Good luck STS-121

Good luck to the STS-121 crew, I'm sure Star is busy working today!!

I just wanted to take my hat off to everyone who works hard at NASA, not least the people who bring us NASA TV, I've been watching it for a while now, even though launch is still 8 hours or so away. (Right in the middle of Dr Who, here in the UK! - Well, I can record Dr Who )

We were trying to get over to Florida for this, but will have to wait until next time. I'm insanely jealous of anyone going to view the launch.

 

Good Luck and God Speed indeed! For those without a good TV viewing option, you can watch it here:

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html

 

Good luck indeed!

I'm watching now

Oh... scrubbed...

Oh well, I'll be watching tomorow

 

Scrubbed and England are out of the world cup

I'm going finding a tall building

 

Dr Who about to re-start in OZ this coming week. Bazza

===

 

At least it's just a weather delay, not hardware. I wonder when's the last time Star17 got any sleep?

 

I hope everything goes smoothly for the launch, when it does happen. Good luck and God speed to all involved with STS-121.

Special thoughts go to Star, who must be short on sleep, and long on stress, a.t.m.

 

Hmm! I can only imagine what it's like .... dissapointing to say the least!

Dr Who was *CRAZY* though Seriously, how on Earth is he going to save the Earth this time?

 

Sounds like there is only a 30% chance of a launch today, rising to 60% chance on Monday, then the weather gets worse again They are currently 'no-go'. The tension must build each and every time they go through this.

I think the Earth is doomed! Probably get everyone over to another parallel Earth (minus who know who - don't want to let any spoilers out for the two people left who don't know what's going to happen! - Phantom?)

 

Oh you'd be surprised at what I know, heh!, heh! The good Doctor and I go back a looong way. (Both backward and forward on the space-time continuum).

 

Sounds like next attemt will be Tuedsay, the 4th, which is good news for all us working stiffs in the U.S. that will be off that day. Maybe Dr. Who can shift all the weather to a parallel universe and leave it clear and sunny Tuesday.

 

I'm back in work on Tuesday, but should be home by launch time

Right, may as well go out for a drink this evening after the end of the USA Formula 1.

G'Night all.

 

Hi Rex, nice to see you around again. If you hear from mispon, tell her to bounce over this way sometime.

Yes, trying again on Tuesday. Very frustrating, but can't do anything about the weather. Anvil clouds aren't the most treacherous things around, but if you try to launch a spaceship through them, the created by-product is static electricity, which is not friendly to electronics, avionics & pyrotechnic devices, much less the human nervous system.

 

Hey Star, do you get a day off now, or still more tests/simulations?

I can understand NASA being careful, but wouldn't the shuttle withstand a lightning strike as aircraft do? I'm not saying you should have launched, far from it, I have to admit that if I was flying then I would be all in favour of scrubbing today but I am playing Devils advocate; how cautious is too cautious?

Although, thinking about it, normal aircraft don't have half a million gallons of hydrogen/oxygen mix strapped to them! But I would have thought the computers would be OK?

Looking forward to Tuesday, hope all goes well, relax if you can!! I don't spend so much time here in the evenings (I got married 4 weeks ago ) but do tend to have a nose around when I'm in work. Will tell Mispon to stick her nose in when I talk to her next.

 

Actually, while lightning strikes don't often crash airplanes, they DO do damage to them. And the inspection/repair process after a strike is fairly major, and can be expensive. And the anvil topped clouds can have some very violent wind shear, which even airplanes avoid. Mother nature isn't always gentle, and I'd not want to launch through that either.

 

I didn't realise serious damage was done, I thought it was generally shrugged off. I read somewhere about the amount of current the the airframe must be designed to carry and assumed the computer controls were kept isolated.

 

Lightning strike is always a crap shoot. Lightning TENDS to flow over the surface, but attractions for it can be weird, and can punch holes, damage engines, causes strong magnetizing of steel components that you don't want magnetized, cause instruments to read weirdly, and can indeed fry electronics if it get's to any of the wiring. Doesn't always, but it can.

Where I used to work, we had a Piper Navajo (8 seat piston twin engine) get hit sitting on the ramp outside our hangar in the night. Hit the prop tips on both engines (lightning likes points), went through the engines, airframe, exited at the three landing gear, blowing dinner plate sized chunks out or the concrete by each wheel, and throwing concrete chunks up to 20 feet. Strong stuff. Welded/pitted the prop and engine bearings, put some holes in the skin, magnetized lots of steel landing gear bolts and pieces, some other sundry damage. A running engine that gets hit normally doesn't stop, but damage to the bearings will cause it to fail way early, requiring engine teardown inspection for any engine strike immediately.

