Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Official STS-117 Thread (S3/S4) And More Arrays!  
User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 8782 times:

Looks like we will have a good bit of time to kick this one around:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sh.../shuttlemissions/sts117/index.html

Go Atlantis!!!

200 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJetBlueGuy2006 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1656 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 8776 times:

Beat me to it by 2 minutes, bummer.

Looking forward to STS-117



Home Airport: Capital Region International Airport (KLAN)
User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 8768 times:

Quoting JetBlueGuy2006 (Reply 1):
Beat me to it by 2 minutes, bummer.

Next time I'm going to be in the middle of no where holding my laptop up to catch the faintest WAP signal and clicking on submit the second I hear the double booms!! As long as we keep this a friendly rivalry I think it will serve the board well...


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 8640 times:

Here's some quick-look data...

Flight: STS-117 (118th flight of the Shuttle)

Mission: International Space Station Mission 13A

Orbiter: Atlantis (28th flight of Atlantis)

Crew: Frederick Sturckow (Commander), Lee Archambault (Pilot), James Reilly, Patrick Forrester, Steven Swanson, John Olivas (Mission Specialists)

Payload: ISS Integrated Truss Structure segments S3 and S4 (solar arrays, 6 battery sets, starboard solar alpha rotary joint)

Launch: ~6:20am ET, Friday, March 16, 2007, Launch Complex 39A

Duration: 11 Days

2007 is shaping up to be an exciting year for Shuttle/Station, with 5 Shuttle assembly flights (March, June, August, October and December) including the return to service of Endeavour, the long-awaited debut of Europe's Automated Transfer Vehicle (June), achievement of US "Core Complete" (at long last, in August), the addition of three new pressurized modules, the debut of the Station-Shuttle Power Transfer System allowing the Shuttles (Endeavour and Discovery) to stay at ISS for an additional 4 days, and the flight of former backup Teacher-in-Space, now full-fledged astronaut Barbara Morgan, on STS-118 in June.


User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3516 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 8624 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Thorny (Reply 3):
and the flight of former backup Teacher-in-Space, now full-fledged astronaut Barbara Morgan, on STS-118 in June.

I've got to admire her tenacity. She's been with the program, in various capacities, for 22 years and is still a rookie astronaut. Suffered thru 2 major loss of crew/vehicle accidents. Took the hard road after the Teacher in Space program folded and qualified as a full fledged astronaut. She's unlikely to get another flight assignment after 118. Probably had numerous opportunities to take the easy out and didn't.

Morgan is going to have a BIG ASS smile on her face when she takes the ride out to the pad....  Smile I wonder what she's going to do for Christa while she's on orbit? I believe I heard that she's going to accomplish some portion of the "Teacher in Space" tasks while she's up there.



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 8587 times:

Quoting Thorny (Reply 3):
Teacher-in-Space, now full-fledged astronaut Barbara Morgan, on STS-118 in June.



Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 4):
Morgan is going to have a BIG ASS smile on her face when she takes the ride out to the pad....

I think I'm going to be crying like a little girl for her @ MECO and touchdown


User currently offlineSudden From Sweden, joined Jul 2001, 4130 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 8536 times:

To have something to discuss while waiting,

I was looking at a video on Youtube with a cockpit view during launch of STS-121 and it looked pretty ok, but does anyway know of the G forces on the crew produced during lift off? Very cool video though as you get a good shot of what happens during the 10 first minutes from launch, and the communications.

Aim for the sky!
Sudden



When in doubt, flat out!
User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3516 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 8537 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Sudden (Reply 6):
but does anyway know of the G forces on the crew produced during lift off?

I believe the acceleration maxes out at about 3 Gs. Of course I'd say they get a fair amount of vibration while riding the solids, at least it appears that way from the video I've seen.....



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 8501 times:

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 7):
I believe the acceleration maxes out at about 3 Gs. Of course I'd say they get a fair amount of vibration while riding the solids, at least it appears that way from the video I've seen.....

IRRC they try to keep it under 3. I have also heard that the SME's aren't exactly the smoothest ride going, but yes compared to the SRB's they are nice.


User currently onlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3562 posts, RR: 29
Reply 9, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 8500 times:

Given the enormous amount of propellant being burnt in a very short timeframe, doesn't that mean that the acceleration levels actually rise extremely after some time? I know that both the SRBs and the SSME have no constant power, so that the SRBs have lower thrust some time after launch, but nevertheless the acceleration must rise extremely after some time when all the fuel is burnt, right? I mean, after only 3 minutes probably 80% of the total sytem weight have already been burnt...

And what about the SRB seperation? Do they throttle back before they are dropped? Otherwise I would expect quite a heavy push forward when they are shut down.


