-
#460 by rdale on 15 Apr, 2007 19:15
-
Nothing has changed since the date was announced last week... Scroll back a few pages for more details - rollout is May 6.
-
#461 by DaveS on 15 Apr, 2007 19:15
-
Quote
MarkD - 15/4/2007 9:06 PM
Please visit the news site. You do now there's a news section right? Here's a link to the story: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5071
when will the new rollout happen given that target date? -
#462 by eeergo on 15 Apr, 2007 21:11
-
New images of the repairs on the ET: http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=71
-
#463 by TJL on 15 Apr, 2007 22:56
-
When I look at that photo of ET-124, it's hard to believe that the decision is leaning towards using that tank over ET-117.
-
#464 by psloss on 16 Apr, 2007 00:08
-
Quote
TJL - 15/4/2007 6:56 PM
This tank pretty much has to be used, whether it's this launch or another one; there's also a couple of weeks of margin (at least at this point) to use it for this launch instead of the just-arrived tank.
When I look at that photo of ET-124, it's hard to believe that the decision is leaning towards using that tank over ET-117.
-
#465 by Austin on 16 Apr, 2007 00:16
-
Quote
psloss - 15/4/2007 5:08 PM
This tank pretty much has to be used, whether it's this launch or another one; there's also a couple of weeks of margin (at least at this point) to use it for this launch instead of the just-arrived tank.
This tank does not have to be used. It is being used because engineers have declared it flight worthy. If, following assessment, it was determined that it was unsafe to fly, it would not be flown.
The dings or pockmarks that you see in the picture, TJL, are extreme close-ups, and are actually quite small. -
#466 by psloss on 16 Apr, 2007 00:24
-
Quote
Austin - 15/4/2007 8:16 PM
I missed that -- is there a reference that says that the damage could possibly have been unrepairable?
If, following assessment, it was determined that it was unsafe to fly, it would not be flown.
-
#467 by nathan.moeller on 16 Apr, 2007 01:41
-
Quote
Austin - 15/4/2007 7:16 PM
Quotepsloss - 15/4/2007 5:08 PM
This tank pretty much has to be used, whether it's this launch or another one; there's also a couple of weeks of margin (at least at this point) to use it for this launch instead of the just-arrived tank.
This tank does not have to be used. It is being used because engineers have declared it flight worthy. If, following assessment, it was determined that it was unsafe to fly, it would not be flown.
The dings or pockmarks that you see in the picture, TJL, are extreme close-ups, and are actually quite small.
Austin, I believe there are only enough tanks left to finish the shuttle program. If that is true, this tank MUST be used. It doesn't have to fly on STS-117, but it must fly. But it has been deemed flight worthy for STS-117 so it is most likely that it will be used on this flight. -
#468 by Chris Bergin on 16 Apr, 2007 01:50
-
Don't forget that NASA are setting the new launch date schedule tomorrow (at least they are meeting on Monday).
Writing an article to preview this. -
#469 by Chris Bergin on 16 Apr, 2007 04:17
-
#470 by Austin on 16 Apr, 2007 05:44
-
Quote
psloss - 15/4/2007 5:24 PM
QuoteAustin - 15/4/2007 8:16 PM
I missed that -- is there a reference that says that the damage could possibly have been unrepairable?
If, following assessment, it was determined that it was unsafe to fly, it would not be flown.
Hey Pete. Not really. Yet I hope that NASA has learned by now not to allow schedule pressure and/or deadlines (ie 2010) to dictate critical decision- making in lieu of safety. I suppose that is the point I was trying to make. If It really came down to it and the tank was not flight worthy, I want to believe that NASA would make the decision not to fly it. -
#471 by nathan.moeller on 16 Apr, 2007 12:44
-
Quote
Austin - 16/4/2007 12:44 AM
Quotepsloss - 15/4/2007 5:24 PM
QuoteAustin - 15/4/2007 8:16 PM
I missed that -- is there a reference that says that the damage could possibly have been unrepairable?
If, following assessment, it was determined that it was unsafe to fly, it would not be flown.
Hey Pete. Not really. Yet I hope that NASA has learned by now not to allow schedule pressure and/or deadlines (ie 2010) to dictate critical decision- making in lieu of safety. I suppose that is the point I was trying to make. If It really came down to it and the tank was not flight worthy, I want to believe that NASA would make the decision not to fly it.
Well, if it wasn't deemed flight worthy, they wouldn't use it for STS-117. They would either A. Place it in a vertical checkout cell in the VAB for more work or B. Send it back to MAF where they can fix it even more and get it ready to fly on a later mission. It would push the schedule back, but if it came down to that, they would do it. Looking forward to the decisions today
-
#472 by shuttlefan on 16 Apr, 2007 13:32
-
Quote
nathan.moeller - 16/4/2007 7:44 AM
QuoteAustin - 16/4/2007 12:44 AM
Quotepsloss - 15/4/2007 5:24 PM
QuoteAustin - 15/4/2007 8:16 PM
I missed that -- is there a reference that says that the damage could possibly have been unrepairable?
If, following assessment, it was determined that it was unsafe to fly, it would not be flown.
