on 01 Mar, 2007 23:59
-
Quote
mkirk - 1/3/2007 5:53 PM
There is no plan for the OPF at this point, this is just a precaution in case the OPF comes into play after further assessments.
Mark Kirkman
Ah...thanks Mark!
Lee Jay -
#229 by shuttlefan on 02 Mar, 2007 00:51
-
I read that Brevard County is under a Tornado Watch. Is it just dumb luck all these years that a tornado hasn't hit the pad and destroyed the Shuttle? Also, if a tornado were to hit it, would the SRBs explode because they are already loaded with solid fuel?
-
#230 by Lee Jay on 02 Mar, 2007 01:07
-
Lighting an SRB is similar to lighting a truck tire. I'd be pretty shocked if it went from *any* mechanical disturbance, even a tornado.
Lee Jay -
#231 by rdale on 02 Mar, 2007 02:01
-
Quote
shuttlefan - 1/3/2007 8:51 PM
Is it just dumb luck all these years that a tornado hasn't hit the pad and destroyed the Shuttle?
No. Most tornadoes are 50-100 feet wide. Florida rarely gets tornadoes. Put those two things together, and odds of a tornado hitting a pad with a shuttle on it are not computable... -
#232 by MKremer on 02 Mar, 2007 02:12
-
Quote
shuttlefan - 1/3/2007 7:51 PM
I read that Brevard County is under a Tornado Watch. Is it just dumb luck all these years that a tornado hasn't hit the pad and destroyed the Shuttle? Also, if a tornado were to hit it, would the SRBs explode because they are already loaded with solid fuel?
Not "dumb luck", but just the rarity of that type of thunderstorm at the Cape (also note that in the past almost-50 years there hasn't been that type of "violent, quick-storm" that has resulted in major damages to either NASA or Pentagon LVs, or the support/fueling structures around them.)
Even if an SRB were to hypothetically be somehow ignited from a severe thunderstorm, it would not "explode" at all.
Worst case would be that some of the propellent would start to burn, and there are more than a couple of contigency operations in that case, both for Shuttle and other LVs that use solid boosters.
-
#233 by Austin on 02 Mar, 2007 03:05
-
Quote
MKremer - 1/3/2007 7:12 PM
Quoteshuttlefan - 1/3/2007 7:51 PM
I read that Brevard County is under a Tornado Watch. Is it just dumb luck all these years that a tornado hasn't hit the pad and destroyed the Shuttle? Also, if a tornado were to hit it, would the SRBs explode because they are already loaded with solid fuel?
Not "dumb luck", but just the rarity of that type of thunderstorm at the Cape (also note that in the past almost-50 years there hasn't been that type of "violent, quick-storm" that has resulted in major damages to either NASA or Pentagon LVs, or the support/fueling structures around them.)
Even if an SRB were to hypothetically be somehow ignited from a severe thunderstorm, it would not "explode" at all.
Worst case would be that some of the propellent would start to burn, and there are more than a couple of contigency operations in that case, both for Shuttle and other LVs that use solid boosters.
The SRB casings are pretty darn tough -- the chance of one (or both) of them exploding would be extremely remote.
LO2 and LH2 in the ET is a different story -- much riskier. But then tanking begins hours before launch and there are, of course, stringent weather guidelines concerning this. -
#234 by Jim on 02 Mar, 2007 04:05
-
Quote
ApolloLee - 1/3/2007 6:49 PM
QuoteZoomer30 - 1/3/2007 11:55 AM
Makes me wish they had kept the "Mobile Service Structure" system they had in Apollo. Just enclose the whole stack, this is an expensive issue they have now.
Brings up the question of how an Ares I or Ares V rocket will be protected.
All the literature I've seen certainly has a launch tower on the MLP but I've seen nothing about a mobile or fixed service structure..... Will Ares just be open to the elements?
The MSS only covered the Apollo spacecraft. It the Saturn V had foam like the ET, it would have still been damaged while in the MSS. But it might not have mattered, only the shuttle worries about ice and not ELV's.
Ares will be out in the open. Short time at pad (less than a week) is its protections -
#235 by C5C6 on 02 Mar, 2007 11:23
-
here comes the crawler...or it's been waiting for some time and i didn't notice?
http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/6255/chan3largees7.jpg" />
-
#236 by DaveS on 02 Mar, 2007 11:27
-
Quote
C5C6 - 2/3/2007 1:23 PM
The Crawler has been there ever since Wednesday when it was moved from 39B.
here comes the crawler... -
#237 by rdale on 02 Mar, 2007 11:30
-
He didn't say it was moving very fast ;>
-
#238 by SimonFD on 02 Mar, 2007 12:06
-
Quote
MKremer - 1/3/2007 7:12 PM
IWorst case would be that some of the propellent would start to burn, and there are more than a couple of contigency operations in that case, both for Shuttle and other LVs that use solid boosters.
What contingency ops are there in case of accidental SRB ignition? I though once they were going that was that for two minutes or so!
You'll have to excuse me i'm new here
-
#239 by nathan.moeller on 02 Mar, 2007 12:30
-
Quote
SimonFD - 2/3/2007 7:06 AM
QuoteMKremer - 1/3/2007 7:12 PM
IWorst case would be that some of the propellent would start to burn, and there are more than a couple of contigency operations in that case, both for Shuttle and other LVs that use solid boosters.
What contingency ops are there in case of accidental SRB ignition? I though once they were going that was that for two minutes or so!
You'll have to excuse me i'm new here
Welcome to the site Simon. Probably better for the Shuttle Q&A section in the general discussion forum. But SRBs have self-destruct charges that can be detonated by the RSO (Range Safety Officer). The only time that has happened was STS-51L (Challenger Accident). The boosters were destroyed about 37 seconds after the disintegration of Challenger and the ET.
EDIT: Yes, the vehicle would be destroyed completely. I'm not sure of the consequences for the FSS/RSS but they wouldn't be good. The other concern for any SRB ignition is whether or not the hold down bolts will let go or not. There's a big discussion on that as well. Very interesting stuff!
