| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Space - Station Forum » GO for EVA-4 on monday; landing delayed to Friday
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Jim Oberg |
 Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 7:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
just discussed on air-to-ground,
and confirmed with call to JSC PAO in Houston. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Lee Jay |
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 7:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Jim Oberg wrote:
Quote: just discussed on air-to-ground,
and confirmed with call to JSC PAO in Houston.
This is tentative, right? If they get the thing to behave today, it'll
be back to the original plan, correct?
Lee Jay |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jim Oberg |
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 7:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Lee Jay" <ljfinger@msn.com> wrote
Quote: This is tentative, right? If they get the thing to behave today, it'll
be back to the original plan, correct?
They may do next to nothing today, inspect only at most,
with a full EVA set for Monday. But nobody seems to know for sure. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Lee Jay |
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 7:23 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Jim Oberg wrote:
Quote: "Lee Jay" <ljfinger@msn.com> wrote
This is tentative, right? If they get the thing to behave today, it'll
be back to the original plan, correct?
They may do next to nothing today, inspect only at most,
with a full EVA set for Monday. But nobody seems to know for sure.
They asked about that on the air and the response was that the current
EVA would go on as though nothing had changed. The word they used was
"decoupled" when describing the two EVAs. I understood that to mean
that they would do the pushing bit as planning, time permitting.
Lee Jay |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Brian Gaff |
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 3:57 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Well, it looks like someone needs to do some work on designing solar array
mechanisms..: I mean if you have to stand over them after 6 years and wiggle
them every so often to get them to not stick then...:-)
I hope someone has a plan of exactly what can be done in future, as there is
another array they will need to stow before moving the truss, I think.
Send out a can of WD40? :-)
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Lee Jay" <ljfinger@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1166311428.649737.25910@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
Quote: Jim Oberg wrote:
"Lee Jay" <ljfinger@msn.com> wrote
This is tentative, right? If they get the thing to behave today, it'll
be back to the original plan, correct?
They may do next to nothing today, inspect only at most,
with a full EVA set for Monday. But nobody seems to know for sure.
They asked about that on the air and the response was that the current
EVA would go on as though nothing had changed. The word they used was
"decoupled" when describing the two EVAs. I understood that to mean
that they would do the pushing bit as planning, time permitting.
Lee Jay
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Geert Sassen |
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 6:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Brian Gaff wrote:
Quote: Well, it looks like someone needs to do some work on designing solar array
mechanisms..: I mean if you have to stand over them after 6 years and wiggle
them every so often to get them to not stick then...:-)
I hope someone has a plan of exactly what can be done in future, as there is
another array they will need to stow before moving the truss, I think.
Send out a can of WD40? :-)
Brian
I seem to remember they had a similar problem on Mir when moving solar
arrays from Kristall to Kwant one array also failed to stow. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| André, PE1PQX |
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 8:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Jim Oberg heeft ons zojuist aangekondigd :
Quote: just discussed on air-to-ground,
and confirmed with call to JSC PAO in Houston.
Any more info on this?? I have seen the 4th EVA thing on
www.nasa.gov/shuttle, but not the extention of one day on orbit...
André |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jim |
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 9:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Please forgive my ignorance. With the P6 array retracted enough for P4 to
rotate why is so important to fully retract P6? Thanks for any info. Jim
"Jim Oberg" <jameseoberg@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:u__gh.14070$GB1.13728@tornado.texas.rr.com...
Quote: just discussed on air-to-ground,
and confirmed with call to JSC PAO in Houston.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Herb Schaltegger |
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 07:30:51 -0600, Jim wrote
(in article <fEbhh.29649$qO4.21020@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net>):
Quote: Please forgive my ignorance. With the P6 array retracted enough for P4 to
rotate why is so important to fully retract P6? Thanks for any info. Jim
Because the arrays are not structurally strong enough to be moved to
the truss without being fully retracted. They're simply not designed
to be moved while extended. In addition, they weren't designed to be
retracted after being extended for 6 years or so. The Columbia
disaster and the subsequent delays in full Return-to-Flight capability
seriously screwed up Station assembly sequencing.
--
Herb Schaltegger
"You can run on for a long time . . . sooner or later, God'll cut you
down." - Johnny Cash
<http://www.angryherb.net> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jorge R. Frank |
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 1:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Geert Sassen <geert@invalid.com> wrote in
news:4585188b$0$335$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl:
Quote: Brian Gaff wrote:
Well, it looks like someone needs to do some work on designing solar
array mechanisms..: I mean if you have to stand over them after 6
years and wiggle them every so often to get them to not stick
then...:-)
I hope someone has a plan of exactly what can be done in future, as
there is another array they will need to stow before moving the
truss, I think.
Send out a can of WD40? :-)
Brian
I seem to remember they had a similar problem on Mir when moving solar
arrays from Kristall to Kwant one array also failed to stow.
That's correct. The relocation was required to support the first Shuttle-
Mir docking in 1995. The crew had to go EVA and manually retract the array
to a prescribed minimum length to mitigate concerns that the array would
strike the shuttle in a failed-capture scenario.