User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3516 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 8492 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 9):
Given the enormous amount of propellant being burnt in a very short timeframe, doesn't that mean that the acceleration levels actually rise extremely after some time? I know that both the SRBs and the SSME have no constant power, so that the SRBs have lower thrust some time after launch, but nevertheless the acceleration must rise extremely after some time when all the fuel is burnt, right? I mean, after only 3 minutes probably 80% of the total sytem weight have already been burnt...

And what about the SRB seperation? Do they throttle back before they are dropped? Otherwise I would expect quite a heavy push forward when they are shut down.

This is really a question for Thorny but I'll give it a whirl.

As you stated both the SRBs and SSMEs change thrust level during flight, primarily a thrust reduction as the shuttle goes thru maximum aerodynamic pressure (often refered to as Max-Q) after which both the SRBs and SSMEs increase thrust -- called "Throttle Up" and if you listen to the air to ground during launch you'll hear the call "Go at Throttle Up".

I understand one of the triggers for SRB jettison is a drop in SRB chamber pressure so yes they would be producing less thrust when they are dropped.

My understanding is the shuttle system is designed specifically to provide a low overall G loading. There are many variables that affect this: shape of the SRB propellant, SSME software, OMS firings, jettisoning the SRBs, ET propellant depletion, etc.



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 8483 times:

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 9):
Given the enormous amount of propellant being burnt in a very short timeframe, doesn't that mean that the acceleration levels actually rise extremely after some time?

All else being equal yes. But both the SRBs and SSMEs produce varying amounts of thrust depending on the point during ascent. The SSMEs throttle down to 65% thrust during Max Q (T+26 seconds) and then back to 104% around T+60 secs. The SRBs separate when the computers detect chamber pressure has fallen below 50 psi. usually around T+124 secs. After that acceleration on the SSMEs increases until it reaches 3 g's, around T+8 mins, when the SSMEs are again throttled-down to 65% to prevent over stressing the vehicle.


User currently offlineSudden From Sweden, joined Jul 2001, 4130 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 8462 times:

Quoting Thorny (Reply 11):
The SSMEs throttle down to 65% thrust during Max Q (T+26 seconds) and then back to 104% around

This is known to me, but is the "Discovery, go for throttle up" gradual up to 104%, or a horse kick in the butt?

Aim for the sky!
Sudden



When in doubt, flat out!
User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 8454 times:

Quoting Sudden (Reply 12):
This is known to me, but is the "Discovery, go for throttle up" gradual up to 104%, or a horse kick in the butt?

It takes about 5 seconds to throttle back up, but this is also at the point in flight where atmospheric pressure is working hardest against the stack, so its not a kick in the butt.


User currently onlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3562 posts, RR: 29
Reply 14, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 8453 times:

Quoting Thorny (Reply 13):

What about the time when the SRBs are losing pressure... Does this suddenly reduce the acceleration? How does the SRB thrust vary? I know that on takeoff, they have lots of power, then the acceleration is reduced for some time because of the area of max dynamic pressure. Do they get stronger again afterwards?

My point is, they burn for around 2 minutes as far as I know. You said that the SSME throttle up again at 60 seconds. If the SRBs burn 2 minutes, they have lost probably 40% of their total weight after 60 seconds, correct? Add the fuel burnt from the tank (10 % of the tanks total weight?), the whole system has already become maybe 30-40 % lighter than at takeoff...

If the thrust level of the SRBs remains the same and the SSMEs stay on 100% thrust, this should mean that the thrust is rising extremely until shortly before SRB separation, and dropping considerably then.

I would imagine that the acceleration should vary extremely, how can it be that it is "only" 3Gs?

I am always impressed how much high tech and mathematics are involved in shuttle and rocket launches...


User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3516 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 8449 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 14):
How does the SRB thrust vary?

SRB thrust is controlled by varying the propellant surface area available for burning. There is a "hole" if you will thru the SRMs propellant from one end to the other. This hole represents the surface area available to burn propellant. The forward most SRM segment has a "hole" shaped like an 11 point star thus providing more surface area for burning and hence higher initial thrust at liftoff. As burning continues the points of the star burn away, reducing surface area and thrust. As further burning occurs the diameter of the hole increases, providing more surface area, and the thrust increases again.

Quite simple really, but amazing that the thrust can be so precisely controlled in this fashion.



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 8445 times:

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 14):

I would imagine that the acceleration should vary extremely, how can it be that it is "only" 3Gs?

It doesn't start out at 3 g's, it starts at something like 1.5 g's. The Shuttle is climbing at a steep angle during SRB boost, and this is the lowest, thickest part of the atmosphere, so acceleration isn't great there. Then the Shuttle pitches over at altitude for a shallower climb toward orbit after SRB seperation.