Hey Pete. Not really. Yet I hope that NASA has learned by now not to allow schedule pressure and/or deadlines (ie 2010) to dictate critical decision- making in lieu of safety. I suppose that is the point I was trying to make. If It really came down to it and the tank was not flight worthy, I want to believe that NASA would make the decision not to fly it.
Well, if it wasn't deemed flight worthy, they wouldn't use it for STS-117. They would either A. Place it in a vertical checkout cell in the VAB for more work or B. Send it back to MAF where they can fix it even more and get it ready to fly on a later mission. It would push the schedule back, but if it came down to that, they would do it. Looking forward to the decisions today
Absolutely, Nathan. We have to realize that NASA spent countless hours evaluating the flight-worthiness of the repaired tank vs. replacing it. I think NASA 's decision-making process is right on the money right now.
BTW, are they starting to remove the main engines today? -
#473 by psloss on 16 Apr, 2007 13:55
-
Quote
Austin - 16/4/2007 1:44 AM
That's not the point I was trying to make, which Nathan has already emphasized -- they have a sufficient number of tanks to fly out the manifest, but not much (or any) overstock.
Hey Pete. Not really. Yet I hope that NASA has learned by now not to allow schedule pressure and/or deadlines (ie 2010) to dictate critical decision- making in lieu of safety. I suppose that is the point I was trying to make. If It really came down to it and the tank was not flight worthy, I want to believe that NASA would make the decision not to fly it.
The hail damage was bad, but I haven't seen anything that says that taking this tank out of the sequence means it can never be flown. It's more a matter of how long it takes to repair the insulation. Look at what happened to ET-120 and what the plans are for it now.
(By the way, my name's not Pete. It's Philip.)
-
#474 by nathan.moeller on 16 Apr, 2007 14:22
-
ET manifest on L2 shows one extra tank (ET-138, with CLFs STS-131 and STS-133 included). But Philip is right. The hail damage is rough, but it's fixable. It's only a matter of how much time those repairs will take. The SSP has concluded that the repairs can be completed before ET-117 is ready and that they can be carried out while the vehicle is stacked. They thought ET-120 would never fly, but it's now set to fly with STS-120. They know what they're doing
-
#475 by Austin on 16 Apr, 2007 14:35
-
Quote
psloss - 16/4/2007 6:55 AM
QuoteAustin - 16/4/2007 1:44 AM
That's not the point I was trying to make, which Nathan has already emphasized -- they have a sufficient number of tanks to fly out the manifest, but not much (or any) overstock.
Hey Pete. Not really. Yet I hope that NASA has learned by now not to allow schedule pressure and/or deadlines (ie 2010) to dictate critical decision- making in lieu of safety. I suppose that is the point I was trying to make. If It really came down to it and the tank was not flight worthy, I want to believe that NASA would make the decision not to fly it.
The hail damage was bad, but I haven't seen anything that says that taking this tank out of the sequence means it can never be flown. It's more a matter of how long it takes to repair the insulation. Look at what happened to ET-120 and what the plans are for it now.
(By the way, my name's not Pete. It's Philip.)
Point taken. And sorry about that...not sure where I got Pete from. -
#476 by Austin on 16 Apr, 2007 14:38
-
Quote
nathan.moeller - 16/4/2007 7:22 AM
They thought ET-120 would never fly, but it's now set to fly with STS-120. They know what they're doing
No doubt, Nathan. I have a great deal more confidence in the management team now than before. And with the remainder of the program riding on each mission at this point, I do think that has also has a positive influence on decision-making. -
#477 by rdale on 16 Apr, 2007 16:50
-
Quote
shuttlefan - 16/4/2007 9:32 AM
BTW, are they starting to remove the main engines today?
No, per L2 that was pushed back for tank repair issues, no impact on rollout. -
#478 by Chris Bergin on 17 Apr, 2007 12:39
-
From L2, which will be written up as part of another 117 related story today:
OV-104 (STS-117)/VAB HB-1
The Orbiter was powered up on Friday and snapshots were completed; next power up scheduled for tomorrow.
Hydraulic operations to preposition all aerosurfaces in support of engine removals were completed on Friday.
During a walkdown in preparation for engine removal, several scaffolding issues were noted. To ensure ET-124 repair efforts were not impacted, engine removal will be rescheduled to begin on April 24. This change in the schedule is not expected to impact the rollout date of May 6 nor the NET launch date of June 8.
SRB Solid State Video Recorder retest was completed on Friday.
SSME #2 will be swapped with OV-105. -
#479 by shuttlefan on 17 Apr, 2007 13:31
-
Quote
Chris Bergin - 17/4/2007 7:39 AM
From L2, which will be written up as part of another 117 related story today:
OV-104 (STS-117)/VAB HB-1
The Orbiter was powered up on Friday and snapshots were completed; next power up scheduled for tomorrow.
Hydraulic operations to preposition all aerosurfaces in support of engine removals were completed on Friday.
During a walkdown in preparation for engine removal, several scaffolding issues were noted. To ensure ET-124 repair efforts were not impacted, engine removal will be rescheduled to begin on April 24. This change in the schedule is not expected to impact the rollout date of May 6 nor the NET launch date of June 8.
SRB Solid State Video Recorder retest was completed on Friday.
SSME #2 will be swapped with OV-105.
Any word on why they are replacing SSME#2?
