STS-120/10A Mission thread (post launch)

[shuttle2moon]

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Technology/ap_space_shuttle_071026_ssh.jpg<br /><br />This is a little off topic, but in this pic I see that the shuttles nose cap looks like it has already re entered?? I thought that the RCC would darken like that only after re entry? I take it that the nose cap can handle several re entries before being replaced?<br /><br />Thanks guys..

 

[3488]

Not buffetting during launch through the atmosphere??<br /><br />Just a thought?<br /><br />Andrew Brown. <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>

 

[thereiwas]

The concern at the briefing was that all of the ISS dynamic motion analysis, even for things like astronaut exercise, has been based on the panels being under 70 pounds of tension to keep them from flapping. That panel has no tension on it now. They don't want to rip any more of the piano-hinge joint.

 

[thereiwas]

If the OBSS can reach it, so can an astronaut on the end (they've tested this). Some sort of stitching of the hinge might be possible.<br /><br />Otherwise they have to try to retract it.

 

[bobblebob]

Mission Control seems very calm on Nasatv when the first pics of the damaged array were shown to them. Wonder how they really felt, must have been a few choice swear words by the team <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[larper]

Hindsight is always 20/20 of course, but....<br /><br />who deemed it to be cheaper to build P6 and and move it, versus simply building a "third" set of arrays, and have P6 be brought up later, just like S6? "Z6" would simply have remained where it is. No redeploy needed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

Is this array the same one as the one with the crook rotating joint? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>

 

[mi2again]

"Z6" is unworkable. It would have interfered with other arrays

 

[bobblebob]

The damaged array is still working and giving power to the station, so the power lines havent been damaged. Also, they're going to have to do something as they;re worried that if they apply the 75 pounds of tension needed to provide structural stability it may tear the array further

 

[erioladastra]

"crook rotating joint"<br /><br />If you mean Beta Gimbal Assembly - yes. If you mean the Starboard Solar Array Rotary Joint - no, that is the other side but may mean we can't rotate EITHER side.

 

[erioladastra]

"Mission Control seems very calm on Nasatv when the first pics of the damaged array were shown to them. Wonder how they really felt, must have been a few choice swear words by the team "<br /><br />We are always calm!!! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> But the gravity was apparent pretty quick.

 

[erioladastra]

"The RMS/OBSS can not get anywhere near the P6 array. <br />The Station arm can get much closer. "<br /><br />But we might use both to get there...been thought of for tile repair. If it can reach it is an option.

 

[Huntster]

>>Italian astronaut Paolo Nespoli, assisting Parazynski and Wheelock as they doffed their suits and stowed tools, reported the crew was missing a digital camera and flash.<br /> />>It's probably outside on the tool box on the airlock," he reported.<br /><br />This reminds me of a strange bit I saw on the feed, during the period that they had less than one bay deployed and were standing by. In the close shot of the cylinder and blanket box, there was an object in the far background, reflective and obviously rotating (flashing at semi-regular intervals), appearing to be some distance away. Any chance this is our missing camera or another tool?<br /><br />I suppose it could have been a satellite or somesuch, but I would be surprised if no warning was given if an object came close enough to be visible. The rotation also makes me think it was not a satellite. As a secondary question, are satellites easily visible while in orbit at a distance greater than the protection zone around the station? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[haywood]

But the SSRMS cannot supply "keep-alive" power to the OBSS and the electronics would freeze before they<br />could get it re-stowed on the Payload Bay.<br /><br /><br />

 

[lukabri]

I'm a new user - so go easy on me <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />I don't see any short term solutions, but how about this: <br />Retract the 4B and take it back home on the shuttle. Then Rob one of the arrays from S6 <br />(currently waiting for STS119) and bring it along on STS-122 with Columbus (a curtain box weighs appx 2000lb, right?) That then gives NASA roughly a year to procure a new array or fix the existing one and bring it back up on STS-119 as a "rebuilt" S6. If more power is needed between now and Columbus (and the starboard side is still locked in place,) couldn't they bring over an array from S4 and at least have a fully functional port side? Granted, these things are obviously finicky so another iteration of retract-move-redeploy could be recipe for disaster.