So the acceleration is lessened by the Shuttle's steep climb until the SRBs are gone, then they start the slow acceleration to 3 g's.

A simple way to look at it is that the SRBs provide altitude, the SSMEs provide speed.


User currently onlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3562 posts, RR: 29
Reply 17, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 8440 times:

Quoting Thorny (Reply 16):

Thank you for this explanation. It is really amazing how precise "firecrackers" can be controlled (I know they are high-tech, but it still is solid propellant). I am curious how the next Nasa vehicles will look like. Something tells me the current plans are not really the last word yet.

Just one question, during the last mission shortly after SRB seperation, there were some extra engines which burned for a minute or so. I know this was a very heavy payload, but aren't these extra engines (was it the OMS?) pretty weak actually?


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 8424 times:

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 17):
Just one question, during the last mission shortly after SRB seperation, there were some extra engines which burned for a minute or so. I know this was a very heavy payload, but aren't these extra engines (was it the OMS?) pretty weak actually?

Yes, that's the OMS Assist maneuver, introduced for the heavy Space Station missions. NASA historically didn't usually fill the OMS tanks to capacity for each mission, but only filled the tanks with what they'd need plus a small reserve.

Someone had the idea of filling the tanks with extra propellant and firing the engines on the way up until the prop level was back to the level for the planned mission. It doesn't provide a lot of thrust, but every little bit helps for the high-inclination Station missions.


User currently offlineRhanthony From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 41 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 8395 times:

I don't want to totally hijack this thread, but looks like it's turned into a propulsion discussion already so I have to ask something thats nagged at me since I started watching the shuttles fly years ago, but never had an answer to.

The engines throttle up to 104%. How? Wouldn't max output be 100%? Where does the other 4% come from?


User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3516 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 8381 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Rhanthony (Reply 19):
The engines throttle up to 104%. How? Wouldn't max output be 100%? Where does the other 4% come from?

100% is the original rated thrust of the engine. Thru testing and analysis it was determined that the engine could be run at the higher power level.

How? Within limits, cram in as much fuel and oxidizer as possible. The more fuel burned the more thrust produced.

FYI: There have been projects in place to raise power levels to 104%, 106%, 109%, and 120% of rated thrust. 109 was almost achieved in the original block I engines but this was reconsidered after the Challenger accident. I believe the block II engines being used now are certified for 109 but I haven't heard of them being used at that rating.



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineSudden From Sweden, joined Jul 2001, 4130 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 8368 times:

By the way,

The link to the video I was talking about above is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsTKxnzggkg

Aim for the sky!
Sudden



When in doubt, flat out!
User currently offlineRHAnthony From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 41 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 8331 times:

Okay, I get it. It's 104% to the ORIGINAL SPECs laid out for the engines? Not the real possible output? That makes sense.

Thanks for clearing that up... I honestly have NEVER found an readable answer for that in the past.


User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3516 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 8278 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RHAnthony (Reply 22):
Okay, I get it. It's 104% to the ORIGINAL SPECs laid out for the engines? Not the real possible output? That makes sense.

I think the engineers did it that way to make it easier to compare different models of the engine at different altitudes. The same engine producing 104% at liftoff is producing considerably more thrust at engine cutoff even though it's still at 104% power rating, i.e. the engine produces more thrust in a vacuum than at sea level. So it makes more sense to refer to a percent of max power rather than actual thrust produced.

Quoting RHAnthony (Reply 22):
Thanks for clearing that up...

Glad to help, it made me think a bit....

edit: added engine performance numbers... (per engine)

100% of rated power:

Sea Level Thrust: 375,000 lbf
Vacuum Thrust: 470,000 lbf
Liquid Oxygen (per second): 889 lbs
Liquid Hydrogen (per second): 146 lbs

104% of rated power:

Sea Level Thrust: 393,800 lbf
Vacuum Thrust: 488,800 lbf
Liquid Oxygen (per second): 933 lbs
Liquid Hydrogen (per second): 155 lbs


[Edited 2007-01-04 01:21:10]

[Edited 2007-01-04 01:23:49]


Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineSudden From Sweden, joined Jul 2001, 4130 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 8223 times:

Hi,

Might be a clear answer to some,

but are the above figures for the SRB's, the SSMEs, or a total engine thrust?

Thanks.

