- \n
- STS-134 LIVE UPDATES<\/li>\n
- L2 STS-134 Special Section<\/li>\n
- Click here to Join L2<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\u201cOV-105\/SRB BI-145\/RSRM 113\/ET-122 (Pad-A): LOX storage tank sampling was completed last Friday. ET Camera battery charging was also completed Friday. S0007, Launch countdown preps continue,\u201d noted the NASA Test Director (NTD) report (L2).<\/p>\n
\u201cS5009, Final ordnance installation is complete. Range safety system testing was completed. Orbiter\/SRB PIC tests and ignition S&A rotation are in work at the time of this writing. It is anticipated that the pad should be re-opened at approximately 0730 EST this morning. S0071 Hyper\/MPS pressurization preps call to stations is scheduled for 1600 EST tomorrow. GO2 recharge is scheduled for Wednesday.\u201d<\/p>\n
Endeavour\u2019s mission continues to be refined, with one recent memo outlining the current plan for the working mission timeline, one which holds the option of being extended past the 14 day flight into a maximum 16 day primary mission.<\/p>\n
\u201cTo avoid any confusion, we have removed all what-if timelines, and have left only the official 14+2+2 Flight Plan for you to peruse,\u201d noted one MOD memo (L2). \u201cOnce the calm settles in, we will work to re-post the +1 and +2 versions. Until it all changes again.\u201d<\/p>\n
STS-134 Specific Articles: http:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/tag\/sts-134\/<\/p>\n
Also mentioned was the latest trajectory data, utilizing the middle ground of 15+1+2 as the baseline. The data relates to Endeavour\u2019s rendezvous with the International Space Station (ISS) and departure \u2013 the latter of which will include the STORRM (Sensor Test for Orion Rel-Nav Risk Mitigation) Detailed Test Objective (DTO).<\/p>\n
SpaceX launch tickets
<\/path>Aerospace & Defense <\/path>Space Shuttle models <\/path>\n (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/04\/A1031.jpg\" "\\"A103\\"")
Designed to collect detailed data during rendezvous, proximity ops, and (un)docking, Endeavour\u2019s crew will document, via photographs, all STORRM targets for photogrammetry objectives following Shuttle\/ISS hatch opening and prior to Shuttle\/ISS hatch closure.<\/p>\n\u201cThis trajectory data was generated using the L-25 days ISS vector. It includes a 15+1+2 mission duration and an ISS phasing strategy which results in a STS-134 rendezvous altitude of 187 nm,\u201d added the memo. \u201cThe Orbiter ephemeris includes a FD14 midnight undock, followed by a 27 min Vbar separation, a 46 min fly around, a 1.5 fps SEP1 burn (3 fps effective) and STORRM DTO maneuvers starting with SEP2.\u201d<\/p>\n
To accomplish the STORRM DTO, just after undocking from the ISS, Endeavour\u2019s Commander and Pilot will perform the standard back out and ISS Flyaround maneuvers through the Sep 1 burn. However, in terms of nominal Shuttle\/ISS undockings, Flyarounds, and separations, this is where the similarity for STS-134 will end.<\/p>\n
Endeavour\u2019s Sep burns 2 and 3 (including all the mandatory STORRM burns) have been redesigned to facilitate a mini re-rendezvous with the ISS to \u201caccomplish the STORRM re-rendezvous objectives\u201d before completing the flyout of Endeavour to a point \u201cin front\u201d of the ISS in terms of the vehicles\u2019 orbital trajectories and relative positions.<\/p>\n
Storm Damage Evaluations:<\/p>\n
It was a different type of Storm which gained attention at the latest Program Requirements Control Board (PRCB) meeting \u2013 ahead of its subsequent promotion to the Flight Readiness Review \u2013 with the recent severe storm weather damage evaluated and found to be of no concern ahead of Endeavour\u2019s final launch.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/04\/A3141.jpg\" "\\"A314\\"")
A large amount of concern was forthcoming via four evaluation presentations (all available on L2), which reviewed the lightning strikes observed near the pad. Thankfully, none were classed as direct strikes, via the array of instrumentation and protection which is in-situ at the pad complex.<\/p>\n\u201cOne Lightning Strike Determined to be within 0.45NM, but not within 0.30NM. GSE (Ground Support Equipment) Walkdowns for Lightning. GSE\/Facility Lightning Strike Walkdowns \u2013 were performed and Complete for 30 March 2011 Strikes,\u201d noted one of the presentations.<\/p>\n
\u201c31 March Lightning Strike confirmed (by OTV \u2013 TV cameras) to be at Sea, away from LC-39. Did not Trigger 2nd Run of Seq 12, but Walkdowns occurred after both Events. No Damage Found.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cLighting assessment: Lightning was detected in the vicinity of KSC LC-39 on March 30 and 31, 2011. Concurs with the April 5 joint ERB conclusions that there are no issues, and retests are not recommended for SSP systems due to that lightning.\u201d<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/04\/A414.jpg\" "\\"A4\\"")
High winds from the storms were also evaluated, this time focusing on the associated hardware with the Ground Umbilical Carrier Plate (GUCP). The concern relates to the wind loads on the vent arm potentially translating on to the GUCP, causing a potential misalignment to form \u2013 something which engineers would wish to avoid given the recent leaks from the hardware, including STS-133\u2019s ET-137.<\/p>\n\u201cWinds on 3-30-2011 at Pad A were recorded to 78.7-knot from the Southwest (2200-2600). The following concerns due to the high winds will addressed:. Concern 1: Did the high winds move the vehicle outside of the tested excursions? Concern 2: Are the loads induced into the Umbilical including 7-Inch QD\/GUCP by the high winds a concern?\u201d<\/p>\n
Thankfully, the evaluations resulted in positive results, as the analysis showed the 78.7-knot gust was within tested limits, noting the Haunch Pivot Arm angle was within tested limits and that the axial load into 7-inch QD, GUCP and Pyrotechnic bolt were all within the required parameters.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/04\/A515.jpg\" "\\"A5\\"")
