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

[thereiwas]

"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"<br /><br />The OBSS does have a camera on the end doesn't it? The camera will work if pointed at something <i>other</i> than a tile won't it?

 

[bobblebob]

With all these added repairs/inspecctions to the EVA over the past few days, how much of the planned objectives of the mission are not going to be completed?

 

[mi2again]

"Might have cost more in hardware, but would have been cheaper in the long run."<br /><br />Um, no, you are just plain wrong. <br />Never would be cheaper. Even with the current problem. Factoring in the additional shuttle flight (with its additional risks) and the additional truss (which couldn't be much "cheaper" since it would be nearly the same) the costs would be more than a 1/2 billion dollars. <br /><br />"installation, deploy, retract, uninstall, reinstall, redeploy sequence" is actually a very smart thing to do to provide an interim configuration that worked

 

[mi2again]

"The camera will work if pointed at something other than a tile won't it?"<br /><br />It is not the camera that is needed.

 

[thereiwas]

I recall that they have tested putting a foot restraint on the end of the OBSS and moving an astronaut around with it. It worked, as long as he did not try to heave anything around too hard.<br /><br />

 

[SpaceKiwi]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>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?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />No problems Scott, I wasn't being critical of your suggestions, just thinking out loud. I'm not sure if they have an actual spare array and assembly. Even if they do, then you would need to find room on the manifest to fly it. As SG said here earlier, the remaining flights are chocka.<br /><br />Regards the Starboard SARJ problem, Suffredini was asked the other day about a complete replacement of the joint. He said between built-in redundency and spare parts, they could change all the moving parts in the SARJ thereby achieving the same thing as flying a brand new one.<br /><br />Not sure on the weights. Regards further planned arrays, the S6 is yet to be launched. Obviously they will be expecting to have the SARJ problem sorted before that occurs though.<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>

 

[SpaceKiwi]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I recall that they have tested putting a foot restraint on the end of the OBSS and moving an astronaut around with it. It worked, as long as he did not try to heave anything around too hard.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />As I understand it, the problem is not putting a foot restraint and Astronaut on the end of the OBSS. That has been tested and proven. The problem is the SSRMS being able to grapple the OBSS by the end.<br /><br />Canada Arm (SRMS) and Canada Arm 2 (SSRMS) use a slightly different grapple fixture. They are not certain if the SSRMS can wield the OBSS in a steady fashion. Obviously they would have to use the SSRMS/OBSS combination as P6 is too far away to use the SRMS and OBSS together.<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>

 

[thereiwas]

"use a slightly different grapple fixture."<br /><br />That is what I meant in my remark about lithium hydroxide canisters. "It isn't a situation we ever considered."

 

[tylerjwyly]

The SSRMS did grapple the OBSS when they took Node2 out of the payload bay didnt it? I noticed it had to attach to the side of the OBSS but so what? I would think this config would give the range needed to stick a person at the damage site....maybe not the dexterity though?

 

[mi2again]

"That is what I meant in my remark about lithium hydroxide canisters. "It isn't a situation we ever considered."<br /><br />It is not the same thing<br />It is the same grapple fixture. The power interface is just different. <br />The SSRMS has identical grapples on both ends. It can be operated from either end and can "inch worm" from one end of the station to the other. There are power and data interfaces on both grapples so the arm can be controlled while attached from either end. Because of this, it was unable to be a duplicate of the shuttle grapple electrical interface.

 

[mi2again]

you misunderstood him. The SSRMS took the OBSS before Node 2 was removed

 

[SpaceKiwi]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Are you certain about this? I did not think that was the case.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Only as certain as Mike Suffredini seemed to be at the MSB the other day. This what he said, as reported by Bill Harwood ...<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"We're going to have to get this area where we can get to it," Suffredini said. "There has been a discussion about the OBSS. Unfortunately, the grapple fixture on the end of the OBSS is not a station grapple fixture, it's the shuttle arm grapple fixture. It's a little different than the space station grapple fixture and in fact, the guys are going off to find out if they can grapple it with the SSRMS (station arm). All of this is forward work. My guess is you'll hear us talk about trying to retract the arrays a little bit to try to get them within reach."</font><br /><br /><br />LINK<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>

 

[mi2again]

The mid length grapple fixture of the OBSS is being looked at

 

[larper]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Um, no, you are just plain wrong. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Um, no I am not. However, I might not be right either. You cannot claim that it would be more expensive. And certainly, if the panel had not ripped, it might not be a factor. But now, it certainly COULD have been cheaper to build a Z6. Would have required far fewer EVA (savings). The hardware would have been simpler and more robust (savings). There would have been a lot less engineering having to be done all around (savings). The list goes on. <br /><br />It's all hindsight, of course. But good engineering looks for simpler solutions and redundancy. I am sick and tired of NASA doing things in the most complicated way possible. Compared to the Russians, we look like idiots most of the time. Shuttle, ISS, Ares I. They keep ignoring sound engineering and going for complicated solutions. Of course, they are always hounded by budgets, but still.....<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[bobblebob]

Just listening to the Status Briefing again. They said worst case they would have to ditch the P6 array if more damage occurs. If this did happen, could a replacement be built and sent up?