Aim for the sky!
Sudden



When in doubt, flat out!
25 ZANL188 : The SRBs have solid rocket motors. The orbiter has Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME). All the references to percent of power rating refer to the engi
26 RHAnthony : It's my understanding, of course it could be incorrect, that the SRB motors are designed to have their outputs controlled by the shape/size of the sur
27 Thorny : No, because more thrust is generated at some points than at other points. They can't all be the maximum thrust the SRB is capable of generating.
28 Sna350 : I understand this is the first launch from pad 39A in a long time, and STS 116 was the last shuttle flight ever from 39B. Why don't they use the 2 pad
29 Post contains links and images Boeing4ever : One of the pads needs to be shut down to begin conversion for launching of the Ares rockets as part of the Constellation program which will follow ST
30 Thorny : 39A was down for an extensive overhaul (the last vestiges of the old Apollo-era hammerhead crane on top are now gone, for example). 39B would have be
31 SNA350 : thanks for the answers but did NASA use the 2 pads together in the early shuttle days or was it the same procedure as now: 1 in service and 1 in overh
32 Post contains images Thorny : Yes. There were periods when both pads were in service at the same time, the first being STS-61C and STS-51L in early 1986, the last being STS-106 an
33 RHAnthony : I think this would be an INCREDIBLE opportunity for someone to get some photos of 2 stacks ready to go at the same time! I certainly hope a lot of the
34 Post contains links Thorny : STS-35 Columbia on Pad A (foreground) during launch of STS-31 Discovery from Pad B (background) on April 24, 1990... http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/lucen
35 SNA350 : where there ever 2 shuttles in space at the same time?
36 RHAnthony : Anyone know if Atlantis will sit on the pad un-covered during the launch of Discovery come Sept 11 2007? If so, someone better have a camera ready!
37 Thorny : No. The closest was one week between the landing of STS-71 Atlantis and the launch of STS-70 Discovery in 1995. 2008, and Atlantis will launch first.
38 TedTAce : Is the October launch looking to be a night launch or?
39 Thorny : It's not yet official, but there will be no October launch. The current schedule... 2007 Mar 16: STS-117 Atlantis (ITS S3/S4) 2007 Jun 28: STS-118 En
40 Post contains links and images TedTAce : I was reading: http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/launches/launch_schedule.html Considering you have proven yourself to be a great source of inform
41 Post contains links ZANL188 : FYI: If anyone is interested in the current manifest to fly out the shuttle program.... http://images.spaceref.com/news/2007/FAWG.2007.01.02.pdf
42 Thorny : The STS-117 launch target date is now officially Thursday, March 15. As usual, the actual launch date will not be formally selected until the Launch R
43 TedTAce : Time Please?
44 Thorny : 6:43am EDT
45 TedTAce : About 30 min before twilight : oh well, depending on the wx; I'll probably shoot it from Altamonte Springs.
46 Thorny : Atlantis is now in the Vehicle Assembly Building, to be mated with her External Tank and Solid Rocket Boosters. Rollout to newly renovated Launch Pad
47 Post contains links and images ZANL188 : Here's an interesting shot of Atlantis hanging vertically in its lift rig prior to being lifted into the high bay and mated to its ET & SRBs.... http:
48 TedTAce : Too close, but nobody is really asking me. Great Pic... I wish I had his problem of treating such a spectale as commonplace.
49 Thorny : STS-117 Atlantis is now on Launch Pad 39A, one day behind schedule due to a pressure sensor failure in the starboard SRB. This is not expected to impa
50 TedTAce : What time? I am presuming as they are only moving it up by a week it might be later in the day.
51 Thorny : I think it is late afternoon, but I haven't seen the actual launch time listed anywhere. Launch windows to ISS advance around 20 minutes earlier per
52 ZANL188 : The Terminal Countdown Demonstration Test concluded today. This is the last time the crew works with the orbiter prior to flight. From NASA.gov: "02.2
53 Post contains links TedTAce : http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/living/health/16794467.htm
54 Thorny : Rollback to the VAB for repairs is extremely likely. Minimum 7 day delay, but probably closer to two weeks which would result in a launch delay until
55 Post contains images TedTAce :
56 BEG2IAH : From NASA's website: 02.27.07 - 3:10 p.m. EST NASA officials have confirmed that Space Shuttle Atlantis will roll back to the Vehicle Assembly Buildin
57 Post contains images TedTAce :
58 Thorny : Target launch date is now April 22.
59 ZANL188 : Yow, a five week slip....
60 Thorny : I think it is actually April 23, that's when the April-May ISS beta-angle window opens. That's best case scenario (if they can fix the Tank with Atla
61 Scouseflyer : Surely they'll keep going till all the flights are done rather than have an arbitary cut-off date?
