-
#440
by
Chris Bergin
on 11 Apr, 2007 16:01
-
Snippet from L2:
OV-104 (STS-117)/VAB HB-1
The Orbiter will be powered up today and Thursday to support snapshots.
SSME removal preps continue. Engine removals scheduled to start on Saturday.
SRB Solid State Video Recorder settings to be changed today with a retest on Thursday.
FRCS trickle purge was completed yesterday.
PR OEL-5135, LO2 continuity checks and connector mates were completed yesterday.
PR SB-BI-129R-0017, the right hand SRB RTD R&R is scheduled for tomorrow.
TPSB SB-BI-129-0010, SSVR (video recorder) R&R and camera functional retest is now scheduled for Thursday.
-
#441
by
bsegal
on 11 Apr, 2007 17:50
-
Don't know if they addressed this in the teleconference, but this decision really has me scratching my head. I thought it would have been a no-brainer to swap out the tanks once it was decided that some of the more critical repairs had to be performed sequentially rather than concurrently. This was going to push the repair completion date back far enough that it wouldn't get finished before a new tank was ready and available, anyway. Now, here we are with a new and pristine tank gathering dust on the barge at KSC for a week, and NASA still crossing their fingers that all the repairs will get done properly.
If they had made the decision a couple weeks ago to swap out the tanks, the de-mating could have been done before the new tank arrived last Friday. They could have in-processed the new tank, and spent this past week assembling the new stack such that a roll out could have been accomplished sometime late next week possibly. With some orbiter pad processing already having taken place, there could have been a reasonable shot at launching before the solar beta cut-out dates.
I understand, however, that these guys have forgotten more about the program than I'll ever remember, so I assume there are some flaws in my timeline. Regardless, even if they're now targeting a May 4 roll-out following completion of repairs, wouldn't it have made more sense to swap out the tanks and roll-out on that date with a new and uncompromised tank, than have to worry (even a little bit) about flying with the current one? That way, they could have taken a lot more time to either complete repairs at KSC or even send it back to The Shoe for processing there - the barge is there anyway waiting to go back.
-
#442
by
shuttlefan
on 11 Apr, 2007 18:34
-
bsegal - 11/4/2007 12:50 PM
Don't know if they addressed this in the teleconference, but this decision really has me scratching my head. I thought it would have been a no-brainer to swap out the tanks once it was decided that some of the more critical repairs had to be performed sequentially rather than concurrently. This was going to push the repair completion date back far enough that it wouldn't get finished before a new tank was ready and available, anyway. Now, here we are with a new and pristine tank gathering dust on the barge at KSC for a week, and NASA still crossing their fingers that all the repairs will get done properly.
If they had made the decision a couple weeks ago to swap out the tanks, the de-mating could have been done before the new tank arrived last Friday. They could have in-processed the new tank, and spent this past week assembling the new stack such that a roll out could have been accomplished sometime late next week possibly. With some orbiter pad processing already having taken place, there could have been a reasonable shot at launching before the solar beta cut-out dates.
I understand, however, that these guys have forgotten more about the program than I'll ever remember, so I assume there are some flaws in my timeline. Regardless, even if they're now targeting a May 4 roll-out following completion of repairs, wouldn't it have made more sense to swap out the tanks and roll-out on that date with a new and uncompromised tank, than have to worry (even a little bit) about flying with the current one? That way, they could have taken a lot more time to either complete repairs at KSC or even send it back to The Shoe for processing there - the barge is there anyway waiting to go back.
Very-well said!!
I think their decision was based more on getting STS-118 Endeavour off with only a 1.5 months delay, and keeping the downstream flights more closer to schedule.
-
#443
by
DaveS
on 11 Apr, 2007 18:49
-
bsegal - 11/4/2007 7:50 PM
Don't know if they addressed this in the teleconference, but this decision really has me scratching my head. I thought it would have been a no-brainer to swap out the tanks once it was decided that some of the more critical repairs had to be performed sequentially rather than concurrently. This was going to push the repair completion date back far enough that it wouldn't get finished before a new tank was ready and available, anyway. Now, here we are with a new and pristine tank gathering dust on the barge at KSC for a week, and NASA still crossing their fingers that all the repairs will get done properly.
If they had made the decision a couple weeks ago to swap out the tanks, the de-mating could have been done before the new tank arrived last Friday. They could have in-processed the new tank, and spent this past week assembling the new stack such that a roll out could have been accomplished sometime late next week possibly. With some orbiter pad processing already having taken place, there could have been a reasonable shot at launching before the solar beta cut-out dates.
I understand, however, that these guys have forgotten more about the program than I'll ever remember, so I assume there are some flaws in my timeline. Regardless, even if they're now targeting a May 4 roll-out following completion of repairs, wouldn't it have made more sense to swap out the tanks and roll-out on that date with a new and uncompromised tank, than have to worry (even a little bit) about flying with the current one? That way, they could have taken a lot more time to either complete repairs at KSC or even send it back to The Shoe for processing there - the barge is there anyway waiting to go back.