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| John Doe |
| Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 12:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Herb Schaltegger wrote:
Quote: Because the arrays are not structurally strong enough to be moved to
the truss without being fully retracted.
"Not designed" doesn't necessarily mean that it cannot do it.
Since the arrays are able to widthstand reboost operations, as well as
the G force resulting from a docking vehicle, couldn't the arm move P6
with g forces that are less than reboots/dockings ? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Craig Fink |
| Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 9:06 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Wire clippers not WD40.
Pure speculation, couldn't find a drawing.
Sure sounds like the grommets are getting stuck on broken strands of wire
of a wire rope, if that's what grommets are sliding on. Some sailboats
have wire rope halyards. Wire rope is different from wire cable in
that the individual strands of wire within the rope are very thin.
This makes the wire rope very flexible, unlike wire cable. When these
become old, individual wires in the rope will break. The wire rope is
still fine, but if you rub your hand along the rope, you'll make a bloody
mess. The broken wire strands are sharp, stick out a bit and will snag
anything.
Also, sounds like the wire rope is being wound up on the opposite end from
where the solar panels are being folded. The grommets would have to slide
many meters instead of a few centimeters.
Also, if they did you wire rope, they may have just as much trouble
unfolding it because of the other end of the broken strands.
--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ WeBeGood@GMail.Com
--
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 07:57:11+0000, Brian Gaff wrote:
Quote: Well, it looks like someone needs to do some work on designing solar array
mechanisms..: I mean if you have to stand over them after 6 years and wiggle
them every so often to get them to not stick then...:-)
I hope someone has a plan of exactly what can be done in future, as there is
another array they will need to stow before moving the truss, I think.
Send out a can of WD40? :-)
Brian |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Craig Fink |
| Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 9:20 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Wire clippers not WD40. Preferably fingernail clippers.
Pure speculation, couldn't find a drawing.
Sure sounds like the grommets are getting stuck on broken strands of wire
of a wire rope, if that's what grommets are sliding on. Some sailboats
have wire rope halyards. Wire rope is different from wire cable in
that the individual strands of wire within the rope are very thin.
This makes the wire rope very flexible, unlike wire cable. When these
become old, individual wires in the rope will break. The wire rope is
still fine, but if you rub your hand along the rope, you'll make a bloody
mess. The broken wire strands are sharp, stick out a bit and will snag
anything.
Also, sounds like the wire rope is being wound up on the opposite end from
where the solar panels are being folded. The grommets would have to slide
many meters instead of a few centimeters.
Also, if they did you wire rope, they may have just as much trouble
unfolding it because of the other end of the broken strands.
--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ WeBeGood@GMail.Com
--
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 07:57:11+0000, Brian Gaff wrote:
Quote: Well, it looks like someone needs to do some work on designing solar array
mechanisms..: I mean if you have to stand over them after 6 years and wiggle
them every so often to get them to not stick then...:-)
I hope someone has a plan of exactly what can be done in future, as there is
another array they will need to stow before moving the truss, I think.
Send out a can of WD40? :-)
Brian
--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ WeBeGood@GMail.Com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Craig Fink |
| Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 9:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 23:38:15 -0500, John Doe wrote:
Quote: Since the arrays are able to widthstand reboost operations, as well as
the G force resulting from a docking vehicle, couldn't the arm move P6
with g forces that are less than reboots/dockings ?
Yeah, I agree with you, but they would be awkward to move that way and
clearances might be a problem. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Craig Fink |
| Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 9:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<<Pours third cup of coffee, morning fog begins to lift>>
Wire clippers not WD40. Preferably fingernail clippers.
Pure speculation, couldn't find a drawing.
Sure sounds like the grommets are getting stuck on broken strands of wire
of a wire rope, if that's what the grommets are sliding on. Some sailboats
have wire rope halyards. Wire rope is different from wire cable in that
the individual strands of wire within the rope are very thin. This makes
the wire rope very flexible, unlike wire cable. When these become old,
individual wires in the rope will break. The wire rope is still fine, but
if you rub your hand along the rope, you'll make a bloody mess. The broken
wire strands are sharp, stick out a bit and will snag anything.
Also, sounds like the wire rope is being wound up on the opposite end from
where the solar panels are being folded. The grommets would have to slide
many meters instead of a few centimeters.
Also, if they did use wire rope, they may have just as much trouble
unfolding it because of the other end of the broken strands.
--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ WeBeGood@GMail.Com
--
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 07:57:11+0000, Brian Gaff wrote:
Quote: Well, it looks like someone needs to do some work on designing solar array
mechanisms..: I mean if you have to stand over them after 6 years and wiggle
them every so often to get them to not stick then...:-)
I hope someone has a plan of exactly what can be done in future, as there is
another array they will need to stow before moving the truss, I think.
Send out a can of WD40? :-)
Brian
--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ WeBeGood@GMail.Com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Oct 11, 2008 3:07 am
|
|