62 TPAnx : The irony in all this is that the KSC is the ONLY place where hail fell. Watched that storm march from the west coast to the east..it blossomed on the
63 Post contains images Mir : Damn. Well, at least there's the Atlas in early march to look forward to. -Mir
64 Thorny : Nope. The Columbia Accident Investigation Board said NASA must recertify the Shuttle all the way down to the systems level if it intends to fly the S
65 TedTAce : Oh I GOT to hear this one. Maybe someone from above is sending a message?
66 TheSonntag : Would it be possible to do a flexible amendment to this rule? I mean, rules are rules, but if the shuttle proofs to be reliable again, couldn't they
67 Post contains links Thorny : May, 1995. Discovery is on Pad 39B for the launch of STS-70 in June when the pad crew notices at least one woodpecker pecking away at the foam insula
68 Post contains images TedTAce : THAT'S funny!!! Nice story, thanks for the Info.
69 Post contains images Mir : I wonder how that conversation went. "We have to roll it back because of WHAT?" -Mir
70 TedTAce : That plus given this experience why wasn't something put in place to prevent this current occurence?
71 Chksix : A few years back they talked about modifying the pads to have two RSS of a bigger type that would enclose the vehicle like a clamshell but that was sc
72 Thorny : The President would have to waive the CAIB's recommendation not to fly beyond 2010 without recertifying the vehicle. NASA's budget would have to be i
73 ZANL188 : It's strange then that so many other launch systems, including the shuttle pad at Vandenberg, went for the completely enclosed pad concept. I would n
74 Thorny : Shuttle inherited Apollo's 1960's infrastructure, including the VAB and pads. Note that the slightly later Titan Integrated Test and Launch (ITL) fac
75 ZANL188 : Neither Apollo or Shuttle ever came close to the flight rates that would have required, or were envisioned for, the mobile launcher concept. Hindsigh
76 Thorny : Perhaps, although NASA lived without them for the Skylab I/II launch (only one Mobile Service Structure for both Pad A and B, A with the Saturn V/Sky
77 Post contains links Mymorningsong : Bump ~~~ Not sure about the April 22nd launch date, but this article makes it seems like we'll go up very late April or early May. Some detailed pictu
78 RichPhitzwell : Is there different foam mixture for the top? I must be blind, but this is the first time Ive noticed three different colors.
79 ATCGOD : May 11th is being kicked around here. Press conference at 1730 (EDT) with a date. We all think it's gonna be the week of the 11th though. I was told
80 Post contains images Mir : Hope it's sooner than that, otherwise I won't be able to see it. -Mir
81 ATCGOD : Actually they've said that it'll be no sooner than mid-May. If I had to bet, I'd bet on June since these launches rarely go as scheduled.
82 ATCGOD : Ok, I just got an e-mail stating that they are shooting for a launch date May 11-20th timeframe. They cannot launch May 21-June 7 due to a "solar beta
83 ATCGOD : And now another: ....latest news about the ET. ================================= CBS NEWS STS-117 STATUS REPORT: 06 Posted: 07:45 p.m. EST, 03/21/07 B
84 ZANL188 : Update: ET-117, the likely replacement if the tank is swapped, arrived at LC-39 today. Swap decision to be made 10 Apr. Related news: ISS Expedition 1
85 ATCGOD : Talk around here is that they can't find anyone to sign off on the damaged tank. Expect a June launch with the brand new tank.
86 ZANL188 : Can't say that I'd blame them for not signing off on that tank... It would be a one off crap shoot
87 Thorny : Now there's the contamination inspection of the Main Propulsion System to squeeze in, too. Just looks like things are piling up toward a June launch,
88 Post contains images TedTAce : I guess unless something special happens, I'm never going to see one of these in person again oh well.
89 ZANL188 : Expedition 15 is in orbit after an apparently successful launch. I note that there is no NASA astronaut aboard the Soyuz (although a millionaire geek
90 TheSonntag : It might not really help, but wasn't this, once again, a typical on-time launch of a russian spacecraft? I can only hope the next spacecraft will do b
91 Thorny : It almost certainly will. Shuttle has strict Return To Launch Site and TAL abort weather restrictions that have seriously lowered its on-time perform
92 ZANL188 : The Russians do a fair job when it comes to schedule reliability, but it would be a stretch to say that the Soyuz was safer than Shuttle. Also rememb
93 Rwessel : There have been something like 90 manned Soyuz launches since 1967, with two fatal accidents (one in 1967, the second in 1971) with four crew losses,
94 Thorny : The same could have been said of the Space Shuttle on January 31, 2003. It had been 88 flights since the Challenger accident. On February 1, 2003, Co
95 ATCGOD : FYI- NASA to decide on tank issue today.
