So more delays then

I was a bit worried to note that they are talking about bypassing wiring.
One supposes then that to rewire the circuit concerned is not feasible with
the orbiter on the pad and.
One has to ask how come this was not spotted before.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!

On Sat, 7 May 2011 08:32:29 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

I was a bit worried to note that they are talking about bypassing wiring.
One supposes then that to rewire the circuit concerned is not feasible with
the orbiter on the pad and.
One has to ask how come this was not spotted before.


They said early on that it worked fine on Endeavour's last flight and
was therefore not a concern.

Brian

In article ,
says...

I was a bit worried to note that they are talking about bypassing wiring.
One supposes then that to rewire the circuit concerned is not feasible with
the orbiter on the pad and.
One has to ask how come this was not spotted before.

If the wiring in question is original to the orbiter, age may play a
factor. Both absolute age and the number of flights made (vibration,
vacuum, and etc.).

The orbiters have had trouble with wiring before. It would be
interesting to find out just how old the wiring in question is and if
there is something which contributed to the problem. An example would
be that the wire isn't secured enough to withstand the vibrations of a
shuttle launch.

Those (stinking) SRB's vibrate *a lot*. This is one of the reasons I
despise solids. Their vibration forces the rest of the launch vehicle,
spacecraft, payloads, and etc. to be designed to tolerate the vibration.
Liquids are far more benign in this regard, as long as issues like POGO
don't come into play.

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011