| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Space - Shuttle Forum » STS-51-F (the ATO abort)..
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Gatorcountyr |
 Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 8:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
After they decided to ATO, Houston made calls indicating first "limits
to enable" then later "limits to inhibit"...
What exactly did they mean by this? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mika Takala |
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Gatorcountyr" <gatorcountry@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6c97a55a-8f2a-4f03-9489-68d18ed53b09@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Quote: After they decided to ATO, Houston made calls indicating first "limits
to enable" then later "limits to inhibit"...
What exactly did they mean by this?
A ground controller, person who is looking at the telemetry data, saw that
the engine had been shut down because of failing sensors, and the engine
itself was fine. He then saw similar things happening on a set of sensors
for another engine, so he commanded the capcom to tell the crew to disable
those sensors - in another words, inhibiting the control systems from
reacting to out-of-limits data output from the sensors. That then preventing
the engine control logic from shutting down the engine that was in danger of
being shut down without a valid reason.
There have been previous usenet discussions of this subject. One of them
points out that if another engine had been shut down as threathened, the ET
would have made a hard, unsafe and unacceptable landing to Saudi-Arabia, and
the Orbiter would perhaps have tried a TAL or AOA abort.
This was one of the cases in which ground controller saved the day.
--
Mika Takala |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Gatorcountyr |
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 3:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 23, 3:10 pm, "Mika Takala"
<mika.tak...@INVALIDpp.nic.fi.invalid> wrote:
Quote: "Gatorcountyr" <gatorcoun...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6c97a55a-8f2a-4f03-9489-68d18ed53b09@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
After they decided to ATO, Houston made calls indicating first "limits
to enable" then later "limits to inhibit"...
What exactly did they mean by this?
A ground controller, person who is looking at the telemetry data, saw that
the engine had been shut down because of failing sensors, and the engine
itself was fine. He then saw similar things happening on a set of sensors
for another engine, so he commanded the capcom to tell the crew to disable
those sensors - in another words, inhibiting the control systems from
reacting to out-of-limits data output from the sensors. That then preventing
the engine control logic from shutting down the engine that was in danger of
being shut down without a valid reason.
There have been previous usenet discussions of this subject. One of them
points out that if another engine had been shut down as threathened, the ET
would have made a hard, unsafe and unacceptable landing to Saudi-Arabia, and
the Orbiter would perhaps have tried a TAL or AOA abort.
This was one of the cases in which ground controller saved the day.
--
Mika Takala
Awesome!
Thank you so much for the detailed answer. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jorge R. Frank |
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 6:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Mika Takala wrote:
Quote: "Gatorcountyr" <gatorcountry@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6c97a55a-8f2a-4f03-9489-68d18ed53b09@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
After they decided to ATO, Houston made calls indicating first "limits
to enable" then later "limits to inhibit"...
What exactly did they mean by this?
A ground controller, person who is looking at the telemetry data, saw that
the engine had been shut down because of failing sensors, and the engine
itself was fine. He then saw similar things happening on a set of sensors
for another engine, so he commanded the capcom to tell the crew to disable
those sensors - in another words, inhibiting the control systems from
reacting to out-of-limits data output from the sensors. That then preventing
the engine control logic from shutting down the engine that was in danger of
being shut down without a valid reason.
There have been previous usenet discussions of this subject. One of them
points out that if another engine had been shut down as threathened, the ET
would have made a hard, unsafe and unacceptable landing to Saudi-Arabia, and
the Orbiter would perhaps have tried a TAL or AOA abort.
This was one of the cases in which ground controller saved the day.
Mostly correct. The only really glaring error:
The BOOSTER flight controller was a "she" (Jenny Howard), not a "he". |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat May 17, 2008 5:24 am
|
|