96 Post contains links ZANL188 : Thanks for the confirmation. Your facts are tough to beat... They're going to fix the tank and fly in June. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature
97 Post contains links Thorny : Decision made to stay with ET-124 (the hail-damaged tank). Launch is now No Earlier Than 8 June 2007. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/main/i
98 Rwessel : Just to show that statistics, as always, can be spun multiple ways: I believe that includes several unmanned flights. My count is 84. Of course it mat
99 ATCGOD : Going at their rate of reliability I'd say we'll maybe see 3. I'll bet STS-122 pushes to January. Just a hunch but it's been my experience in the las
100 Post contains images Chksix : Let's hope this ET will hold together and not shred foam during ascent
101 ATCGOD : I tell you what, if I was part of this crew I'd be extremely skeptical of flying with this "fixed" tank.
102 Post contains links Thorny : The 97th manned Soyuz (TMA-10) launched on Saturday. Soyuz 11 was the 10th manned Soyuz. Wikipedia is a risky source, but in this case, their table i
103 Thorny : Not on time, but STS-115 (September) and STS-116 (December) both met their launch windows. STS-121 missed its May, 2006 launch window (thanks to Exte
104 Rwessel : " target=_blank>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_p...ramme Wikipedia has its bad moments, but the result tends to be surprisingly good. I didn't com
105 Thorny : Ooh... that's an interesting problem: how do you count a flight which launched unmanned but landed manned? .5? Maybe .75 since three of the four fata
106 Post contains images Rwessel : Maybe pair it up with Soyuz 32 which launched with a crew but reentered without? Always made me wonder if that wasn't the mother of all scheduling mi
107 Post contains images ATCGOD : Well, launch windows are not necessarily a small chunk of time. The upcoming STS-117 mission now has a 40 day window. So if they can't meet their lau
108 ZANL188 : Take a look at Concorde, statistically speaking it went from the safest airliner to the least safe in one accident. Also if we're counting number of
109 TheSonntag : I agree on this, which leads me to the following thesis: Since both have the same safety rate, yet Shuttle is much more expensive, I would say that S
110 Thorny : They're really too different to make cost the deciding factor. Soyuz is vastly cheaper than Shuttle, but you need two or three Soyuz launches and aro
111 TheSonntag : I think this is the biggest problem with the plans of NASA, which will be bad for human exploration for the next 50 years, as we will not be able to
112 BEG2IAH : The rollout of Atlantis to the launch pad is now scheduled for May 12, 2007. BEG2IAH
113 Post contains links TheSonntag : Atlantis is go for the rollout. Lets hope this time everything will work out fine. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/main/index.html
114 ZANL188 : The rollout is scheduled for Wednesday the 16th with first motion at 0400EDT.
115 BEG2IAH : Mission Specialist Patrick Forrester said in his preflight interview: "The S3/S4 weighs about 35,000 pounds, very similar to P3/P4. It's just a little
116 Rwessel : It's not that simple. While I don't have a handy list of all the nominal payload masses, STS-117 isn't even close on that basis. For example, STS-61D
117 Rwessel : Should be: "Hubble was much *lighter*..." It still pretty much filled the bay.
118 Thorny : It will be the heaviest shuttle to ISS, but the Shuttle takes a 40% payload hit by going to 51.6 degrees inclination, plus up to about 250 miles alti
119 BEG2IAH : Guys, Thanks for your great answers. BEG2IAH
120 TheSonntag : According to Nasa, Atlantis is go for launch on June, 8th. Lets hope they manage this time.
121 Post contains images Thorny : Boy, was that an understatement! Anyway, finally we're within a week of launch. Here's an updated version of the quick-look data I posted way-back-wh
122 TheSonntag : What are the crews doing until they dock? It seems it takes two days from launch until docking, what is happening during that time?
123 Corsair1107 : A few housekeeping tasks and the thorough inspection of the orbiter to make sure no damage occured during launch to the thermal protection tiles.
124 ZANL188 : Most shuttle timelines allow a day or two after launch before any major events. This allows the crew to get over Space Adaptation Syndrome prior to c
125 Thorny : Corsair and ZANL already answered the "what are they doing" question. I'd just like to point out that Soyuz and Progress also take two days to reach
126 TheSonntag : Thank you for your insightful replies. Sitting several days in a Soyuz is certainly not what I would call luxury. Does the 2008 retirement date for At
127 Thorny : Still applies, although when Atlantis's last flight in 2008 will occur is still in flux. Currently targetted for August 28, 2008. We'll have to see w
128 Post contains links ZANL188 : Possible trouble with ET lines & USA workers may strike this weekend.... http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/06/06/space.shuttle.ap/index.html I bet we
