\n
**Over 2000mb of STS-116 onwards related presentions and mission documentation <\/em>available on L2<\/em> \u2013 including three presentations associated with this article**<\/em><\/p>\n **LIVE news updates on Discovery STS-116 Processing and Pad Flow**<\/em><\/p>\n **LIVE news updates on Atlantis STS-117 (STS-317) Processsing Flow**<\/em><\/p>\n The 50 foot long arm, which includes the OBSS (Orbiter Boom Sensor System) instrumentation package \u2013 integral for scanning the TPS (Thermal Protection System) of the orbiter \u2013 can\u2019t be carried into orbit on those three missions due to weight restrictions, interferences and\/or unacceptable clearances between the boom and the ISS cargo elements.<\/font><\/p>\n The decision to cancel the MiniBoom, which \u2013 as the name suggests \u2013 was a shorter version of the current OBSS system, has been confirmed, along with the approval to build the third OBSS IBA (Integrated Boom Assembly) at the cost of several million dollars.<\/p>\n **Click here for orginal article on MiniBoom requirement and additional images**<\/em><\/p>\n Further mission evaluations will be taken on situation, following a \u2018decision to discontinue development of MiniBoom in favor of \u2018something with OBSS\u2019,\u2019 according to presentations acquired by this site (and published on L2). <\/font><\/p>\n Those evaluations include: \u2018Budget for OBSS sustaining engineering. Decision on whether to stow OBSS on ISS. Decision on which flight to stow OBSS on ISS. Budget for MiniBoom close-out costs. Budget to fix 1E (STS-122) to accommodate OBSS. Budget to fix 1J\/A (STS-123) to accommodate OBSS. Budget to stow OBSS on ISS.\u2019<\/p>\n NASA also evaluated that the OBSS may only be a major issue on one of the \u2018IP\u2019 flights, (STS-124), noting: \u2018The number of problem flights can be reduced to just one. Solution exists to fly OBSS on STS-122 (1E), by removing Columbus PDGF pre-flight and reinstall EVA prior to Columbus deploy. <\/font><\/p>\n \u2018Solution exists to fly OBSS on STS-123 (1J\/A), by modifying redundant Starboard FRGF on ELM-PS, (but) no solution exists to fly OBSS on STS-124 (1J).\u2019<\/p>\n NASA appears to be in favor of \u2018bringing the OBSS to ISS on STS-120\/10A (or 1J\/A), (stowing it on the ISS), and return it on STS-124\/1J,\u2019 thus eliminating the issue of cargo bay restrictions. However, all options appear to affect the current baselines for the affected missions, including focused inspections.<\/font><\/p>\n STS-124 is now what NASA will concentrate on options for inspections, with \u2018at least two potentially viable 1J timeline options available: Docked inspection, which requires 2 EVAs. Inspect with OBSS prior to JPM berthing. Limited inspection of starboard wing. <\/font><\/p>\n \u2018Option two: Post undock inspection. All required EVA tasks combined into one EVA. Inspect with OBSS post undock.\u2019<\/p>\n \u2018(However), both options carry some risk. SRMS elbow camera may need to be removed due to dynamic clearance violations. This would result in inadequate situational awareness for undocked inspections. If don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t dock, will not have OBSS available to perform inspection\/repairs. Full ascent debris inspection not performed until post undock. Rely on FD02 SRMS inspection and FD03 RPM. <\/font><\/p>\n Aerospace & Defense (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});<\/p>\n \u2018May impact CSCS (Crew Shuttle Contingency Support) capability. Requires additional docked days to complete primary mission objectives.\u2019<\/p>\n MiniBoom Interestingly, on NASA\u2019s own conclusions over the viability of either the MiniBoom option, or the requirement to build a third IBA, they appeared to favour the MiniBoom.<\/font><\/p>\n \u2018MiniBoom: Offers very good RCC inspection. Requires crewmember for far-aft tile inspection \/ repair. Has medium-high project risk. No impact to ISSP IPs.<\/font><\/p>\n \u2018OBSS on ISS: Need 3rd OBSS to meet manifest. Limited RCC coverage while docked. Some impact to Flights 1E and 1J\/A. Significant impact to Flight 1J. Has low project risk.\u2019<\/p>\n \u2018Assuming mission duration is increased over the current 8+1+2 based on increased ascent performance, an option exists to complete the 1J primary mission objectives (install JPM and activate both avionics channels) and provide fault tolerance to the newly installed element.<\/font><\/p>\n \u2018No option provides ability to complete ascent debris assessment early in the mission. With the OBSS option, only a single inspection option is protected in all options with some capability to provide additional focused inspection if necessary.<\/font><\/p>\n \u2018From an ISSP and JAXA perspective, building and flying the MiniBoom is the best option. It minimizes the most risk, results in less weight, and has the least impact to the IPs. But we can meet the JAXA primary mission objectives without the MiniBoom if we accommodate the following impacts:<\/font><\/p>\n \u2018Incur cost to remove the starboard FRGF on the ELM-PS. Loss of post undocked late inspection capability on Flight 1 J\/A. Loss of quality pre-docked inspection capability on Flight 1J. Additional docked mission requirements needed to use and return the OBSS on Flight 1J.<\/p>\n However, importantly, NASA conclude that \u2018we believe we can find a way to make the IP flights work without funding the Mini Boom (note that JAXA has made it very clear that they require the additional mission duration to accommodate their critical tasks on Flight 1J).\u2019<\/p>\n Moving on to the production of a third IBA, NASA will use some of the currently available hardware to make up the new boom.<\/font><\/p>\n \u2018A 3rd OBSS Sensor Package 1 is in development and can be completed under the OBSS sustaining engineering budget. A 3rd OBSS Sensor Package 2 has already been delivered. A 3rd IBA will need to be developed. Use spare SRMS booms. Total number of SRMS units will be reduced from four to three.\u2019<\/font><\/p>\n The three \u2018IP\u2019 missions in question are set to launch in the latter part of 2007, and early 2008 \u2013 although the fluid launch target for STS-125, to service the Hubble Space Telescope for a final time, could pay a role in at least one launch date change for the three aforementioned flights. **INFINITY: 10 minute STS-115 MUSIC VIDEO**<\/font><\/em> \u2013 **NASASpaceflight.com Job Opportunities**<\/em><\/font> <\/p>\n <\/font> NASA have decided to cancel the new MiniBoom, that was to replace the OBSS (Orbiter Boom Sensor System) on three future Shuttle missions, in favor of building a third IBA (Integrated Boom Assembly). Clearance issues with the orbiter\u2019s payload bay on flights STS-122\/1E, STS-123\/1J\/A, and STS-124\/1J, mean NASA will now work a plan to build […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"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":[],"class_list":["post-41884","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41884"}],"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=41884"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41884\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41884"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=41884"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=41884"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"\"](\"http:\/\/aercam.nasa.gov\/index_files\/AERCam-56.jpg\")
Interesting, NASA also evaluated whether to bring in another option for TPS inspection, know as AERCam (Autonomous Extravehicular Robotic Camera), which is a free flying vehicle capable of performing inspection and viewing missions. However, \u2018AERCam not feasible due to schedule constraints.\u2019<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/u><\/em><\/p>\n<\/font><\/em>That was also backed up by the JAXA (Japanese Space Agency) Impacts Conclusions: <\/font><\/p>\n
<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n
<\/em>(Video section is FREE, but you need to sign up as a member of the forum to enter the video section of the site. We only use your e-mail to send you your password. It will not be used for spam etc.)<\/em><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n<\/font><\/em><\/em><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"