vinson@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Jack Vinson) (08/10/90)
Hello everyone, I saw a very small blurb in the paper this past Sunday which said NASA was so confident it had cleared up the hydrogen leak in the shuttles that it wouldn't be testing for the leak again. Is this true? I don't think this makes sense, unless their tests during the fix were extensive enough to preclude the pre-flight tests. Jack vinson@linc.cis.upenn.edu
gsh7w@astsun8.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg S. Hennessy) (08/10/90)
Jack Vinson writes:
#Hello everyone,
# I saw a very small blurb in the paper this past Sunday which
#said NASA was so confident it had cleared up the hydrogen leak in the
#shuttles that it wouldn't be testing for the leak again. Is this true?
#I don't think this makes sense, unless their tests during the fix were
#extensive enough to preclude the pre-flight tests.
What got reported to the press is not exactly what happened. The
tanking test is not going to be done, because it takes up five days,
and would not really give any useful data. That is, if the shuttle
passes the test, that does not mean it will NOT leak on the pad, but
does mean that the launch window is only about 15 days long. If you
don't do the test then the launch window is about 20 days. In either
case, the important thing is if the shuttle leaks on the pad, and the
test won't definitely tell us that. The existing procedures are
sufficient to detect a leaky shuttle on the pad, so safety is not
compromised.
Therefore, since the tanking test is of marginal utility, while
imposing a large time constraint, it will not be done. Of course, if
it turns out that Columbia leaks on the pad, the mission will be
delayed till about November, and NASA will look quite foolish.
I don't speak for NASA.
--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
Internet: gsh7w@virginia.edu
UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7weshop4@ma.ecn.purdue.edu (Electronic Shop Part-Timers) (08/11/90)
this is a test !
gdtltr@freezer.it.udel.edu (Gary Duzan) (08/11/90)
Organization: Brain Dead Innovations (BDI) Lines: 18 Nntp-Posting-Host: strawberry.it.udel.edu In article <1990Aug10.190646.2607@ecn.purdue.edu> eshop4@ma.ecn.purdue.edu (Electronic Shop Part-Timers) writes: => => this is a test ! I'm afraid you have a problem. Your article leaked out all over the net. Maybe we should send your news software back to the hangar for repairs. :-) Gary Duzan Time Lord Third Regeneration -- gdtltr@freezer.it.udel.edu _o_ -------------------------- _o_ [|o o|] If you can square, round, or cube a number, why not sphere it? [|o o|] |_O_| "Don't listen to me; I never do." -- Doctor Who |_O_|
gdtltr@freezer.it.udel.edu (Gary Duzan) (08/11/90)
In article <1990Aug10.190646.2607@ecn.purdue.edu> eshop4@ma.ecn.purdue.edu (Electronic Shop Part-Timers) writes: => => this is a test ! I'm afraid you have a problem. Your article leaked out all over the net. Maybe we should send your news software back to the hangar for repairs. :-) Gary Duzan Time Lord Third Regeneration -- gdtltr@freezer.it.udel.edu _o_ -------------------------- _o_ [|o o|] If you can square, round, or cube a number, why not sphere it? [|o o|] |_O_| "Don't listen to me; I never do." -- Doctor Who |_O_|
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (08/11/90)
In article <27929@netnews.upenn.edu> vinson@linc.cis.upenn.edu.UUCP (Jack Vinson) writes: > I saw a very small blurb in the paper this past Sunday which >said NASA was so confident it had cleared up the hydrogen leak in the >shuttles that it wouldn't be testing for the leak again. Is this true? Not quite. They will be looking very carefully for the leak when they start pouring fuel into the tank before launch. (That's when they found it last time.) They've decided not to try to look for it before then, because preliminary tests would delay the launch and wouldn't gain them anything. If the leak is gone, knowing that fact well before launch wouldn't speed things up. And if it's still there, there is little practical difference between finding out in a test and finding out during fueling, because either way the launch would slip until after the Ulysses launch. So it's not worth putting in extra effort and delaying the launch several days to run an early test. -- It is not possible to both understand | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology and appreciate Intel CPUs. -D.Wolfskill| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
hamish@waikato.ac.nz (08/16/90)