Here's my STS-117 with ET-117 schedule estimate:
ET on dock: April 6
ET lift into check-out cell: April 6
ET/SRB mate: April 29
Orbiter/ET mate: May 17
Rollout to Launch Complex 39A: May 24
Launch: June 15
All dates are best-case estimates. So you see, they're right, you're wrong. So using ET-117 doesn't buy them anything.
Rather, they loose a week of valuable time! Atlantis has to be turned around in time for STS-120/10A, yet another bottleneck mission. And a week is alot of time in turn-around speak.
-
#444
by
Lee Jay
on 11 Apr, 2007 18:52
-
If they had made the decision a couple weeks ago to swap out the tanks, the de-mating could have been done before the new tank arrived last Friday. They could have in-processed the new tank, and spent this past week assembling the new stack such that a roll out could have been accomplished sometime late next week possibly.
I asked about this way up-thread somewhere. Basically, they told me destacking in advance of the tank's arrival would be a waste of time because it takes around 3 weeks to ready a new tank for attachment to the SRBs. Therefore, if they did decide to use the new tank, holding that decision to when the tank arrived would not slow down the processing flow at all. As to why they didn't make the decision to swap, that's another matter.
Lee Jay
-
#445
by
nathan.moeller
on 11 Apr, 2007 18:57
-
bsegal - 11/4/2007 12:50 PM
Don't know if they addressed this in the teleconference, but this decision really has me scratching my head. I thought it would have been a no-brainer to swap out the tanks once it was decided that some of the more critical repairs had to be performed sequentially rather than concurrently. This was going to push the repair completion date back far enough that it wouldn't get finished before a new tank was ready and available, anyway. Now, here we are with a new and pristine tank gathering dust on the barge at KSC for a week, and NASA still crossing their fingers that all the repairs will get done properly.
If they had made the decision a couple weeks ago to swap out the tanks, the de-mating could have been done before the new tank arrived last Friday. They could have in-processed the new tank, and spent this past week assembling the new stack such that a roll out could have been accomplished sometime late next week possibly. With some orbiter pad processing already having taken place, there could have been a reasonable shot at launching before the solar beta cut-out dates.
I understand, however, that these guys have forgotten more about the program than I'll ever remember, so I assume there are some flaws in my timeline. Regardless, even if they're now targeting a May 4 roll-out following completion of repairs, wouldn't it have made more sense to swap out the tanks and roll-out on that date with a new and uncompromised tank, than have to worry (even a little bit) about flying with the current one? That way, they could have taken a lot more time to either complete repairs at KSC or even send it back to The Shoe for processing there - the barge is there anyway waiting to go back.
There was never a shot at launching before the solar beta cut-out with ET-124, much less ET-117. You didn't factor in the amount of processing time ET-117 still needs to go through in its checkout cell in the VAB. That takes about 6-8 weeks as it is. They don't offload the tank and immediately mate it to the SRBs. Sticking with ET-124 allows them to launch sooner then with ET-117, unless the repairs are pushed back substantially, which I don't see happening. The decision is well thought-out and they know what they're doing. They wouldn't stick with this tank if they didn't think they could finish the repairs in time for an early June liftoff.
-
#446
by
psloss
on 11 Apr, 2007 19:05
-
DaveS - 11/4/2007 2:49 PM
Rather, they loose a week of valuable time! Atlantis has to be turned around in time for STS-120/10A, yet another bottleneck mission. And a week is alot of time in turn-around speak.
Well, ISS-10A/STS-120 may end up on Discovery, but your point is still taken.
If they had destacked, wouldn't they also have to do other "back-outs" like cycling the landing gear (irrespective of the recently added engine work)?
-
#447
by
DaveS
on 11 Apr, 2007 19:10
-
psloss - 11/4/2007 9:05 PM
If they had destacked, wouldn't they also have to do other "back-outs" like cycling the landing gear
I don't think so. I think that they would simply mate Atlantis to the OTS, like they did with Discovery for her "stack-swap" for STS-114/LF1.
-
#448
by
collectSPACE
on 11 Apr, 2007 19:32
-
Per a NASA/JSC memo today:
A preliminary look at a late swap decision puts it at May 4th. A decision made to swap to ET-117 on that date would permit 4 launch attempts over 5 days at the end of the June-July window which currently closes 7/18.
and...
ET-124 (STS-117) repair schedule shows a supportable launch date of 5/31 (recall beta cut-out is 5/21-6/7).
-
#449
by
Thorny
on 11 Apr, 2007 20:39
-
DaveS - 11/4/2007 2:10 PM
psloss - 11/4/2007 9:05 PM
If they had destacked, wouldn't they also have to do other "back-outs" like cycling the landing gear
I don't think so. I think that they would simply mate Atlantis to the OTS, like they did with Discovery for her "stack-swap" for STS-114/LF1.
Isn't there a time limit before they have to top off the tires? Its been, what, two months since Atlantis' gear was retracted and nearly two more before launch?
