STS-114 Mission Update Thread (Part 6)

[shuttle_rtf]

That's an interesting fact I didn't know (that they go on who's commander of the ISS)!

 

[bpcooper]

They do not go by Russian time at all. Watches on the ISS are set to Central Time (JSC).<br /><br />The reason the STS-114 crew sleeps from about 3 to 11pm is based entirely and only on when the mission launched and is landing. On July 26 they awoke just after midnight for their 10:39am launch; they went to bed around 430pm. They have been slightly shifting this time each flight day, it is not about 230 to 1030pm. This will prepare them for reentry and landing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-Ben</p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Griffin Parsons and Hale are all on record saying they would not fly until the ET is FIXED. I do not think they would fly it as is for STS-121.</font>/i><br /><br />If "the problem" was the patch process, then if the next ET hasn't has the patch process applied it could be called "fixed". However, there may be a larger concern about the PAL in general, and so a more exhaustive "fix" (e.g., removing the hand-applied foam there) may be desired.<br /><br />I also bet that Griffin will throw the best experts and serious resources at "the problem" and develop, implement, and test "a solution". He will also impress upon them a sense of urgency like they have never felt before.<br /><br />I hope the Tiger team will make their reports public, and I hope it doesn't take them a long time.</i>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

The PAL Ramp Foam issue is now at full steam.<br /><br />Bill Harwood's picked it up aswell now.<br /><br />http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts114/050805tankteam/<br /><br />Happy about this not because we were the first news media site to run it, but because if this is something that can be isolated, the this really helps Atlantis and STS-121.

 

[lunatio_gordin]

When they take the MPLM up to the station, it's full of supplies and such, right? so do they fill it up with garbage on the way back down?<br />I know you addressed this earlier, about the MPLMs being left in orbit. i believe you said they were too thin to stay for an extended amount of time. but i my understanding was that they left it up there until the next shuttle flight, and then retreived it. Is that what they usually do, or do they always bring it back on the same flight it launched on?

 

[emerrill]

"The PAL Ramp Foam issue is now at full steam. <br /><br />Bill Harwood's picked it up aswell now. <br /><br />http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts114/050805tankteam/ <br /><br />Happy about this not because we were the first news media site to run it, but because if this is something that can be isolated, the this really helps Atlantis and STS-121. "<br /><br /><br />Im actually pretty curious about the other foam losses. The PAL ramp I wouldn't think would be *too hard*, because they haven't tried any of their ideas yet. Im curious about the loss by the bipod where lots of modifications/work was done, and the loss in the acreage foam (where nothing was done because it was assuming (and checked) that machine applied foam would not be a concern). <br /><br />I would think, particularly the bipod/intertank flange area will require quite a bit of work, seeing as they have already put some of their best efforts into that area (it now will require 'new trains of though'). Im curious to here SG and S_RTF's thoughts on this.<br /><br />Also, few more Q's. Is the bird strike just being considered freak, or are they going to have to look for ways to get birds out of the area/confirm the birds are out of the area?<br /><br />And a operational Q. Are the aero-surfaces used during accent, or is only trust vectoring/gimbaling used?<br /><br />Thanks<br />-Eric <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[emerrill]

"When they take the MPLM up to the station, it's full of supplies and such, right? so do they fill it up with garbage on the way back down? <br />I know you addressed this earlier, about the MPLMs being left in orbit. i believe you said they were too thin to stay for an extended amount of time. but i my understanding was that they left it up there until the next shuttle flight, and then retreived it. Is that what they usually do, or do they always bring it back on the same flight it launched on? "<br /><br />Yeah, they bring it up with supplies and then bring it back with the trash/unneeded supplies/experiments.<br /><br />I don't believe they have the micrometeorite and/or radiation capabilities to be left up there very long, but I may be wrong on that. To the best of my knowledge, they always return with their launch vehicle.<br /><br />-Eric <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[lunatio_gordin]

SG said something along those lines, i recall, but i thought the MPLMs were supposed to stay in space for about 6 months at a time. That's why there is more than one.<br />But i'm probably wrong about that, most of my info's from my memory in 2003, when i was here before...

 

[drwayne]

I believe the aero surfaces are not used during ascent.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[lunatio_gordin]

I see. old incorrect info on my part i guess. Thanks.

 

[emerrill]

"Yes. The bird did not depart the area even though the SSMEs had been running for about 8 seconds. Perhaps his hearing was damaged from a previous launch ! <br /><br />The sound of those engines normally get all the birs to leave."<br /><br /><br />Yeah, birds (And bird strikes) can be amazing. A jet has hit a bird at over 23,000ft (7km) and birds have been seen flying at 45000ft (13.7km).<br /><br />-Eric <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

>> <i>"He will also impress upon them a sense of urgency like they have never felt before."</i><br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">That will not be enough to allow a launch in 2005, that is my opinion.</font>/i><br /><br />I don't disagree. I am just being more optimistic than usual.</i>

 

[llivinglarge]

Could a bird such as the one that was pwn3d by the ET cause Columbia-esque damage if it struck the leading edge?

 

[bobw]

Discovery just undocked from ISS. Flyaround coming up! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bobw]

I never saw such a closeup of the main solar array hub before. I thought it was the radiator but the panels were out of view. Pretty cool.<br /><br />They are 400 feet from the station and just started the fly around. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bobw]

No more KU tv. They made it about 315 degrees. Video continuing with sequential still images. <br /><br />The station finally looks big. I can't wait for the fly around after the truss is done and all the arrays are installed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bobw]

Discovery is turning to the correct orientation for the second RCS maneuver which will open the distance between the station and the orbiter at a rate of eight miles per orbit. Just a few minutes more. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bobw]

The final separation burn is complete. She is on her way home. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

ET?

