STS-121: Launch target May, 2006 - Griffin

Page 3 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">Do you recall the Shuttle flight where 1/2 of the SRB hold down pyros failed to fire?</font>/i><br /><br />Wow, I hadn't heard that story before.<br /><br />I remember as a kid launching Estes rockets, and every once in a while an engine would fail to ignite. While the Estes and SRBs are obviously worlds apart, one of my biggest fears when watching a shuttle launch is to have one of the SRBs not ignite properly (or now, perhaps, the hold downs not fire) creating an obviously bad situation.</i>
 
H

henryhallam

Guest
Thanks, I hadn't heard of that before. The complexity of this system never ceases to amaze me.
 
D

discovery_fan

Guest
Thank you very much for the report.<br /><br />This sounds still like a May launchwindow is (as a NET) doable or not? I really would love to see the may launch happen, that would restore a lot of public confidence in the STS system. The july launch would be good as well, if it allows a second STS mission in 2006. <br />I'm a big STS fan, and really hope everything goes well for a may or july RTF.<br /><br />On other websites there are reports that the PAL ramps are coming off, and that this works definitely prevent a May launch window, and may even prevent the July Launch window, with STS-121 moving to the October or Nov. (not sure if one exists) Launchwindow of 2006. <br /><br />If a launch target for STS-121 is choosen in fall of 2006 (october or later), would there be a chance for STS-115 in 2006 (going in December?)? <br />Or would the light requirements etc. prevent such a thing? And if yes, would they even prevent a (very) theoretical rescue mission of Atlantis for Discovery on STS-121?<br />Or to say it different: Is there a a real possibility to launch STS-121 in any other (later) launchwindow then May & July? Or is (because of the light requirement situation) an october launchwindow for STS-121 not possible because a november/december window is not possible for the rescue mission?<br />Does that mean if STS-121 misses the July launchwindow its next target launchwindow would be may 2007?<br /><br />I'm a bit confused by the tings mentioned all arround. <br /><br />Maybe you could clear that up. I'm sure there are other STS fans like me who are as well somwhat confused by the launch window requirements and planning. <br /><br />Thank you again for the posting of the status report, it was very interesting.
 
N

n_kitson

Guest
Thanks for the great update it's really interesting. I have to confess, i have no idea what a PAL ramp is. Can you help me out?
 
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">There is the daylight launch requirement, the ET sep daylight requirement and the lighting at the ISS docking requirement</font>/i><br /><br />Wow, if these values are relatively prime, it would make a great cipher (sorry, a little information security humor <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />).<br /><br />Seriously, getting all of these to align must be difficult and frustrating. I almost get the feeling that the CAIB restrictions may have as much to do with killing the shuttle program (by making it almost impossible to maintain a reasonable launch schedule) as any particular technical or safety problem with the shuttle.<br /><br />Side question (which I may have asked before): Would multiple tank-filling tests affect the integrity of the foam? That is, if 4 tank tests are performed before launch, is there an increase risk in foam shedding than there would be with no tank filling tests?</i>
 
S

Swampcat

Guest
<font color="yellow">"i have no idea what a PAL ramp is. Can you help me out?"</font><br /><br />I'm sure S_G can give you a better answer, but let me try.<br /><br />PAL stands for Protuberance Air Load. The PAL ramp is a foam structure covering conduits that run along the side of the ET and, IIRC, is designed to reduce turbulence. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>
 
S

SpaceKiwi

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Would multiple tank-filling tests affect the integrity of the foam? That is, if 4 tank tests are performed before launch, is there an increase risk in foam shedding than there would be with no tank filling tests?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Again, I'm not SG either, but I'll have a go. Since the discovery of the ET foam cracking, I'd say tanking's role (or not) in that has become an issue to be investigated.<br /><br />As regards 4 tanking 'tests', that is highly unlikely to occur in any scenario. However, I guess you could get multiple tankings in the course of trying to launch unsuccessfully several times. <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>
 
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">I guess you could get multiple tankings in the course of trying to launch unsuccessfully several times.</font>/i><br /><br />IIRC, the tank that was recenty examined and had the problems was the tank that went through more than one fill and drain due to ECO sensor problems.<br /><br />Unfortunately, schedules and budgets are tight, but I would love to see an experiment where a virgin tank is carefully examines. Then it is filled & drained and examined again. Then repeat (like shampoo).<br /><br />If there is a measurable change in foam integrity, then NASA might be faced with the dilema that a scrubbed launch after a tank filling might require an ET swapout for a new virgin tank.</i>
 
