-
#280
by
uko
on 27 Mar, 2007 10:29
-
I think an actual launch attemp would be more logical.. if they see some anomalies like ice formation, they can always abort the countdown.
-
#281
by
Chris Bergin
on 27 Mar, 2007 12:43
-
shuttlefan - 27/3/2007 2:25 AM
If they would decide NOT to swap ETs, would they possibly perform a tanking test on the repaired tank once back on the pad, to test the repairs, to see if they will stand up to the tanking cycle?
A tanking test would serve no purpose (in the way it could actually make things slightly worse).
-
#282
by
shuttlefan
on 27 Mar, 2007 13:28
-
Chris Bergin - 27/3/2007 7:43 AM
shuttlefan - 27/3/2007 2:25 AM
If they would decide NOT to swap ETs, would they possibly perform a tanking test on the repaired tank once back on the pad, to test the repairs, to see if they will stand up to the tanking cycle?
A tanking test would serve no purpose (in the way it could actually make things slightly worse).
Ya because maybe an extra cycle on the tank would make the foam, especially the repaired foam, more weaker thus causing it to come off. Yikes! :cool:
-
#283
by
DaveS
on 27 Mar, 2007 13:53
-
shuttlefan - 27/3/2007 3:28 PM
Ya because maybe an extra cycle on the tank would make the foam, especially the repaired foam, more weaker thus causing it to come off. Yikes! :cool:
No real evidence for this. The data from ET-120 has to be taken with a grain of salt. ET-119 that flew on STS-121 had 4 cryo-cycles on it when it launched(3 standard, one press-cycle). And that one shed minimally with foam.
ET-120 had 5 cryo-cycles(2 standard, 3 press-cycles).
-
#284
by
Ducati94
on 27 Mar, 2007 14:08
-
Correctly repaired foam should perform as well as the original. NASA has to either buy into the engineering solution for the repair or not. That being said some people are more conferrable will less cryo cycles before launch.
-
#285
by
Mark Nguyen
on 27 Mar, 2007 18:10
-
Is there a designed number of times the ET can be tanked / de-tanked? I remember waiting for the launches on 116 and wondering how many times you can load all that fuel into the thing, then expunge it, then fill it up AGAIN...
Mark
-
#286
by
DaveS
on 27 Mar, 2007 18:20
-
Mark Nguyen - 27/3/2007 8:10 PM
Is there a designed number of times the ET can be tanked / de-tanked? I remember waiting for the launches on 116 and wondering how many times you can load all that fuel into the thing, then expunge it, then fill it up AGAIN...
Mark
Cycle limit is 13.
-
#287
by
nathan.moeller
on 27 Mar, 2007 18:58
-
Mark Nguyen - 27/3/2007 1:10 PM
Is there a designed number of times the ET can be tanked / de-tanked? I remember waiting for the launches on 116 and wondering how many times you can load all that fuel into the thing, then expunge it, then fill it up AGAIN...
Mark
A tank is allowed to go through 13 cycles. A fill operation (i.e. successful launch) counts as one cycle, while a fill/empty operation (i.e. launch scrub, tanking test) counts as two cycles. I believe that is right, but feel free to correct me if it is not.
-
#288
by
paulhbell07
on 27 Mar, 2007 19:55
-
So it's possible to have 6 scrub's and then launch, with the same tank. That's a lot of expanding and shrinking.
Has there ever been any stats posted about how much the tank shrinks when it is filled with the fluids.
-
#289
by
DaveS
on 27 Mar, 2007 21:27
-
paulhbell07 - 27/3/2007 9:55 PM
Has there ever been any stats posted about how much the tank shrinks when it is filled with the fluids.
6 inches.
-
#290
by
Chris Bergin
on 29 Mar, 2007 12:48
-
OV-104 (STS-117)/VAB HB-1
Orbiter and SRB powered up yesterday to support SRB Hydraulic Accumulator Retest and Hydraulic Power On testing. Power on testing complete/good; accumulator retest continues.
OEL-5135 LO2 ECO wire separation work and OEL-5140 LH2 ECO wire separation work continues this week.
-
#291
by
Chris Bergin
on 29 Mar, 2007 13:01
-
ET-117 (potential tank swap, but assigned to Endeavour 118 at present) set to be shipped from MAF on Sunday (maybe Monday). Ahead of schedule by about five days.
-
#292
by
uko
on 29 Mar, 2007 13:13
-
This is good news!
But still, no chance they can make the May window with ET-117, I suppose?
-
#293
by
DaveS
on 29 Mar, 2007 13:36
-
uko - 29/3/2007 3:13 PM
But still, no chance they can make the May window with ET-117, I suppose?
No chance. Time between ET-123(STS-116) arrival at KSC and ET/SRB mate was 24 days. Just for the sake of it, let's say ET-117 arrives on April 5.
That puts ET/SRB mate NET April 28. Add in the time of final ET/SRB close-outs prior to orbiter mate(18 days, STS-116), final SSV tests in the VAB(7 days) and time on the pad(22 days).
That puts a launch with ET-117 47 days away counting from ET/SRB mate time. Well beyond the May window.
-
#294
by
nathan.moeller
on 29 Mar, 2007 14:14
-
Thanks for the good new Chris. I'm actually hoping they go ahead with the tank swap. Just for grins, what would become of ET-124 should a tank swap be ordered? Would it be moved into the vertical checkout cell in the VAB? Or would it possibly be shipped back to MAF when the barge leaves KSC after delivering ET-117?
-
#295
by
shuttlefan
on 29 Mar, 2007 14:19
-
nathan.moeller - 29/3/2007 9:14 AM
Thanks for the good new Chris. I'm actually hoping they go ahead with the tank swap. Just for grins, what would become of ET-124 should a tank swap be ordered? Would it be moved into the vertical checkout cell in the VAB? Or would it possibly be shipped back to MAF when the barge leaves KSC after delivering ET-117?
Would ET-124 be deemed usable on a subsequent mission? :cool:
-
#296
by
nathan.moeller
on 29 Mar, 2007 14:27
-
shuttlefan - 29/3/2007 9:19 AM
nathan.moeller - 29/3/2007 9:14 AM
Thanks for the good new Chris. I'm actually hoping they go ahead with the tank swap. Just for grins, what would become of ET-124 should a tank swap be ordered? Would it be moved into the vertical checkout cell in the VAB? Or would it possibly be shipped back to MAF when the barge leaves KSC after delivering ET-117?
Would ET-124 be deemed usable on a subsequent mission? :cool:
I don't think there is a 'back-up' tank. If I remember correctly, they'll need every tank on the current MAF manifest (possibly one extra). But I have no doubt that if it is shipped back to MAF, we'll see it again next year. As I said earlier, this has been one headache of a tank! Don't worry though. It will be usable, especially if MAF is on the case and on their home turf!
-
#297
by
Chris Bergin
on 29 Mar, 2007 23:57
-
Decision on the tank, launch date, moved to April 16, as per L2.
-
#298
by
TJL
on 30 Mar, 2007 00:16
-
Quote...As I said earlier, this has been one headache of a tank!
Nathan, what else happened with ET-124?
-
#299
by
nathan.moeller
on 30 Mar, 2007 00:30
-
TJL - 29/3/2007 7:16 PM
Quote...As I said earlier, this has been one headache of a tank!
Nathan, what else happened with ET-124?
I was referring to all the wondering over whether it would be ready in time to support a December launch of Discovery for STS-116 (support being the CSCS requirements).