 

Cool story GT, lightning's freaking stuff,what happened to the props,were they wooden,did they split

Anyone sneak them off to the lathe to make a baseball bat

Doctor who first time I'v ever watced the new series and its was fantastic,kept me absolutely hooked,the new doctor is hilarious

Its just as freaky now as when I was a toddler,at least now I dont have to go to bed straight away after it and have nightmares

 

LOL. Nah, they haven't used wood props since the 30s except for some small home-built planes. Aluminum. Tips were melted some.

 

The shuttle itself creates static electricity just from the air friction and I believe it would attract lighting even more just like the lightning chasers in Florida who use a grounded rocket to attract lightning to itself so that they can study it.

 

From what I heard from the bods doing the press conference on NASA TV they said that the static that builds up from normal flight (which must be pretty high!) is normally accounted for, but any excess potential in the atmosphere would mean that the danger of a strike would be increased quite a lot.

Not that I'm a rocket scientist but I imagine static must be quite a problem for a spacecraft, since once you've flown through the atmosphere you will have picked up quite a lot of charge (or rather lost a lot of electrons). I guess it helps that most of the vehicle is jetisoned and sent back to Earth, presumabley taking a lot of the charge with it. There must be some pretty nifty ways to ensure that the majority of accumulated charge is kept on the jettisoned pieces .... or perhaps not given the size of the tank it takes care of itself.

Hmm!

 

Spoilers for doctor who fans,look away!







The Darleks said exterminate but they didnt say humans,the darleks are gonna exterminate the cybermen,then the doctor will mop up

EDIT GT are the props solid aluminium,hollow,huneycomb? Not used wood since the thirties thats my favourite fact of the day,seems silly they would when you think about it

 

All planes create a static charge from the air flowing over the surfaces. Trailing edges of wings and tail surfaces have what are called static wicks, or static dischargers, thin stiff wire with bare ends at the rear on small planes, solid plastic with hard pointed spikes on larger planes, to bleed off the static charge in the slipstream. One of our old customers with a Cessna 414 (about the size of the Navajo mentioned earlier) bought the plane after it had been repainted, and for several years, had problems with static in the radios that avionics shops could not identify or fix, and a lot of pinholes in the rubber de-ice boots on the leading edges of the wings and tail. (The deice boots can be inflated/deflated a small amount to flex and break up any ice that forms on the leading edges.) When we got the plane in for inspection, we noticed that it had NO static wicks on it; should have had a total of about 14 on a plane that size. Whoever painted the plane evidently filled in the mounting holes and painted it over, so it wasn't glaringly obvious. Nobody noticed the lack for those several years, although any competent mechanic SHOULD have. (The holes in the deice boots were from mini-lightning strikes on the leading edge because of the high static charge.) We put the wicks on like it was SUPPOSED to have, replaced his boots, and that cured his problems.

 

Well, wood was adequate for the low horsepower and fair-weather flying that was the norm back then, and shaping the complex curves was easier in wood than trying to carve it from aluminum (cast aluminum back then wasn't very strong) although flying through rain would beat the wood props to death pretty quickly; they added a thin brass cover over the leading edges to stand up to rain fairly quickly. One long piece of wood cut to shape for strength; centrifical force puts a lot of strain on any prop.

Some of the small homebuilts still use wood, some with more than 2 blades, but we're talking small diameter/low horsepower for those.

As horsepower and thrust increased, eventually they needed more than two blades; to get more thrust, other than blade shape and size (limited by how much weight you could spin without it coming apart), you need to increase RPM or lengthen the blades, and with props TOO long and/or spinning TOO fast, the tips could go supersonic, and the shock wave again beat the props apart, so they needed 3 & 4 bladed props to handle the load. A few planes, like the British Hawker Sea Fury went to 5 blades to handle the horsepower. (Modern props are stronger, and can have wider/heavier blades to move more air than old planes.) Couldn't make a large wood prop with more than two blades, (wood wasn't strong enough, other than the single piece with the grain running through it) so they went to aluminum. Then they went to a strong center hub with beefy bearings at the base of the blades to allow the props to rotate for pitch control, which made them more versatile and efficient, and allowed you to feather the props (turn the blades straight into the airflow for minimum drag) for engine failure, which improved your glide, and improved control on multi-engine planes with an engine out. Today, only the smallest/cheapest planes still use a "fixed pitch" one piece two bladed prop, although they're now aluminum. Most of even the two blade props are variable pitch. Some of the very large/high performance props are done in composites, which are VERY expensive, but most are still a solid high-strength aluminum alloy for the smaller planes. And prop inspections and overhauls are mandatory. If you throw a blade, the imbalance will rip the engine off it's mount.

