 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / April 2007Status of Atlantis's tank
spaceflight.nasa.gov says that ET-117 is being shipped to KSC, and while work is progressing on fixing ET124, they will look at the option of fitting Atlantis with the ET-117. If they do decide to change the ET, how many days does this take ? How difficult is it to undo certain attachements ? (notably the explosive bolts etc) ? Are there many things to undo which were not designed to be undone ? (eg: welded, spring loaded, glued/epoxied), or is it pretty much all straightforwards with just a big wrench to loosen large nuts/bolts ? If they decide to give Atlantis ET117. What would they do with ET124 ? Would they continue to fix it ? Would they send it back to Michoud for a total makeover and recoating of foam ? Or is it more likely that they would fix ET124 in time for STS118 ? (sorry if this is off-topic compared to current discussions). I think its more on topic than current stuff here! If you heard the telecon as many here no doubt did, I got the impression that in a few days, when the tank is due in, some decision will be made then. As for the disassembly and reassembly, I think the major problem is going to be time really, as its basically a complete disassembly job. So the time estimates for that against the time it will take to finish the repairs need to be looked at. I also recall that Wayne said that it is of no matter which tank is used, as in the end the other tank will have to fly. It just depends on evaluation of the time frame really, and the most efficient way to get the damaged tank fixed. It is indeed sobering though, to realise what power the weather has. Brian  SignatureBrian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email. graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > spaceflight.nasa.gov says that ET-117 is being shipped to KSC, and while > work is progressing on fixing ET124, they will look at the option of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > (sorry if this is off-topic compared to current discussions). > I think its more on topic than current stuff here! > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > - Show quoted text - NEW TROUBLE, plastic found in fuel lines engines coming out...... see florida today. yeah sure the station will be finished by 2010, well maybe in a alternative universe:( >I think its more on topic than current stuff here! > > If you heard the telecon as many here no doubt did, I got the impression > that in a few days, when the tank is due in, some decision will be made > then. It got here today. They'll switch it; who would sign off on a repaired tank... >>I think its more on topic than current stuff here! >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >It got here today. >They'll switch it; who would sign off on a repaired tank... Me. But what do I know? I've only trusted my life (for months at a time) to a hull patched and welded a hundred times and more - and then subjected to the pressure of hundreds of feet below the ocean. Proper repairs don't scare me. Not to mention that unless NASA can get Congress to cough up enough money for either a) a new tank or b) to ship this tank back to Michoud for a complete reworking - this tank will have to be repaired and fly. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL >Not to mention that unless NASA can get Congress to cough up enough >money for either a) a new tank or b) to ship this tank back to Michoud >for a complete reworking - this tank will have to be repaired and fly. With those old nemeses the flowliners rearing their ugly heads again, and NASA now pulling Atlantis' engines to inspect them, I say go ahead and switch to ET-117 and launch in June. Send ET-124 back to Michoud (cough up money for what? the barge has to go back anyway) and let LockMart take its time with the repairs and inspections, and fly it next year some time. And don't risk damaging the engines by yanking them out under schedule pressure. /rant on And if they find debris in the MPS that would have caused a LOC/LOV were it not for the freak hail storm, I say end the Shuttle program now. How many more chances to kill a crew are we going to give these guys before they succeed again? /rant off Brian >>Not to mention that unless NASA can get Congress to cough up enough >>money for either a) a new tank or b) to ship this tank back to Michoud [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > next year some time. And don't risk damaging the engines by yanking > them out under schedule pressure. That's almost certainly what will happen. > /rant on > And if they find debris in the MPS that would have caused a LOC/LOV > were it not for the freak hail storm, I say end the Shuttle program > now. I don't think that would happen - but if they do find anything in the 104 MPS... I don't even want to think about that. >>Not to mention that unless NASA can get Congress to cough up enough >>money for either a) a new tank or b) to ship this tank back to Michoud [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >and switch to ET-117 and launch in June. Send ET-124 back to Michoud >(cough up money for what? the barge has to go back anyway) Cough up money for what? How about loading it on the barge, unloading it, doing all the re-work, then reversing the process to return it to the Cape. None of this comes free. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL >Cough up money for what? How about loading it on the barge, unloading >it, doing all the re-work, then reversing the process to return it to >the Cape. >None of this comes free. The guys loading ET-124 back on the barge are the same one that would otherwise have been stacking ET-117 for Endeavour. They've got nothing else to do (only one High Bay available, and Atlantis is occupying it.) So unless we don't pay them when there's a Shuttle grounding (not true) it won't cost any more to load ET-124 back on the barge. The barge has to go back to Michoud anyway, so no significant cost penalties on that end. Unless I'm totally mistaken, all the re-work must be done anyway. NASA's not going to fly ET-124 with hail holes in the foam. Stop fiddling around with 124 in the VAB and send it back to Michoud where the job can be done properly. You probably lose some money by disrupting the ET flow at Michoud and making teams repair it there. On the other hand, you save money by not sending special hardware and materials, and a bunch of ET specialists to the Cape to oversee and inspect the repairs there. Brian > Unless I'm totally mistaken, all the re-work must be done anyway. > NASA's not going to fly ET-124 with hail holes in the foam. Stop [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > materials, and a bunch of ET specialists to the Cape to oversee and > inspect the repairs there. There's another alternative: just scrap out the damaged ET. But is that too big a loss to eat? You can't fly it the way it is, and maybe the costs of getting it refuburshed well enough to have confidence that it won't do something bad is getting close to that of a new ET. Or maybe the impact on schedule becomes a concern? >There's another alternative: just scrap out the damaged ET. No can do. There isn't a spare in the pipeline to replace it, and to get one would require negotiating a contract extension. (With a whole bunch of knock-on effects.) That tank is going fly. