STS-114 Mission Update Thread (Part 2)

[shuttle_rtf]

Ignore my tired babble around this, but see what you make of the quotes on the issue: You'll have to trust me on the source.<br /><br />http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?id=3185

 

[grooble]

The shuttle is too complex for it's own good, this isn't fair on anyone, not on the crew, the engineers, NASA or the public. Full speed ahead on CEV.

 

[jaredgalen]

What dos this quote indicate?<br />"Obviously we can't know until they have a good handle on the problem. If they get it solved completely, and fast - it's a 24-hour turnaround. That's the only way we'll be doing that."<br /><br />Is it suggesting that if the problem was isolated quickly there is the potential for a launch this month still?

 

[spayss]

Anvel. Yes, indeed. There's a quote above:<br /><br />"I feel bad for the astronauts. It must be really gutting"<br /><br /> Personally I feel bad for taxpayers and especially taxpayers who are space keeners and expect results for the 10s of billions spent.

 

[tap_sa]

IMO it's moronic to leave any 'ultimate tests' for the launch day. This RTF does enjoy quite a lot of public interest, which welcome. What is not welcome is the unavoidable conclusions John Doe makes from this scrub: 'whoops NASA ****** up again, how unreliable that shuttle is!'. That's the message they get, not some 'whoa look how NASA is now so careful'.<br /><br />PS Do take off the pyramid scam referral link from your sig .. it doesn't work anyway <br /><br />(Edited for language.)

 

[frodo1008]

For now, but I really wouldn't count on it. There are a great many launch windows between not and the end of the year!

 

[lunatic133]

lol i know i was just curious is all ... about the pyramid scam thing I mean ... I'm just pissed off about the shuttle being delayed for over a month because like i said before constantly delaying things will NOT solve all our problems -- look at the fuel line issue of 2003 -- and therefore it is completely stupid to try and say that it will. If they can solve it quickly, then they SHOULD. <br /><br />And, as I recall, there was a similar mechanical problem just an hour or two before launch with STS-113. They got off the pad in a timely fashion (about a week, I think), so why shouldn't this mission?

 

[najab]

><i>See???? They're already cutting corners for schedules. They've learned nothing.</i><p>Leo, I thought you knew better than to believe everything you read. The third tanking test wasn't cancelled to save time, at most it would have added 1 or 2 days to the pad flow (there was one option which would have added <b>no</b> time at all). The fact is that a tanking test is a risky operation, it's just as dangerous as tanking for a launch, and that's already considered a hazardous operation. In addition, the tank has a finite number of cycles it can go through before it has to be replaced. Seeing as the touch-and-go nature of Florida weather in the summer combined with the extremely short launch windows virutally guarantees a scrub or two, it would be foolish to 'waste' a cycle on a tanking test, since if there was a problem (which there was) it would be detected on the launch attempt (which it was).<p>Finally, the Systems Engineering and Integration people said it best: "utilizing the flight vehicle is not the appropriate environment when analytical efforts to clear the problem are still in work. We should finish our analysis before we do testing on the high value flight asset."</p></p>

 

[SpaceKiwi]

It's all just idle speculation until we hear from the press conference. But, the commonality is the Orbiter here.<br /><br />I think I'm right in saying that they had a UA last time with the other stack, after they tested everything including the ECO sensors and couldn't find a fault. The solution was, in part, to go to the new tank and stack. The one with the old style difuser. However, the same problem apparently occurs.<br /><br />The problem must surely lie in that part of the circuit that hasn't changed. ie, the Orbiter. <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>

 

[grooble]

Maybe the ECO wasn't plugged in properly

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Is it suggesting that if the problem was isolated quickly there is the potential for a launch this month still?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Oh yes. Speaking purely in terms of orbital mechanics and the flight rules for this particular mission (daylight launch and daylight ET sep for favorable photography), they can launch tomorrow. I don't know how long the window lasts; if it's a week, two weeks, or what. But within that period, they can launch any time KSC passes through the plane of the space station's orbit. That happens roughly once a day, although due to precession the time it passes through KSC shifts by about an hour each day.<br /><br />So if they can fix this problem today, they can indeed launch this month. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[lunatic133]

I thought the launch window was the 13th to the 30th. So we still have a fair amount of time I think...

 

[backspace]

Yes, everyone go read Chris' update.<br /><br />The lack of spares for the avionics could be extremely bad news.

 

[tap_sa]

If they do launch tomorrow then it was just showing off the new better NASA safety culture and fear of the 13 <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The problem must surely lie in that part of the circuit that hasn't changed. ie, the Orbiter. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Of course, the Orbiter isn't a single part; it's a sophisticated system of many parts. And they did actually swap out some of those parts, trading them for components from Atlantis, Endeavour, and spares. So they're actually some ways away from identifying the failing component by elimination. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[vt_hokie]

<font color="yellow">"If they can't trouble-shoot this issue properly, I wonder if they'll start having a look at flying Atlantis first in the September window."</font><br /><br />I suppose that's possible. But either way, both orbiters have to be ready to go within a month's time, due to the rescue mission requirement.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"So if they can fix this problem today, they can indeed launch this month.'</font><br /><br />The real question is actually the inverse, if they <b>don't</b> fix the problem in the next day or two, is there any possibility they still launch this month? Obviously if a rollback to the VAB is required, they can't. If they can't fix the sensor in the next day or two, they'll probably (IMO) rollback to the VAB.

 

[najab]

ECO and diffuser are unrelated - the diffuser was responsible for the press-repress valve cycling.

 

[lunatic133]

Are you sure about that? I thought rolling back to the VAB only took about a week round trip, so there's still a chance they could make the tail end of the July window isn't there?

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"The problem must surely lie in that part of the circuit that hasn't changed. ie, the Orbiter."</font><br /><br />Well... there's also the lines that run from the ET to the launch control center (whatever the proper name is). Maybe the sensor is working, but there's an intermittant fault in a wiring harness or an oxidized connection. Is this sensor using the same wiring as the one that failed before? I used to do a lot of troubleshooting of SCSI devices. The problems that can be attributed to cabling issues are boundless.<br /><br />Mind you this may be impossible, or have already been eliminated. However -- more than the orbiter hasn't been changed.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"Are you sure about that? "</font><br /><br />I'm positive about very little. However, I'm reasonably confident that you're not seeing a <2 week turnaround going to the VAB when there's a repair in the middle of it. If it were being done just for a weather issue (i.e. getting the orbiter-ET under cover for a hurricane) then maybe.

 

[najab]

><i>Obviously if a rollback to the VAB is required, they can't. </i><p>Not so obvious. S_G said that at this stage in the flow, they can be ready for flight 6 days after they get back to the pad. There are 17 days left in the window.</p>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"...S_G said that at this stage in the flow..."</font><br /><br />If they roll back to the VAB, and trade out the ECO sensor, are they still <b>at</b> 'this stage', or does that then put them back at an earlier stage (i.e. required tests after XYZ occurrance).

 

[lunatio_gordin]

on MSNBC, they just that they could Launch "Before Monday". Well, as long as it's not a month.

 

[SpaceKiwi]

Yes, you're right of course. Very sleepy with a work-day ahead. <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>