STS-121 Preparations and status

[emerrill]

This is a thread (more of a continuation of the STS-114 thread) to discuss the preparations of Atlantis (And the entire STS) for STS-121, such as the tank foam issues, standard procedures (like the upcoming roll out and APU hot fire).<br /><br />-eric <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[emerrill]

STS-121 cannot make the Sept window now (ignoring other factors) because Discovery landed at Edwards, correct? (It cant be re-processed in time for STS-301).<br /><br />-eric <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

I feel alot more confident now with the sucess od STS-114, that STS-121 might fly before the years end. <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>

 

[drwayne]

I hope you are right, but I am concerned that a technical process will become political really fast.<br /><br />Wayne<br /><br />p.s. I wish people that were "helping" with things would always be asking, objectively, "Is my help helping?" I have been involved in too many failure analyses where having so much "help" pulled the process in 18 different directions, and bloody nothing gets done until the "helpers" go away. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

The main sticking point for that is, I believe, the continued foam shedding problem. However, the gap filler removal went so amazingly smoothly that it may actually make NASA more optimistic about tile repair. (That's largely dependent on the results from the tile/RCC repair experiments conducted during the first EVA, though.)<br /><br />It may also depend on how quickly Discovery can be ferried back to Florida, but as that's much easier to shift around than a reentry, I have little doubt they'll be able to get her home quick enough that that doesn't end up being the critical factor. <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>

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

"How so? The ET must be fixed and that will take months and months"<br /><br /> I just watched the press conference, and Mike didn't rule it out completely. I just get the feeling that nasa is doing the righty and hopefully work out the drama with this damn foam, without having re-invent the whole concept.<br /><br />Anyhow SG, if your think it hasn't got a snowballs' chance in hell of getting off the ground before New year, I will have to reside to your good judgement. Your the expert, me, I'm just a beer swilling boy from down under. <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>

 

[viper101]

Anyone know who makes the ET - and are they likely to be in hot water over the Discovery Launch?

 

[drwayne]

The contractor for the external tank is Martin Marietta Aero space, New Orleans, La. The tank is manufactured at Michoud, La. Motorola, Inc., Scottsdale, Ariz., is the contractor for range safety receivers.<br /><br />Found here:<br /><br />http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/et.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

I suspect there is a long list of folks that will be doing a warm bath from now until a fix is identified and tested, however, if you mean a contract being lost - I sincerely doubt it.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[viper101]

No I never suspected a contract would be lost - although, if anything could be re-designed by another company, I suspect the ET would be the simplest to do. (as opposed to the SRBs and of course, the orbiter).<br />I wish they'd just put a big aero-shell around that ET and be done with it.<br /><br />/realize it's not that simple. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[j05h]

>However, the gap filler removal went so amazingly smoothly that it may actually make NASA more optimistic about tile repair.<br /><br />I'm concerned with the tight focus on the tiles and repairing them. There have been a host of other Shuttle Orbiter issues in the past few years. I'm thinking mostly of the cracked fuel lines, but there were also near-failure tires, hydraulic questions, wrenches left in engines, probably plenty of other issues. What happens when something unforseen happens? <br /><br />I'm glad Discovery made it back home safe. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[anotheridiot]

So increase the scrutiny of assembly and get on with it. There was talk of the "old timers" retiring with the shuttle. Are they still involved enough?<br /><br />What happened to the tank they changed prior to launch? Was it a complete loss or were they just fixing minor problems?<br /><br />If it is a temperature thing with the foam, maybe the tank needs to be cold while they are applying the foam. Everything contracts when it is cold so it just makes sense to for the metal tank to be in the position it is at temperature when the foam is applied. Other than that the shell or half shell around the orbiter side doesnt seem like more than a few week project.

 

[emerrill]

A shell would need to be proved, and it would add weight, which is the big problem. they wouldnt be able to lift all of the ISS segments.<br /><br />-eric <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[anotheridiot]

if they add a .030 or.040 unpainted aluminum shell you are only adding a few hundred pounds. If the tank sheds foam opposite the orbiter where it isnt gonna strike the wings there isnt a problem.<br /><br />Basically, if they lose another shuttle the ISS segments are never going up there anyway.