129 Post contains images TPAnx : Anyone know how Atlantis weathered the storms this (Wednesday) evening?? They looked strong on radar...and there was the possibility of hail... TPAnx
130 Post contains images TPAnx : 80 per cent chance of good weather at launch time..no tech problems..looks like it's a go...Godspeed, Atlantis.. TPAnx (who's stuck on the west coast
131 AGC525 : What time is lift off?
132 Brendows : Launch Time: 7:38 p.m. EDT
133 Lurch : Its 2338BST so the UK will be dark and we may se the Shuttle come over the Horizon if its not Cloudy
134 LTU932 : Is that still daytime at this time of year in Florida, or is already dark then?
135 Corsair1107 : It'll be early evening in Florida at the planned launch time.
136 ZANL188 : Hatch Closed. Beautiful evening here in the Southeastern US. Great Night for a Launch!!
137 Jamesbuk : So the hatch is closed, and the astronauts are just going to sit in there for like an hour and a half? what do they do? will they do a simulated take
138 BEG2IAH : They have very long check lists to go through. They are very busy. Just in (NASA TV): Preferred launch time is 7:38:04 pm. BEG2IAH
139 ZANL188 : Just got a no go for Trans Atlantic abort site weather....
140 ZANL188 : Istres is now go for weather. Zaragoza still has weather issues so Istres will be the TAL site
141 ZANL188 : Go for Launch! The message you were about to post is too short and probably not of any higher value to the topic at hand. You should think long and ha
142 Skoker : Everything looking good so far on the launch! Good luck STS-117 crew!
143 Mir : And they're up in orbit. Great launch! -Mir
144 Post contains images KPDX : Great launch! KPDX
145 ZANL188 : Looked like a good launch to me. I did not see any large pieces of foam come off....
146 BEG2IAH : Godspeed, Atlantis! BEG2IAH
147 Post contains images Iflykpdx : Good luck guys!! Never get tired of watching a launch
148 Bmacleod : CNN reported that NASA engineers noticed a small tear in "thermal blanket" - they're referring to the tiles right? Hopefully nothing more than a very
149 ZANL188 : No they are in fact referring to the thermal blankets on the OMS pod. It's in an area of low heat load during reentry so is not likely to be a safety
150 Thorny : STS-1 and, I think, STS-3 actually had lost and damaged tiles in those areas and made it home safely. Since then, NASA replaced the fragile tiles the
151 Post contains links and images BEG2IAH : CNN at its best: "Shuttle docking a 'go' despite gap in heat blanket" http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/06/09/space.shuttle.ap/index.html Blanket and
152 ZANL188 : FYI: Todays significant events: RENDEZVOUS PITCH MANEUVER begins: 2:37PM EDT / 1837 UTC DOCKING: 3:38PM EDT / 1938 UTC S3/S4 TRUSS HANDOVER TO SSRMS:
153 ZANL188 : They are docked.....
154 Post contains images BEG2IAH : Man, you're fast! BEG2IAH
155 Britannia191a : Fire Alarm just gone off- they believe it is false and its a software problem -
156 ZANL188 : Apparently the fire alarm was symptomatic of problems with computers on the Russian side, computer problems are now causing problems with attitude co
157 Confuscius : I'm not much into space flight but ever since getting the NASA channel on the dish I've been watching quite a bit. Does anyone know more about one of
158 Post contains links Thorny : Megan McArthur. She'll fly to Hubble next year. http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/mcarthur-km.html Kelly Beck. http://www.nasa.gov/images/content
159 Post contains images Confuscius : Thanks. They look better on television. BTW, did anyone notice the advertisement on the big screen board at the Russian control room.
160 Corsair1107 : Anybody following the ISS computer failure?
161 Post contains links and images KPDX : Uh oh. Space station oxygen, water computers fail http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/0....ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories KPDX
162 Post contains images Bmacleod : Just saw a news flash on msnbc that space station may have to be evacuated!!!! Is there enough room on the shuttle?
163 Post contains links Chksix : There will be a press conference (mission update) in a few minutes on NASA tv. http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html
164 ZANL188 : yes see reply 156. I bet this is all related to what happened on tuesday....
165 ZANL188 : Apparently the Russian computers have a power supply that is sensitive to electrical noise. It seems the problems started when the new truss was bein
166 Post contains links Corsair1107 : Now they are saying that the electromagnetic spike problem might be a fatal flaw and the fingerpointing is starting. This could turn out to be a real
167 Curlyheadboy : Oh God... would the ISS survive if abandoned? They need to keep it oriented and it seems they're doing it using the orbiter... I sincerely hope they
168 Mir : That's correct, so while there isn't enough room on the shuttle for all, there is enough combined room on the shuttle and the soyuz. At the briefing