 

[mi2again]

"1. Um, no I am not. However, I might not be right either. You cannot claim that it would be more expensive. <br />And certainly, if the panel had not ripped, it might not be a factor. But now, it certainly COULD have been cheaper to build a Z6. <br />2. Would have required far fewer EVA (savings). <br />3. The hardware would have been simpler and more robust (savings). <br />4. There would have been a lot less engineering having to be done all around (savings). <br />5. The list goes on.<br />6. But good engineering looks for simpler solutions and redundancy. I am sick and tired of NASA doing things in the most complicated way possible. <br />7. Compared to the Russians, we look like idiots most of the time. <br />8. They keep ignoring sound engineering and going for complicated solutions. Of course, they are always hounded by budgets, but still..... "<br /><br />1. You still are wrong. The expenses so far are still far below what another truss and shuttle mission would have cost. There is no "could", It WOULDN'T be cheaper <br />2. 1 or 2 EVA's is not much<br />3. Wrong. P6 would still be the same. A Z6 wouldn't be much different<br />4 Totally wrong and way off base. This plainly shows you are an engineer. A new Z6 truss would have all new drawings, all new tests, all new analysis for on orbit and an shuttle launch<br />5. Yes, the list is in my favor<br />6. This was great engineering. Using the same component in different situation. This is what engineera strive for. It is called efficiency. The goal of every engineer. You have the wrong outlook on this. This was not complicated. <br />7. There is nothing wrong with the movement of P6. You really don't know what the Russians did to make a valid comparison. The Russians reconfigure MIR many times by moving modules and solar arrays. They had even problems with extending arrays and had to find a temp configuration to stow them too.<br />8. This was and still is a sound solution and isn't that complicat

 

[mi2again]

"They said worst case they would have to ditch the P6 array if more damage occurs. If this did happen, could a replacement be built and sent up?"<br /><br />Room and a carrier on a shuttle mission would have to be found

 

[larper]

So, I have to ask. Just how many satellite programs have you worked on? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[larper]

Oh, and also. Never, that I can find, did they ever move a module on Mir once it had docked. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[bobblebob]

"In yet another major change for mission planners - and the Discovery astronauts - the Mission Management Team today approved a revised landing strategy that would move re-entry next week from before dawn to the afternoon"<br /><br />Great news - i will be able to watch it now <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[mi2again]

many spacecraft and many shuttle missions

 

[mi2again]

"Oh, and also. Never, that I can find, did they ever move a module on Mir once it had docked."<br /><br />I didn't need to look since I knew but I found pics to prove it.<br /><br />http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/history/shuttle-mir/multimedia/sts-71-photos/71p-015.htm<br /><br />The orbiter is docked to the Kristall module which is parallel to the Mir module.<br /><br />http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-91/html/91727051.html<br /><br />A Soyuz is docked where Kristall was. And Kristall is now docked 90 degrees from its previous position <br /><br />Edit:<br />http://www.russianspaceweb.com/mir_kristall.html<br /><br />"For each docking with Buran, the Kristall module would be moved from its usual parking position on the side docking port to the front docking port of the core module.........<br /><br />In 1995, the Kristall module was relocated on the front docking port of the core module, as it would be done for Buran missions, to receive the US Space Shuttle....."<br /><br />Now tell me that the Russians did it better and this wasn't idiotic<br /><br />I rest my case

 

[larper]

Ok, I admit that the Kristall was moved. I didn't realize that. The funny thing is, that it was designed to be that way for Buran, which never flew but once, and they had to then move it for Shuttle docking. Other than that, Mir did not require modules to be moved during its construction process.<br /><br />You say that you have worked many spacecrafts. *shrug*. Have to take your word on that. I have 3 systems under my belt. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[mi2again]

"Other than that, Mir did not require modules to be moved during its construction process. "<br /><br />Not, so. Every additional module, other than Kvant, had to dock to the forward axial port on Mir. They then were move by an arm to the radial ports. The automated docking of the modules required the KURS system, which only worked for the axial port. <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir<br /><br />"The Kristall module arrived at Mir’s front port on June 10, and was relocated to the lateral port opposite Kvant-2 "<br /><br />http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/history/shuttle-mir/references/documents/mirheritage.pdf<br /><br />"However, the two occupied ports can still be freed for use by moving the berthed modules to another lateral<br />berthing port with their Lyappa arms. The existing modules will be shuffled when the Spektr and Priroda modules are added to Mir."<br /><br /><br /><br />Worked shuttle, station, MIR, Delta II, Atlas II & V and Titan 34D & IV and the various spacecraft on them

 

[larper]

Really? Hmm.. Anyway, we are still talking docking, which is not the same as moving part of the truss structure. Like I have said, it's all hindsight. I still say it might have been advantageous to create a non-truss structure Z6 that would have been a temporary power supply/coolant system until the truss and final arrays arrived. Then this Z6 would simply have been decommissioned in place. A much simpler construction sequence.<br /><br />The temporary docking of Node 2 is necessary of course, but it too is risky. But it's also a much simpler problem than moving the truss. Still, if anything happens during the move of Node 2, the entire station could be rendered useless. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>