Discovery: ISS 1J Mission (STS-124) Post Launch Thread

[MeteorWayne]

<p>After launch, this thread should be the home of discussion about the mission.</p><p>Please wait until after the uphill ride,&nbsp;before that, please&nbsp;post in the STS-124 (1J) thread.</p><p>Meteor Wayne</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[Jcon]

I can never see enough of those launches. They still get me. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[3488]

<p>

<font color="#ff0000">After launch, this thread should be the home of discussion about the mission.Please wait until after the uphill ride,&nbsp;before that, please&nbsp;post in the STS-124 (1J) thread.Meteor Wayne <br />Posted by MeteorWayne[/</font>QUOTE]</p><p><strong><font size="2">OMS 1 coming up.</font></strong></p><p><strong><font size="2">Andrew Brown.</font></strong><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>

 

[SpaceKiwi]

<p>Just out of curiosity, did anyone else watching the launch via NASA TV get a number of widescreen (letterbox)&nbsp;shots during ascent?</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>SK&nbsp; <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/0/10/00d2cb02-022a-43a9-aaab-93abeb7f62c8.Medium.gif" alt="" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>After launch, this thread should be the home of discussion about the mission.Please wait until after the uphill ride,&nbsp;before that, please&nbsp;post in the STS-124 (1J) thread.Meteor Wayne <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I saw the launch on HD Net.&nbsp; Watching one of the SRB's tumbling downward, was cool.&nbsp; Actually, it was hot, when it went horizontal to the Earth, you could see the heat comming off it.<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[silylene old]

<p>CNN just reported and replayed a video many times of a sizable foam hit on the Shuttle underbelly, about 3 min 30 s into launch.&nbsp; (I forgot the exact time)</p><p>The foam piece, which looks large,&nbsp;clearly hits and rebounds off.&nbsp; The foam did not explode on contact, just bounced off cleanly.</p><p>CNN commentator says this may not be that serious, because the air density is lower at this time into the flight, and foam impacts carry less energy.&nbsp; Still this will need very extensive checking.&nbsp; Foam hits prior to 2 min 30 sec are thought to be much more concerning.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[Cosmos80]

<p>Amazing replay just now from the pad camera....check it out if you missed it.</p><p>Also, an event of interest at about T+ 3min. 30 sec. -- as seen from the ET camera, CNN was just focusing some attention to it, as I'm sure NASA will.&nbsp; A definite "bonk" from foam to the orbiter, though at a safer point in time.</p><p>*The replays continue, and you may catch it when they get to that part.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>OMS 1 coming up.Andrew Brown. <br />Posted by 3488</DIV><br /><br />Possible OMS problem; gimbaling on one engine; consider&nbsp;it them failed until proven otherwise.</p><p>IT IS NOT AN IMMEDIATE PROBLEM.</p><p>Just being cautious...as in the NASA mantra.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>CNN just reported and replayed a video many times of a sizable foam hit on the Shuttle underbelly, about 3 min 30 s into launch.&nbsp; (I forgot the exact time)The foam piece, which looks large,&nbsp;clearly hits and rebounds off.&nbsp; The foam did not explode on contact, just bounced off cleanly.CNN commentator says this may not be that serious, because the air density is lower at this time into the flight, and foam impacts carry less energy.&nbsp; Still this will need very extensive checking.&nbsp; Foam hits prior to 2 min 30 sec are thought to be much more concerning. <br />Posted by silylene</DIV><br /><br />I don't believe an impact at 3:30 would have enough kinetic energy to do any damage. That's well after impacts are a threat AFAIK. If I'm wrong, please tell me. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[Testing]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Possible OMS problem; gimbaling on one engine; consider&nbsp;it them failed until proven otherwise.IT IS NOT AN IMMEDIATE PROBLEM.Just being cautious...as in the NASA mantra.&nbsp; <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV><br /><br />Secondary OMS electrical fault, no effect to mission. Tell me about the foam strike please. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[silylene old]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't believe an impact at 3:30 would have enough kinetic energy to do any damage. That's well after impacts are a threat AFAIK. If I'm wrong, please tell me. <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV><br /><br />That's what the CNN commentator said too.&nbsp; After 2 min 30 s, the commentator said that impacts are less serious.&nbsp;&nbsp; But, MW, the piece did look big.&nbsp;&nbsp; I took it as good news that the foam piece did not explode on contact; if the strike were more energetic, then the foam piece should have disintigrated&nbsp;as the Columbia strike did.&nbsp; <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[neuvik]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Possible OMS problem; gimbaling on one engine; consider&nbsp;it them failed until proven otherwise.IT IS NOT AN IMMEDIATE PROBLEM.Just being cautious...as in the NASA mantra.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The commentator said there were two other redundant systems to rotate the engines right?&nbsp; I didn't quite hear it. Comforting still that mission control says its not detramental.</p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">I don't think I'm alone when I say, "I hope more planets fall under the ruthless domination of Earth!"</font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff">SDC Boards: Power by PLuck - Ph**king Luck</font></p> </div>