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL > That tank is going fly. From a "space station must be completed" point of view, perhaps that tank should be used for the last scheduled flight of an orbiter. This way, should the tank fail and result in the loss of the orbiter, it wouldn't result in a net loss of orbiters since that orbiter would have already completed its last mission to the station. > way, should the tank fail and result in the loss of the orbiter, it > wouldn't result in a net loss of orbiters since that orbiter would have > already completed its last mission to the station. Loss of vehicle usually means the loss of a crew. Makes for bad press... >> way, should the tank fail and result in the loss of the orbiter, it >> wouldn't result in a net loss of orbiters since that orbiter would have >> already completed its last mission to the station. > > Loss of vehicle usually means the loss of a crew. Makes for bad press... I believe what he meant was that you could suffer too much damage to safely re-enter (ala Columbia) but could do a safe-haven at ISS. At that point, once ISS is complete, there's no real need for the shuttles anyway. SignatureGreg Moore SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available! Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html On Apr 9, 8:05 pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_deletet...@greenms.com> wrote: > >> way, should the tank fail and result in the loss of the orbiter, it > >> wouldn't result in a net loss of orbiters since that orbiter would have [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > At that point, once ISS is complete, there's no real need for the shuttles > anyway. Based on that however, I do have a question. Is there a tank allocated to conducting an STS-300 style rescue mission for the final flight? So far it's not a big deal, as NASA could just use the tank slated for the next flight. But, when there isn't going to be a "next flight" will the crew even have that option? -A.L. > Is there a tank allocated to conducting an STS-300 style rescue > mission for the final flight? So far it's not a big deal, as NASA > could just use the tank slated for the next flight. But, when there > isn't going to be a "next flight" will the crew even have that option? You could make that last trip go to the space station. And if need be, the crew could wait for a few Soyoz return capsules. Be sure to pack a lot of lunches just in case. >> Is there a tank allocated to conducting an STS-300 style rescue >> mission for the final flight? So far it's not a big deal, as NASA [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >You could make that last trip go to the space station. And if need be, >the crew could wait for a few Soyoz return capsules. ROTFLMAO. Do add up the number of Soyuz capsules flow a year, and compare that number to a tyical station mission shuttle crew. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL >> Is there a tank allocated to conducting an STS-300 style rescue >> mission for the final flight? So far it's not a big deal, as NASA [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > crew could wait for a few Soyoz return capsules. Be sure to pack a lot of > lunches just in case. I'm not sure the crew that large could survive that long. How long would it take the Russians to get that many Soyuzs up to station? Danny Deger > > Is there a tank allocated to conducting an STS-300 style rescue > > mission for the final flight? So far it's not a big deal, as NASA [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the crew could wait for a few Soyoz return capsules. Be sure to pack a > lot of lunches just in case. Oy. Without the "duh...wait for Soyuz's" answer, because that is worse than no answer at this point. Ah well, guess I'll need to try and dig up the number of ET's on order and see if one is to be set aside for an STS-300 style mission for STS-133. -A.L. >>There's another alternative: just scrap out the damaged ET. > > No can do. There isn't a spare in the pipeline to replace it, and to > get one would require negotiating a contract extension. (With a whole > bunch of knock-on effects.) Do you know if the production line for ETs has been shut down yet? Restrarting the production line would be REALLY expensive, especially if the jigs have been scraped. Danny Deger > That tank is going fly. > > D. >>>There's another alternative: just scrap out the damaged ET. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Do you know if the production line for ETs has been shut down yet? The line has not been shut down but the final contract has been inked. > Restrarting the production line would be REALLY expensive, especially > if the jigs have been scraped. The jigs won't be scrapped - they'll be converted for the Ares V core stage (10 m diameter vs. 8.3 m for the current ET). It'll still be expensive to convert back to make more ETs. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. > Or maybe the impact on schedule becomes a concern? No one "in charge" normally appears to care about any goddam schedule so why should they start now? P.S. If anyone in NASA's ivory towers still gives a sh.t it's fourteen flights in the next forty four months, or roughly one every three months. There's more chance of world peace breaking out in the next 20 milliseconds than that happening. -- >> Or maybe the impact on schedule becomes a concern? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > months. There's more chance of world peace breaking out in the next > 20 milliseconds than that happening. It is my personal and extensive experience with NASA management that it is a narcissistic organization. They simply ignore facts they don't like. Danny Deger > -- >Unless I'm totally mistaken You are - in virtually every word of your post. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL >>Unless I'm totally mistaken > >You are - in virtually every word of your post. We shall see. Brian > The guys loading ET-124 back on the barge are the same one that would > otherwise have been stacking ET-117 for. But it may be some budgetary thing. If they send the tank back to Michoud, they would have to pay the company for the repair work as opposed to paying the on-site employees to perform the repair work. Even though the barge normally goes back empty, if it must return with a payload, the company that operates the barge is likely to charge extra to carry a payload. (more careful operations, weather limitations, speed limitations etc). I think it would be quite easy to concuct excuses for not sending it back to Michoud. "Where there is a will, there is a way" works both ways. >> The guys loading ET-124 back on the barge are the same one that would >> otherwise have been stacking ET-117 for. > > But it may be some budgetary thing. If they send the tank back to > Michoud, they would have to pay the company for the repair work as > opposed to paying the on-site employees to perform the repair work. The KSC repairs are being performed by employees flown in from Michoud. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. > ...and a bunch of ET specialists to the Cape to oversee and > inspect the repairs there. They're already here. They've been here a while now. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.