 

[bpcooper]

"No, that is not true, the launch time of 1049 would mean a crew wake up more like 5:00 am on a normal launch time line."<br /><br />They were awoken at 12:30am July 26 for launch at 10:39. I have seen the same schedule followed on prior missions, also being awoken nearly 12 hours before launch. <br /><br />I have seen them wake at just 5 or 6 before as well depending on the mission. But I would believe the sleep schedule is based on mission times.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-Ben</p> </div>

 

[haywood]

Now, isn't this interesting...<br /><br />http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050806/NEWS02/508060330/1007<br /><br />and not very encouraging either.<br />

 

[shuttle_rtf]

101 angles on this.<br /><br />Seems everyone in the media is on a story about this now...ranging from the PAL Ramp 'repair' story to the process of spraying.<br /><br />Incidentially, no one seems to have taken the pictures from processing where you can see the area of the ET-121 at MAF's factory.<br /><br />For another look...<br />http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?id=3308<br /><br />The data review on Monday will be interesting.<br /><br />I thought this comment was interesting, by a former TPS Tech with MAF on our forum:<br /><br />" i believe that my reason for the problem is simply freon. No question in my mind, i believe it is just that simple. But if you looked at the damage to the flights prior to the new 24-124, i would bet the largest piece of foam ever seen was probably no larger than a quarter. Since the new 24-124 what has happened? You have a catastrophic failure of Columbia and a near miss on Discovery! The folks here in N.O. are doing the very best that they can with the foam that they have been forced to use. I don't think it is a process problem but a foam problem. The thought of our foam application damaging the Shuttle bad enough to destroy was never really a something that i could have comprehended, until Columbia. But now, i think they will never get it solved unless they get some type of special exemption to use freon based foams. Until then we will need to just cross our fingers every time it launches. Look back at old pictures of tanks, particularly the intertank. you will see that the old tanks flew with the as sprayed rind from the spraying process. the newer intertanks are machined and very smooth. The incidental damage that we used to see on the shuttle tiles were thought to have been damaged by the rind coming off of the IT. Even with the as sprayed tank, unmachined, the old foam did not have all of these problems."<br /><br />Thoughts?

 

[haywood]

OK, now I'm at the point where I don't know what to think or who to believe.<br />We are getting all these conflicting stories from "experts" and technicians on the ground who have differing opinions and stories and first-hand observations.<br />Will the briefing on Monday finally put all this conjecture to rest and will we get the "true" story?<br />It's looking more and more like it is a repair issue and Atlantis will fly in September.<br />I just hope they are not just going to gloss this over - I doubt that.<br />

 

[shuttle_rtf]

There's a huge gulf of opinion on this, but we've been covering this for 10 days, not one or two days like most of the other media.<br /><br />As Bill Harwood noted on his update, "Updated @ 7:50 p.m. with NASA confirmation of prior foam damage"<br /><br />I've got names for the origin of the info, powerpoint presentations, quotes from the factory floor meeting on Thursday night (which I believe is where the Orlando Sentinal reporter got his information to ask Griffin on the Friday conference). <br /><br />For the story to change a bit to the process of spraying has infuriated some of these people I've spoken to (this is a 'just in' update).<br /><br />But - without compromising anyone - I'll know more as the Data review is about to start.<br /><br />It's on-going, but as I mentioned on thread 2 or 3, we had six confirming this and two swearing that ET-121 was not touched in anyway, and I'd like to know when I had someone claiming on our forum to be a retired MAF TPS tech saying this story was wrong, when his IP was actually on a .gov IP address (hardly from his retirement home?).<br /><br />So, will the true story come out. Sorry to say, but I’m not sure. I think a palatable story will come out of it, but I'll report what I'm told prior, during or after the data review on Monday from the people who obviously know (one source got the 11 cycles of the pre-press before anyone said it...SG confirmed it which helped.)<br /><br />If we have current workers telling a different story, I'll report that too, for purpose of objectivity, but as I did with the story, the pictures are for the media to take and use as well.<br /><br />This is slightly over my head as there's politics at MSFC (I'm assuming) by the way they practically sent someone to try and down this story...so hopefully the media will work together on this in a way that doesn't compromise the process and we don't end up with some poor guy at MAF being scapegoated for doing a bad spray job - cause I would be concerned by the - i

 

[silylene old]

What is concerning me is that the piece of foam from the bipod area that broke off during the <i>Columbia</i> flight was reportedly also a hand applied patch...and then this happens again on the most recent flight. I really do think a lot more attention, conrol, documentation and testing should have been focussed on the entire hand-patching process. I posted this reference a week ago in part 1 of this thread, but it got no attention. As facts come out about the problems with foam patches, I think this story below becomes important, for it shows a history of issues.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">BY PETE SLOVER<br />The Dallas Morning News Feb 20, 2003<br /> <br />HOUSTON - (KRT) - The chunk that hit the Columbia's left wing after takeoff appeared to come from the area of a foam patch applied by hand at Kennedy Space Center - a problem zone during at least four previous missions, NASA documents show.<br /><br />A spokesman said Wednesday that the hand patching is a subject of "particular concern" to the panel investigating the disaster, along with the space agency's ongoing efforts to perfect the shuttle's foam insulation, even as Columbia took flight.<br /><br />NASA experts have warned that dislodged patches from the massive external tank could damage the shuttle's belly tiles and subject the craft to an abnormal rise in temperatures similar to that seen in the Columbia's sensors just before it disintegrated over Texas on Feb. 1.<br /></font><br /><br />read full story at:<br />http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/RiskManagement/STS107ExtTankREvelations.html <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>