-
#450
by
nathan.moeller
on 11 Apr, 2007 20:41
-
psloss - 11/4/2007 2:05 PM
DaveS - 11/4/2007 2:49 PM
Rather, they loose a week of valuable time! Atlantis has to be turned around in time for STS-120/10A, yet another bottleneck mission. And a week is alot of time in turn-around speak.
Well, ISS-10A/STS-120 may end up on Discovery, but your point is still taken.
If they had destacked, wouldn't they also have to do other "back-outs" like cycling the landing gear (irrespective of the recently added engine work)?
I must have missed something so forgive me for asking. I was under the impression that they had officially swapped orbiters for STS-120, 122 and 124. Will that be decided on April 16?
-
#451
by
shuttlefan
on 11 Apr, 2007 22:32
-
nathan.moeller - 11/4/2007 3:41 PM
psloss - 11/4/2007 2:05 PM
DaveS - 11/4/2007 2:49 PM
Rather, they loose a week of valuable time! Atlantis has to be turned around in time for STS-120/10A, yet another bottleneck mission. And a week is alot of time in turn-around speak.
Well, ISS-10A/STS-120 may end up on Discovery, but your point is still taken.
If they had destacked, wouldn't they also have to do other "back-outs" like cycling the landing gear (irrespective of the recently added engine work)?
I must have missed something so forgive me for asking. I was under the impression that they had officially swapped orbiters for STS-120, 122 and 124. Will that be decided on April 16?
I believe so.
-
#452
by
NASA_Twix_JSC
on 11 Apr, 2007 22:51
-
nathan.moeller - 11/4/2007 3:41 PM
psloss - 11/4/2007 2:05 PM
DaveS - 11/4/2007 2:49 PM
Rather, they loose a week of valuable time! Atlantis has to be turned around in time for STS-120/10A, yet another bottleneck mission. And a week is alot of time in turn-around speak.
Well, ISS-10A/STS-120 may end up on Discovery, but your point is still taken.
If they had destacked, wouldn't they also have to do other "back-outs" like cycling the landing gear (irrespective of the recently added engine work)?
I must have missed something so forgive me for asking. I was under the impression that they had officially swapped orbiters for STS-120, 122 and 124. Will that be decided on April 16?
As it's been made clear for a long time. FAWGs are planning schedules. It is highly likely that this will happen, but where you got 'officially' from is your assumption.
-
#453
by
nathan.moeller
on 11 Apr, 2007 23:02
-
NASA_Twix_JSC - 11/4/2007 5:51 PM
As it's been made clear for a long time. FAWGs are planning schedules. It is highly likely that this will happen, but where you got 'officially' from is your assumption.
I made no assumption, hence "under the impression." I misunderstood what was going on because I didn't know that the FAWGs were not "set in stone" so to speak. I suppose I'm still confused as to when the decision conerning orbiter assignments will be made. Is April 16 that day or is that simply to decide a new launch date for Atlantis on STS-117? Yes I'm sure I'm asking something that has been answered but I can't find the answer.
-
#454
by
Chris Bergin
on 12 Apr, 2007 00:11
-
A FAWG is never set in stone, by the very nature that the shuttle's schedule is a guideline for processing timelines.
NASA sets the NET dates, per mission, as the mission gets closer to launch.
-
#455
by
nathan.moeller
on 12 Apr, 2007 01:26
-
Okay cool. Thanks Chris. Yeah I couldn't be sure, but that info on the FAWGs explains it all. Sorry for using the expression "set in stone," as I couldn't find another way to word my thought. I was saying that I didn't know the FAWGs were temporary planning schedules and not plans that were to be (for sure) pursued. The nature of the documents escaped me.
-
#456
by
shuttlefan
on 13 Apr, 2007 20:48
-
Is SSME removal still set for tomorrow?
-
#457
by
Chris Bergin
on 13 Apr, 2007 23:43
-
Monday now - as per L2 processing info.
-
#458
by
jacqmans
on 14 Apr, 2007 09:33
-
Mission: STS-117 - 21st International Space Station Flight (13A) -
S3/S4 Truss Segment Solar Arrays
Vehicle: Atlantis (OV-104)
Location: Vehicle Assembly Building
Launch Date: Targeted for June 8, 2007
Launch Pad: 39A
Crew: Sturckow, Archambault, Reilly, Swanson, Forrester and Olivas
Inclination/Orbit Altitude: 51.6 degrees/122 nautical miles
In high bay No. 1 of the Vehicle Assembly Building, technicians and
engineers continue the repair work on the hail-damaged STS-117
external fuel tank, ET-124, following a decision this week by Space
Shuttle Program managers to target a launch date of June 8 using the
repaired tank.
Preparations are under way for the removal of Atlantis' three main
engines to inspect for flow liner contamination. This work can be
accomplished within the time frame of the hail damage recovery
effort, with no impact to the launch schedule for STS-117.
-
#459
by
Mark Dave
on 15 Apr, 2007 19:06
-
June 8 for launch huh? Sweet.
when will the new rollout happen given that target date?
I think their decision was based more on getting STS-118 Endeavour off with only a 1.5 months delay, and keeping the downstream flights more closer to schedule.