 

Looks like the flight will take place on July 4th. Let us hope it is a celebrational launch. Bazza

 

Here here!

 

@GT thanks 4 of July launch,they couldnt have planned it better,a few scrubs leading up to the fourth of July build the tension then BOOM!

 

I agree. Sure hope they get it off.

ps. then we can talk to Star again.

Steve

 

Look's like a go, keep your fingers and toes crossed. Can you believe those guy's found that crack, they are good.

Weather requirements for a shuttle launch:

Temperature

>After tanking (filling of external fuel tank), countdown will stop if temperature exceeds 99 degrees for more than 30 consecutive minutes.

Wind for tanking

>Will not begin if winds exceed 48 mph for three hours.

Wind for launch

>East northeast and north northwest winds cannot exceed 39 miles per hour.

>South southeast & west southwest winds cannot exceed 23 miles per hour.

>Upper level wind speeds must conform to a wind profile determined 30 minutes before launch and confirmed by several weather balloon launches from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station.

Precipitation

>None at launch site or within flight path.

Lightning for tanking

>Cannot begin if lightning is observed — or will occur over the next three hours — within 5.75 miles from launch pad.

Lightning for launch

>No lightning within 11.5 miles from the pad or planned flight path within 15 minutes before launch.

Clouds

>No clouds within 11.5 miles of the launch pad. If clouds are present, they may not have been associated with thunderstorms within three hours. Clouds must be thin, and be less than or equal to 25 percent of the sky cover.

>Shuttle may not be launched through cloud layer more than 4,500 feet thick.

>Shuttle may not be launched through any type of cloud layer, which extends to an altitude where temperatures are between 32 degrees and -4 degrees Fahrenheit if this cloud is associated with disturbed (unsettled) weather within 5.75 miles of launch pad.

>Shuttle may not be launched through an opaque cloud, which has become detached from a thunderstorm within three hours before launch or within 5.75 miles of debris clouds that show radar return of light rain.

>Shuttle may not be launched through cumulous clouds with tops extending past 10,000 feet or within 5.75 miles of cloud tops extending into 18,000 feet or above.

>Shuttle cannot be launched through cumulous clouds within 11.5 miles that extend past 23,000 feet or the nearest edge of any cumulonimbus or thunderstorm cloud and associated anvil.

 

"At T minus 27 minutes and counting this is shuttle launch control" fantastic

 

Looking good and running smooth. Should launch in about 50 minutes.

Looks like none of those no-go conditions are going to stop them today Rikky.

 

Hope not,Ah 4th of july what a better way to celebrate England getting its ass whupped than watching the country that whupped it do something we cant

That was interesting the captain just asked permission to pressurize their suites,GC casually said 'affirm' like yeh that'd be a good idea ,seems alot more vapour being vented below the nozzles than usual,maybe its me being more nervous than normal

33 mins

 

could be another hold at T minus 31 secs to stop the liquid O2 inlet from becoming too cold

 

*sniff, sniff* I'm gonna miss this one...BUT! I'm getting frequent updates via the phone...Chris sounds upbeat and excited...WooHoo!!!

 

You mean he's got time to phone you! They're not working him hard enough.

 

You mean they call that thing a "beanie cap". I was looking for something a little more technical.

Steve

 

WOW! one of the greatest shows on earth,that peice of foam Star had to glue back on stayed stuck,long live crazy Bond

 

Hi Teresa! Tell Chris hi and congratulations when you talk to him. SO much work, time, and emotional involvement in this. He's got to be totally drained. And thank him for holding it up until today so I/we could watch it live, if not in person.

Beautiful launch! http://smilies.vidahost.com/otn/party/beerchug.gif

 

Man! I'm watching the live feed of the shuttle taking off from houston,15 mins later its just passed over me on the GPS feed

Freaky

 

Guess I'll pick it up on today's news. No telecast here at around 4.30am.
Congrats to the USA and NASA (and Star17, of course). Bazza

 

Beautiful !! Happy 4th of July, all. Especially all those good folks at NASA who have been sweating bullets.

 

And that, gentlemen, is how we do that.

 

Well you guy's did a FANTASTIC job, the launch was very exciting. Congratulations my friend.

Steve

 

That was a beautiful sight and I never tire of it even after seeing most of the launches! Now we're on the way to complete the SS and perhaps refresh the Hubble one last time. Excellent work NASA!