\u201cAnalysis shows the 78.7-Knot gust recorded is well within the tested system limits. Pivot Arm and Vent Line angles are less than tested excursions. Pivot Arm angle controls axial load in Vent Line. Calculations show a 5.25 safety factor at the 7-In\/GUCP Interface,\u201d added the GUCP specific presentation.<\/p>\n\u201cThe peak gust was 30 degrees perpendicular to vent line centerline (perpendicular wind used in calculation). Inter-tank access arm helps protect the vent line from winds (not used in calculations). 2 g\u2019s dynamic factor very conservative.<\/p>\n
\u201cPending completion of nominal planned work, the GH2 vent line including 7-in QD\/GUCP are ready to support STS-134 launch countdown.\u201d<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/04\/A68.jpg\" "\\"A6\\"")
The final evaluation related to the hail damage to the top of ET-122, which only resulted in minor Thermal Protection System (TPS) damage, well within acceptable limits.<\/p>\n\u201cAssessment: External Tank assessment of 03\/30-03\/31 severe weather event and affect on ET-122,\u201d noted the Lockheed Martin presentation on the tank. \u201cActions Taken: Performed visual and hands on inspection of ET hardware. Impacts primarily on the -Y \/ -Z quadrant. No indications \/ impacts observed on composite nose cone.<\/p>\n
\u201cVisual indications \/ minor damage observed on LO2 tank and Intertank acreage TPS and components. Majority of TPS impacts < 0.10\u201d deep. Characterized as superficial or witness marks (no discernible depth). Performed sampling of \u2018worst-case\u2019 depths using scale (defects >0.10\u201d deep). Performed loads evaluation of 78.7 kt peak wind. Peak wind condition exceeds design certification environment (74.5 kt).\u201d<\/p>\n
Although the flight rationale was always expected \u2013 given the lack of any noticeable damage \u2013 the depth of the evaluation is a testament to the amount of data and flight history the Shuttle Program utilizes to ensure they are confident the flight hardware is in an acceptable condition.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/04\/A75.jpg\" "\\"A7\\"")
\u201cRationale for Acceptance Summary: Composite hardware is damage tolerant. No visual indications. Testing at 20 ft-lbs impact energy result barely visible damage. Max impact energy for ET-122 hail event is 0.62 ft-lbs (0.47\u201d hail at 107 mph winds),\u201d the presentation added.<\/p>\n\u201cBounded by ET-124 Max impact energy of 5.92 ft-lbs. Residual hail defect locations do not provide a leak path across the GO2 Vent Seal Land surface. Similar to condition accepted after launch scrub (after vent hood retraction). No continuous leak path over face of dock seal land. Aero recession performance assessed to be nominal.<\/p>\n
\u201cET-122 damage is bounded by ET-124 hail damage testing. Surrounding TPS analyzed at higher recession rates around the cavity. Residual crushed foam ablates at nominal rates as demonstrated by test (crush damage 5, 10, 15 and 20 percent for 1\u201d thick TPS). Crushed foam liberates as normal ablation products. Thermal assessment. No impact to ascent or entry requirements.\u201d<\/p>\n
ET-124\u2019s data is highlighted by the evaluations, due to the damage it suffered from a hail storm ahead of the STS-117 launch in 2007, resulting in the rollback of the stack for repairs in the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB). However, the presentation also used data from ET-129 as part of the rationale. Even post-Return To Flight data was used to back up the readiness of the tank to fly.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/04\/A85.jpg\" "\\"A8\\"")
\u201cCondition enveloped by similar condition analyzed for STS-126 \/ ET-129. No impact to icing and launch probability requirements. Configuration of ET-122 hail damage sites would be encompassed by the icing tests done for ET-124 hail damage to meet an 85 percent Launch Probability requirement. No impact to propellant quality requirements. Insignificant quantity of impact sites to affect propellant quality.<\/p>\n\u201cTPS Debris Assessment: Undetected crushed foam due to collateral damage was a major emphasis during RTF II. Large amount of mechanical property and performance testing previously performed to understand performance of both detected and undetected crushed foam. Results of tests showed no impact to TPS performance for crush levels (up to) 20 percent (visually detectable).\u201d<\/p>\n
With the ERB debating the status of the vehicle ahead of the PRCB, along with the PRCB then providing the documentation to clear the tank to fly, the Agency FRR did not have to spend much time in concurring with the evaluations, and passing ET-122 to fly as-is.<\/p>\n
Another article will follow on the specifics of ET-122\u2019s FRR documentation, including the previous tank (ET-137) performance during STS-133\u2019s launch \u2013 and the history of the 10 year old tank which is set to fly with Endeavour.<\/p>\n
(Numerous articles will follow. L2 members refer to STS-134 coverage sections for internal coverage, presentations, images and and updates from engineers and managers. Images used: All via L2 content and L2 presentations).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Managers at the Agency Flight Readiness Review (FRR) have \u2013 as expected \u2013 approved April 29 as the launch date for STS-134. The meeting also discussed the health of Endeavour\u2019s External Tank (ET-122), following a bout of severe storm weather at Pad 39A at the end of March \u2013 resulting in high wind loads on […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":29623,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[9021,3610,9122,3366],"class_list":["post-40477","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","tag-et","tag-frr","tag-gucp","tag-sts-134"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40477"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=40477"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40477\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/29623"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40477"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=40477"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=40477"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}