 

[scottb50]

I was thinking more along the lines of taking a new box and complete array and replacing the damaged one. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[SpaceKiwi]

Can they even change out a box? It may create more problems than it solves and, as Suffredini said today, it's not about "style points" at the end of the day. Sounds like if they can get that 75 pounds of tension into the array, without compromising the 97% of generation, that will be Option 1.<br /><br /><br /> <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>

 

[usn_skwerl]

Shannon's back again, and already waking up the crew (12:38 am EDT). What time did they go to bed today? <br /><br />helluva busy schedule up there!!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[scottb50]

That was my point, the problem seems to be with one or two panels so far. The only way to tell if it affects more is to keep extracting them. I would think the possibility of debris doing basically the same kind of damage has been factored in to the design to begin with, if the overall damage is not worse it is probably not that big of a deal.<br /><br />As for installing another array I was simply commenting that just the box and array could be transported fairly simply, not that it would have to be. The bigger problem still seems to be with the rotation assembly, even if parts are available on orbit cleaning the contaminated areas would be a big problem. It might be simpler to replace the entire unit.<br /><br />Any ideas on how much it weighs and if one could be made available and added to a planned launch? Aren't there more arrays scheduled for launch anyway? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />"crook rotating joint"<br /><br />If you mean Beta Gimbal Assembly - yes. If you mean the Starboard Solar Array Rotary Joint - no, that is the other side but may mean we can't rotate EITHER side.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Sorry I wasn't clear, I'm not quite up to speed with all the jargon. Anyway, I was inquiring if it was the same joint that appears to have swarf or filings in it, that's got the tear in the array.<br /><br />Not being able to rotate either sounds pretty bad. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>

 

[thereiwas]

"the SSRMS cannot supply "keep-alive" power"<br /><br />I guessed there might be an issue like that. Isn't standardization great? Like the lithium hydroxide canisters on Apollo 13.

 

[mi2again]

"Isn't standardization great?"<br /><br />It is not intended to be used with the SSRMS, it is a tool to inspect shuttle tiles. No more and no less. It is not a viable work station

 

[bobblebob]

At this moment in time, are both the port and starboard arrays parked? Starboard due to the problems with the SARJ, and port due to this damaged array. What effect is that going to have on station power?<br /><br />They dont have long to sort this out. Discovery will have to undock in a week or so (even with the extention) and i wouldnt of thought this issue can be solved without the shuttle present to help out.<br /><br />Would sending Atlantis up in December without Columbus be an option. Instead using that mission as a "repair the ISS" mission?

 

[robnissen]

On a completed unrelated topic. Three years ago, I climbed Columbia Point (renamed for the Shuttle astronauts) with Scott Parazynski and others from NASA. It was SOOOO cool watching Scott yesterday during the space walk. It was just amazing to hear a voice coming from the ISS that I actually knew.<br /><br />In case anyone is interested (probably not), in SS&A I posted a couple of pictures from the climb which are here:<br /><br />http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=sciastro&Number=23549&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=1#Post818821<br /><br />Now back to your regularly scheduled Shuttle thread. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <br /><br />Edit: add link to SS&A

 

[larper]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"Z6" is unworkable. It would have interfered with other arrays <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Um, no sh#$, sherlock.<br /><br />All I meant, was, why create a design that required the installation, deploy, retract, uninstall, reinstall, redeploy sequence, when all they really needed to do was make a cheaper version "Z6" array that did not have to be uninstalled. It could have used simpler arrays that would fold back up like the russian ones. Then P6 would simply have been delivered on a later mission. No need for the complicated, and demonstrated risky sequence we have seen. Might have cost more in hardware, but would have been cheaper in the long run. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>