 

[georgeniebling]

Obviously Discovery is intended to be STS-301 for STS-121 (Atlantis) ....<br /><br />is Endeavour in California or Florida for it's major mod?

 

[vt_hokie]

I've basically assumed it was a given that the September launch would not happen since the day STS-114 launched, and the foam shedding was observed. So, Discovery landing at Edwards is probably a non-factor, and the foam shedding issue is not likely to be resolved that quickly.<br /><br />What's the next launch opportunity after September? I seem to recall that it's not until sometime in November. Maybe they'll get lucky and resolve the issue in time to at least fly STS-121 this year! If not, when does the first window for next year open up?

 

[giofx]

the very next chance is jan 2006, but the first real opportunity is in march 2006, with a more longer and better window.

 

[giofx]

i didnt remember the dec window... btw i doubt it will be pursued, i don't think NASA is gonna launch in the winter... even the november window is very unlikely.<br /><br />btw, when does the hurricane season ends?

 

[frodo1008]

I admit to not quite understanding this window business. What is being said here is that if they can't get a flight off in September, there is no more opporunity all the way until December, and even that one is only a few days? So what is being said here is that in three full months there is only one opportunity of only a few days of even a possible launch of the STS system to the ISS?<br /><br />Now you know that I am a full supporter of both the STS and the ISS (as well as NASA of course), But, even I find this to be at least a bit scary! How were we supposed to build and supply a full level space station with so few opportunities to even visit? If this is truly the case than something just doesn't seem right here to me!!

 

[najab]

Frodo - there is at least one launch opportunity to the Station every day, when the ascending node of ISS's orbit passes directly through KSC. This launch instant advances by about 20 minutes every day. However, not all those opportunities can be used.<br /><br />Firstly, there is a period called the beta angle cutout (or black out) when they cannot launch to the station. This is a no-go period (usually a few weeks long) because the station-shuttle complex cannot be oriented in the desired attitude for docked operations <b>and</b> still have the station's solar panels track the Sun. This takes you from unlimited daily opportunities to blocks of possible launches, with blocks of no-go days separating them.<br /><br />To complicate matters further, as a consequence of the <i>Columbia</i> accident, the Shuttle is currently prohibited from launching at night, and must have daylight all the way to ET sep.<br /><br />This combination of factors means that there are only <b>very</b> limited opportunities where: it's daylight all the way to ET sep (no earlier than 1/2 an hour after sunrise and no later than a couple hours before sunset), it's not a beta angle blackout period, <b>and</b> the ISS orbit plane is passing directly over KSC.<br /><br />If, as is hoped, the ascent radar data proves as good or better than the visual imagery the daylight restriction will be lifted (possibly even for STS-121). This will be a good thing as the days get shorter.

 

[frodo1008]

Agreed, and thanks najaB. It is however, still just a little scary. I would suppose that the Russians don't have as many retrictions as they are alrready at the 55 degree inclination of the ISS?<br /><br />Also, in the future is NASA builds the CEV or CXV (I know what CEV stands for, but I am not sure what CXV stands for?) which would be launched on top of either a single SRB or perhaps an EELV Heavy. Woudl this then give more oppotunities? If you don't at this time know, that is OK with me, I know the question is a little theoretical at this time.

 

[nacnud]

CXV isn't NASA its t/Space (as I'm sure you know) it stands for Crew Transfer Vehicle, dunno where the X came from

 

[najab]

The main reason the Russians have fewer restrictions is because they fly much smaller vehicles. There is a much smaller beta-angle restriction window (I think there might not be any restriction at all!) They can also launch at night.

 

[frodo1008]

Sometimes "xfer" is the shortened form of transfer. So I guess it really stands for Crew Xfer Vehicle. Thanks for the help here.<br /><br />I find these boards not only useful for debate and discussion, but also to learning purposes. With such excellent and knowledgeble people one can't help but learn much. The only exception to this are the occasional trolls, one must not forget them!<br /><br />Thanks again!

 

[nacnud]

Check out their webpage on the CXV, I especially like the last two paragraphs which claim that Griffin announced NASA might well fund an alternative ISS crew and cargo capability separately to the CEV. A role that the CXV is perfect for.