In article <27929@netnews.upenn.edu>, vinson@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Jack Vinson) writes: > Hello everyone, > I saw a very small blurb in the paper this past Sunday which > said NASA was so confident it had cleared up the hydrogen leak in the > shuttles that it wouldn't be testing for the leak again. Is this true? > I don't think this makes sense, unless their tests during the fix were > extensive enough to preclude the pre-flight tests. > Are you serious? I thought that after Hubble Trouble, NASA would have learnt their lesson on not testing things properly. Sounds to me like another orbiter down if this continues. > Jack > vinson@linc.cis.upenn.edu -- ============================================================================== | Hamish Marson | Internet hamish@waikato.ac.nz | | Computer Support Person | Phone (071)562889 xt 8181 | | Computer Science Department | Amiga 3000 for ME! | | University of Waikato | | ============================================================================== |Disclaimer: Anything said in this message is the personal opinion of the | | finger hitting the keyboard & doesn't represent my employers | | opinion in any way. (ie we probably don't agree) | ==============================================================================
hamish@waikato.ac.nz (08/16/90)
In article <1240.26ca968d@waikato.ac.nz>, hamish@waikato.ac.nz writes: > In article <27929@netnews.upenn.edu>, vinson@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Jack Vinson) writes: >> Masses of crud deleted! OK. Thanks for the clarification of a test that was deleted because it didn't work. Anyway... Can someone explain why the Atlantis is being DE-mated from its external tank. If it is to be done, why was it mated in the first place. (No flame just a question). Seems like a lot of work, for no net result, or is there a really good reason that I've missed (more likely) -- ============================================================================== | Hamish Marson | Internet hamish@waikato.ac.nz | | Computer Support Person | Phone (071)562889 xt 8181 | | Computer Science Department | Amiga 3000 for ME! | | University of Waikato | | ============================================================================== |Disclaimer: Anything said in this message is the personal opinion of the | | finger hitting the keyboard & doesn't represent my employers | | opinion in any way. (ie we probably don't agree) | ==============================================================================
jbayer@ispi.COM (Jonathan Bayer) (08/16/90)
hamish@waikato.ac.nz writes: >In article <1240.26ca968d@waikato.ac.nz>, hamish@waikato.ac.nz writes: > Can someone explain why the Atlantis is being DE-mated from its external >tank. If it is to be done, why was it mated in the first place. (No flame >just a question). Seems like a lot of work, for no net result, or is there >a really good reason that I've missed (more likely) Because they found a leak when they put Atlantis on the pad. JB -- Jonathan Bayer Intelligent Software Products, Inc. (201) 245-5922 500 Oakwood Ave. jbayer@ispi.COM Roselle Park, NJ 07204
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (08/16/90)
In article <1244.26cac73e@waikato.ac.nz> hamish@waikato.ac.nz writes: > Can someone explain why the Atlantis is being DE-mated from its external >tank... Same problem as Columbia: they found a hydrogen leak whose nature can't be pinned down without taking the stack apart to get at the pieces. -- It is not possible to both understand | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology and appreciate Intel CPUs. -D.Wolfskill| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
garym@sugar.hackercorp.com (Gary Morris) (08/21/90)
In article <1240.26ca968d@waikato.ac.nz>, hamish@waikato.ac.nz writes: > In article <27929@netnews.upenn.edu>, vinson@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Jack > > I saw a very small blurb in the paper this past Sunday which > > said NASA was so confident it had cleared up the hydrogen leak in the > > shuttles that it wouldn't be testing for the leak again. Is this true? > > I don't think this makes sense, unless their tests during the fix were > > extensive enough to preclude the pre-flight tests. > > Are you serious? I thought that after Hubble Trouble, NASA would have learned > their lesson on not testing things properly. Sounds to me like another orbiter > down if this continues. They will be doing the leak check when they tank the ET on the day before launch. What they are skipping is doing a mini-tanking test after roll-out. The reasoning is that if it fails the tanking test it doesn't matter whether they find out two weeks before launch or the day before launch, the flight will still have to be scrubbed until after STS-41/Ulysses goes. So they are skipping the mini-tanking test to get STS-35 off a little earlier and still have time to get STS-41 off by the opening of it's window. That's the way I understand what's being done. --GaryM -- Lockheed, A22 UUCP: moray!avocado!garym (home) Houston, Texas Phone: +1 713 283 5195 Space Station Freedom Project