169 RichPhitzwell : I thought they had 56 days on top of using the American scrubbers to resolve this issue. I keep getting the impression that this is not the best thing
170 BEG2IAH : Mike Suffredini said that the power source (S3/S4) is not the cause of this anomaly (as they previously thought). It seems that power supply for the c
171 Mir : Seems like they just did. -Mir
172 BEG2IAH : Just saw it too. They will have a chance to reconnect and play with it during the fourth space walk on Sunday. I'm just watching the stitching of the
173 RichPhitzwell : Amazing all the work going on right now...what takes 5 minutes on earth take 3 hours up there. Amazing.
174 ZANL188 : The blanket repair seemed to go well. Anyone hear what the staples attached the blanket to?
175 Post contains images BEG2IAH : I think that Danny Olivas stitched the problematic piece of blanket to the existing healthy blanket on the left side. When he inspected it he said th
176 BEG2IAH : It seems that there's been some progress with the Russian side computers. Mission control will let the crew know pretty soon what's going on. BEG2IAH
177 Post contains links BEG2IAH : Latest from NASA http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/main/index.html This afternoon, the crew inside the International Space Station was able to
178 ZANL188 : The EVA crew is now "fluffing" the solar array blankets to facilitate retraction. They seem to be doing the fluffing with the same makeshift taped "ho
179 BEG2IAH : 2B solar array fully retracted! Great! BEG2IAH
180 Thorny : It's a new-build version, with anti-static insulation to protect the arrays and the astronauts.
181 Post contains links ZANL188 : This morning Sunni broke the spaceflight length record for women. Not an unexpected event, but worthy of note in this thread. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/
182 ClassicLover : She's not flying until the next mission on Endeavour scheduled for August.
183 Post contains images ZANL188 : There i go opening my mouth again.....
184 Thorny : Understandable mistake though... Endeavour was supposed to fly this month. Then Atlantis got hailed.
185 BEG2IAH : The hatches between Space Shuttle Atlantis and the International Space Station were closed at 5:51 p.m. CDT. Undocking from the station to follow at 9
186 Glideslope : Just watched ISS with Atlantis trailing go across the sky up here in Central NY. The high point of my year so far.
187 BEG2IAH : No landing today due to weather. BEG2IAH
188 BEG2IAH : Landing is scheduled for Edwards Air Force Base, rwy 22. The Edwards landing is at 2:49 p.m. (CDT), with the deorbit burn occurring at 1:43 p.m. BEG2I
189 Post contains images N751PR : I'm anticipating the sonic boom over the Antelope Valley! [Edited 2007-06-22 20:17:27]
190 DfwRevolution : Deorbit burn underway using the two OMS engines. According to NASA TV: they have a combine thrust of 12,000 lbs, will burn for about 2.5 minutes, and
191 Post contains links BEG2IAH : Guys, you can check the live track at http://www.n2yo.com/ BEG2IAH
192 Richphitzwell : In san diego will we be able to see the shuttle? if so where can I go to see/hear?
193 Rhanthony : Any suggestions on where to get a good view from the edge of Edwards? I'm in Pasadena right now and would LOVE to see it.
194 Post contains links BEG2IAH : http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/realdata...s®ion=California&city=San_Diego BEG2IAH
195 RHAnthony : Heading out to route 58 north of edwards.... I assume they're coming in from the north on the lake bed? Anyone have a specific spot they know will be
196 BEG2IAH : They just landed! BEG2IAH
197 RichPhitzwell : I heard it...thats pretty cool!
198 SKGSJULAX : Once turnaround is completed, is there a place to catch the 747 carrier aircraft taking off with Atlantis en route back to KSC?
199 RHAnthony : I would guess by the north edwards entrance, park near the sign. Right off route 58 near Clay Mine Road.
200 Corsair1107 : Holy cow, so that's what the booms i heard at the San Diego zoo this afternoon were, I figured they were USN aircraft practicing off the coast. Neat.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Official STS-117 Thread (S3/S4) And More Arrays!
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Official STS-121 Discovery Thread posted Tue Jun 27 2006 22:38:10 by TedTAce
The Official CF105 Conspiracy Thread posted Thu Sep 28 2006 06:15:51 by Dougloid
Offical STS-115 Atlantis Thread posted Mon Jul 24 2006 07:10:43 by TPAnx
Usaf And Boeing Lobbying For More C-17 posted Thu Mar 9 2006 14:58:50 by DAYflyer
F-117 And U-2... posted Sat Jan 21 2006 01:01:36 by Res
Official New Horizons Discussion Thread posted Tue Jan 17 2006 09:49:05 by AerospaceFan
Retiring B-52s, U-2s, And F-117s For More F-22As posted Wed Jan 11 2006 20:37:06 by NightHawk117
Morbid Observation/? About STS/CEV And Beyond... posted Thu Aug 4 2005 04:29:59 by TedTAce
More Mission Photos Bombs And Cargo posted Wed Nov 7 2001 14:26:58 by Galaxy5
USAF, How Many B-2's And F-117's? posted Sat Sep 22 2001 19:19:44 by 767-332ER

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format