S

SpaceKiwi

Guest
Yes, well, that would be the fear I guess. I'm not sure of the properties of the foam, but one would assume that it is designed to cope with the contraction/expansion of multiple tankings. Therefore, you would hope the cracking is a result of something peculiar to the application of the foam.<br /><br />Mind you, that tank has had a fair old time of it, all things considered. I don't know that there would be many that have made the round trip to Michoud, with a spell at the Pad in between. There may be something in the conditions it has endured, over and above your 'average' ET? <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>
 
S

Swampcat

Guest
<font color="yellow">"That is a pretty good summary, except the protected area also has the LOX tank 15 in diameter feed line and the LOX tank re-press line."</font><br /><br />Hey, I learned something <img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" />.<br /><br />Thanks for that and the Status Report, S_G. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>
 
E

erioladastra

Guest
shuttle_guy,<br /><br />You were asking about the regenerative life support equipment. The first rack, the oxygen generation system (OGS), is now slated to go up on 121. In addition, it will go into the LAB, not Node 2. It won't be active for at least a year (needs to wait for software upgrades).
 
H

haywood

Guest
Thanks for the updates shuttle_guy.<br />Can you explain what is going on in this picture of installing the gap fillers...the various items including the utility knife and what it's used for?<br />It looks like a tedious job.<br />Thanks.<br />
 
J

j05h

Guest
SG- what's your opinion of the talk about flying without the ET's PAL ramp? Is there going to be cable flapping against the orbiter? Umm... Can you talk about your work on CEV? <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
E

erioladastra

Guest
BTW, listening to the discussion yesterday it sounds like preparing the tank for 121 is doable by May but the 300 ET is going to be tough at best for May.
 
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
ET-119 is now being shipped on March 3 from MAF.<br /><br />ET-118 is unknown until next week.<br /><br />The March 3 date came in from sources at MAF, noting they'd been informed in the afternoon of the 12th of the shipping date. So this was on the same day, but later in the day of the PRCB.<br /><br />The following day all MAF sources claim they are now shooting for the May window - after saying May was not possible the moment the confirmation of PAL ramp removal for all ETs.<br /><br />Does March 3 (even if this is just ET-119) sound more hopeful, SG? I know it's no good if ET-118 is still too late, as per STS-330 requirement.<br /><br />Any note of a deadline date for ET-118 to arrive at KSC?
 
J

jschaef5

Guest
quick question:<br /><br />If all goes as plan for the Discovery launch, how soon could the next launch after that be? Like how quick can NASA get another one up in case something were to happen.<br /><br />I'm guessing it depends on the windows and such, but worst case scenario....?<br /><br />Like say the space shuttle takes out a part of the ISS...Is there a chance another shuttle could be launched within the same week or so? I guess what I'm asking is, what is the absolute least time it takes NASA to get another one ready, regardless of the window. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
H

henryhallam

Guest
That is what the 60 day requirement is about. They will not launch unless another shuttle stack can be made ready and launched within 60 days, for a rescue mission. The 60 day figure is chosen because that is the estimated length of time the crew could survive on ISS with its limited supply of consumables.
 
J

jschaef5

Guest
I was just wondering if anyone had an estimate on how quick NASA can get one ready though. Like say something happened where the astronauts couldn't stay up there for 60 days. How quick could NASA get another shuttle ready to launch. Or are there 2 pads set up. And they launch the first one with the second one already mostly ready to go? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
J

jschaef5

Guest
After doing some searching I found this:<br />http://www.spaceref.com:16080/news/viewsr.html?pid=14111<br /><br />which says :<br />"The primary objective of the Launch on-Need (LON) Crew Rescue flight is to return a stranded STS-114 crew of 7 from the International Space Station (ISS) safely to earth within 90 days of this declared contingency. The LON flight would utilize the STS-121 vehicle (OV-104)/payload configuration without any payloads. The minimum turnaround from LON callup is 35 days. This is driven by pad turnaround with only one pad available"<br /><br /><br />I guess it takes them 35 days to put another shuttle on the pad and get it ready.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
H

henryhallam

Guest
It really depends on what state the various STS components (orbiter, ET, SRBs, pad etc) are in. So it varies from time to time and launch to launch.
 
J

jschaef5

Guest
Cool, thanks. That was what I was wondering. 2 weeks to a month or so seems like a pretty good turn-around time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

SpaceKiwi

Guest
How's the general morale around KSC, SG? I would guess, with the arrival of 2006, that folks can begin to see the light at the end of the tunnel and feel it's now a downhill* press towards the May window?<br /><br />* relatively-speaking, as in the window no longer seems miles over the horizon, but rather rushing up very quickly. <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>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts