- \n
- STS-132 Live Coverage<\/li>\n
- L2 STS-132 Section<\/li>\n
- Click here to Join L2<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\u201cImagery review complete: 4 items in TIIMS were evaluated,\u201d notes the short, 19-page comprehensive DAT presentation \u2013 available for download on L2.<\/p>\n
In particular, the DAT identified one area of OMS (Orbital Maneuvering System) Pod blanket damage, two lower surface (underbelly) tile damage locations, and one AMES Gap filler protrusion.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, no damage was identified at Atlantis\u2019 port and starboard T0 umbilicals.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/05\/A318.jpg\" "\\"A3\\"")
The presentation moreover notes the tremendously successful effort by Atlantis\u2019crew to obtain all TPS imagery data in a timely manner given the OBSS\u2019s PTU\u2019s (Pan-Tilt Unit\u2019s) inability to maneuver to the proper positions during initial TPS inspections on FD-2 because of an errant cable.<\/p>\n\u201cMissed port imagery Upper LESS carrier panels 7-9 and Chine tiles, ~150 upper surface tiles.\u201d<\/p>\n
Aerospace & Defense
<\/path>NASA educational resources <\/path>Aerospace industry analysis <\/path>\n (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});<\/p>\n
The errant cable was removed as an obstruction to the OBSS\u2019s PTU during EVA-2 and all late-inspection imagery was obtained without issue on FD-11.<\/p>\n
However, Station and EVA assets that were used to complete the necessary coverage of the TPS tiles by FD-5 of the mission, which resulted in a DAT and OPO recommendation to clear the TPS (save the RCC \u2013 Reinforced Carbon-Carbon \u2013 panels) for reentry.<\/p>\n
STS-132 Specific Articles: http:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/tag\/sts-132\/<\/p>\n
Specific DAT TPS Clearance Review:<\/p>\n
As is standard in the post-Columbia era, Atlantis\u2019 R-bar Pitch Maneuver (RPM) just prior to docking with the International Space Station provided valuable data on the health of her underbelly TPS \u2013 specifically, verification of ET Umbilical door closure.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/05\/A417.jpg\" "\\"A4\\"")
\u201cLighting and viewing angles sufficient for assessment of forward edge,\u201d notes the presentation. The paint stripe used to verify ET door closure was \u2013 as expected \u2013 not visible from RPM photography, confirming Atlantis\u2019 computer data that the ET doors are closed and properly sealed for entry.<\/p>\n\u201cClosure indicators not visible in imagery and no evidence of off nominal steps or thermal barrier protrusions [are present]. ET Doors are closed.\u201d<\/p>\n
Interestingly enough, all TPS damage locations for STS-132 are located on the port (or left-side) of Atlantis, with the two tile damage areas located on the port Nose Landing Gear Door (NLGD) and just outboard of the left-aft corner of the Port ET Umbilical door (and just inboard of the forward, starboard corner of the inboard Elevon), respectively.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/05\/A516.jpg\" "\\"A5\\"")
For the damage location on the NLGD, the DAT summary notes that the tile in question is 1.7-inches thick with a missing \u201cputty repair\u201d of 1.2-inches in length, 0.6-inches in width, and 0.1-inches in depth.<\/p>\nResulting damage dimensions are estimated at 1.89-inches in length and 0.49-inches in width with \u201cphotogrammetry determined depth [at] 0.2-inches.\u201d<\/p>\n
This damage area is of no concern for entry and was cleared using P-DAT.<\/p>\n
The second tile damage location was similarly cleared using the Port Wing Tile Damage Analysis Tool, which includes the Peer Reviewed categories of Baseline Heating, Cavity Heating, Thermal Analysis, Tile Stress, and overall Stress.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/05\/A611.jpg\" "\\"A6\\"")
These tools yielded \u201chigh\u201d confidence in the damage analysis to the tile in question. Overall, this tile is 1.15-inches thick with photogrammetry damage estimated at 2.25-inches long, 0.97-inches wide, and 0.15-inches deep (+\/- 0.05-inches).<\/p>\nHowever, clearance of this tile damage could not be had without consideration of the upstream AMES Gap filler which could affect the airflow and local heating environment around the damaged tile.<\/p>\n
\u201cThermal analysis performed with STS-132 EOM M18 (Mach 18) heating due to upstream AMES gap filler,\u201d notes the presentation.<\/p>\n
For this protruding AMES Gap filler, \u201cThermal bounded by previous analysis that showed transition at M=18 (keq=.25) acceptable in this area,\u201d notes the DAT summary.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/05\/A79.jpg\" "\\"A7\\"")