 

[Cosmos80]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Secondary OMS electrical fault, no effect to mission. Tell me about the foam strike please. <br />Posted by Testing</DIV></p><p>They have yet to replay the ET cam view, should be momentarily.&nbsp; If they play long enough, look around the 3:30 mark.&nbsp; Clearly visible, I saw it live, and it hits the orbiter's right, but well in front of the wing.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[silylene old]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;The commentator said there were two other redundant systems to rotate the engines right?&nbsp; I didn't quite hear it. Comforting still that mission control says its not detramental.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by neuvik</DIV><br /><br />From the video shown on CNN, and if I am understanding the camera orientation correctly, the foam strike was on the right side of the underbelly, about 2/3 to 3/4 down.&nbsp; Perhaps&nbsp;just to the inside of&nbsp;a wheel well cover? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[silylene old]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>From the video shown on CNN, and if I am understanding the camera orientation correctly, the foam strike was on the right side of the underbelly, about 2/3 to 3/4 down.&nbsp; Perhaps&nbsp;just to the inside of&nbsp;a wheel well cover? <br />Posted by silylene</DIV></p><p>Just saw the video again - the strike looked further down towards the tail than the wheel well.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>From the video shown on CNN, and if I am understanding the camera orientation correctly, the foam strike was on the right side of the underbelly, about 2/3 to 3/4 down.&nbsp; Perhaps&nbsp;just to the inside of&nbsp;a wheel well cover? <br /> Posted by silylene</DIV></p><p>I saw the same.&nbsp; Didn't see any secondary debris after impact.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>From the video shown on CNN, and if I am understanding the camera orientation correctly, the foam strike was on the right side of the underbelly, about 2/3 to 3/4 down.&nbsp; Perhaps&nbsp;just to the inside of&nbsp;a wheel well cover? <br />Posted by silylene</DIV><br /><br />If it was at 3:30, it's really not an issue for this flight, AFAIK. However, for the Hubble mission, it's ore of an issue; however there's 4 months to go.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Regarding OMS engine problem, the problem was not in the operating (primary) system, the fault was in the (unused) backup system. At least that's what I am hearing.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[thor06]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If it was at 3:30, it's really not an issue for this flight, AFAIK. However, for the Hubble mission, it's ore of an issue; however there's 4 months to go.&nbsp;Regarding OMS engine problem, the problem was not in the operating (primary) system, the fault was in the (unused) backup system. At least that's what I am hearing. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Is this due to shuttle's inability to goto station during Hubble mission, or ascent issue?</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>side note : launch video is up</p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bOh3iDcH4I <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> <font color="#0000ff">                           www.watchnasatv.com</font></p><p>                          ONE PERCENT FOR NASA! </p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Regarding OMS engine problem, the problem was not in the operating (primary) system, the fault was in the (unused) backup system. At least that's what I am hearing. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>The 2 systems are isolated so they don't duplicate any failures.&nbsp; "just fine" and "no impact"... sounds like a non-issue.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[williamt]

<p>Is the reason they instructed them not to test the secondary left OMS system because they want to preserve the state of it until they can analyse it properly later (or indeed, when its back at Kennedy?)</p><p>And just to clarify (probably a rather obvious question I know..) - the two OMS engines are entirely separate from the three main engines aren't they? I only ask as we always see the gimbal test of the latter on camera 070 immediately prior to launch.. - I wondered if there was any redundancy if both the primary and secondary electronics failed. </p><br />

 

[3488]

<p><strong><font size="2" color="#000000">Any updates on the foam impact??</font></strong></p><p><strong><font size="2" color="#000000">Andrew Brown.</font></strong><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is the reason they instructed them not to test the secondary left OMS system because they want to preserve the state of it until they can analyse it properly later (or indeed, when its back at Kennedy?)And just to clarify (probably a rather obvious question I know..) - the two OMS engines are entirely separate from the three main engines aren't they? I only ask as we always see the gimbal test of the latter on camera 070 immediately prior to launch.. - I wondered if there was any redundancy if both the primary and secondary electronics failed. <br /> Posted by williamt</DIV></p><p>Concerning the OMS... Basically don't mess with it to further any complications.&nbsp; They are separate from the 3 main engines.&nbsp; The main engines are for ascent and directing the craft into orbit.&nbsp; The OMS system is more for refining the orbit and positioning.<br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Any updates on the foam impact??Andrew Brown. <br /> Posted by 3488</DIV></p><p>I just tuned into the press conference... haven't heard anything.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I just tuned into the press conference... haven't heard anything.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>They were late in acsent... light weight, bounced off.&nbsp; Not considered a problem.&nbsp; No concern right now, but they will investigate.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They were late in acsent... light weight, bounced off.&nbsp; Not considered a problem.&nbsp; No concern right now, but they will investigate.&nbsp; <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>IIRC, after 3:00 there's no issue. Will check it out, though.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>