Furthermore, a \u201cPartial transition load comparison based on aeroheating heat loads\u201d was performed as well.<\/p>\nA reference point to a previous analysis \u201cwhich used partial transition load cases\u201d developed for nonstandard processes was also used to clear the gap filler itself.<\/p>\n
In all, the AMES Gap filler is protruding 0.24-inches (+\/- 0.15-inches) in a non-reworked area of Atlantis Gap fillers located inboard of the Port Main Landing Gear Door (MLGD).<\/p>\n
Since most of the Gap filler remains in the gap, liberation during reentry is not expected as ascent loads on the Gap filler are \u201cseveral times higher than entry loads.\u201d<\/p>\n
Furthermore, considerable flight history with protruding Gap fillers is on file and was used to clear the Gap filler.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/05\/A86.jpg\" "\\"A8\\"")
In fact, a chart of the historical Gap filler protrusions since Return to Flight in July 2005 showed three Gap filler protrusions with comparable or greater protrusion Height Maximums (Hmax); STS-124: Hmax= 0.23-inches; STS-120: Hmax= 0.29-inches; and STS-121: Hmax= 1.04-inches.<\/p>\nHowever, given the range of height uncertainty (+\/-0.15-inches) with this particular Gap filler, it is possible that the Gap filler could trip the Boundary Layer at Mach 18 during reentry, creating a potential off-nominal heating effect on downstream areas of the vehicle, most notably the damage site of damaged TPS tile #2.<\/p>\n
Therefore, while the Gap filler itself was cleared for entry, its affect on the lower surface aft TPS tile damage location had to be evaluated before that TPS tile damage site could be cleared for entry.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/05\/A93.jpg\" "\\"A9\\"")
In all, it was determined that if the boundary layer is tripped at March 18 by the protruding Gap filler, the structural area directly below the damaged tile would see temperatures below 350\u02daF with just a small potential RTV overtemp: 2.79in2 normal flow.<\/p>\nMaximum structural temperature expected in the region is 246\u02daF, only 6\u02daF above the standard 240\u02daF baseline temperature. Therefore, positive structural margin is maintained and no concern exists for the damaged TPS tile due to upstream affects from the protruding Gap filler.<\/p>\n
Finally, the last area of Atlantis\u2019 TPS to come under scrutiny from the DAT was a partially frayed outer layer on one FI blanket on the Port OMS pod.<\/p>\n
The blanket in question is 1.6-inches thick and all blanket insulation remains intact \u2013 thus, thermal performance is maintained. Liberation is not expected due to previous experience with \u201cfrayed outer covers and loose patch repairs.\u201d<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/05\/A103.jpg\" "\\"A10\\"")
Currently, it is believed that the blanket was damaged on the ground during final vehicle configuration for flight as the blanket is located next to a door that is removed each flow for access inside Atlantis.<\/p>\nIn all, the extremely clean nature of Atlantis\u2019 TPS tiles has led to the unanimous decision by the OPO and DAT to recommend the TPS tiles and blankets cleared for reentry.<\/p>\n
Final clearance of the entire TPS (including the all-important RCC panels and nose cap) was approved earlier this morning by the MMT following a complete review of the RCC Wing Leading Edge panels and nose cap imagery from the OBSS late-inspections yesterday.<\/p>\n
Thus, weather permitting, Atlantis has been cleared for her final landing at the Shuttle Landing Facility (SLF) Wednesday morning.<\/p>\n
If all goes according to plan, Commander Ken Ham will ease Atlantis onto runway 33 (the southeast to northwest approach to the SLF) at the Kennedy Space Center at 0844 EDT, capping a near 12-day flight for Atlantis and the STS-132\/ULF-4 mission.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
As Atlantis\u2019 crew complete final checkouts for entry and arrival back home at the Kennedy Space Center, the Damage Assessment Team (DAT) have successfully concluded their thorough review of Atlantis\u2019 fragile Thermal Protection System (TPS) \u2013 clearing the vehicle\u2019s heat shield for entry. Two landing attempts available for Atlantis on Wednesday morning \u2013 the first at […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":29567,"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":[9171,9197,3485,7935],"class_list":["post-40769","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","tag-dat","tag-mmt","tag-sts-132","tag-tps"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40769"}],"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=40769"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40769\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/29567"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40769"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=40769"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=40769"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}