Shuttle docked to ISS pictures

In article
tatelephone,
says...

They finally got the digital photos of the Endeavour docked to the ISS
released, and they are mighty spectacular:
http://www.onorbit.com/node/3474
The camera memory card they were on accidentally got left on the Soyuz
after landing, and they only got it back after the Soyuz was transported
back from the recovery site.

Very nice pictures. I'd say they were well worth the price, but that
might be a stretch. ;-)

Seriously though, the ISS solar arrays (the big US arrays) seem to be
pointed every which way. I'm sure there is some logic behind that, like
you don't want the arrays in back to be in the shadow of the ones in
front. Still, it looks a bit weird, especially that shot from the side
where the arrays in front are rotated a bit clockwise, but the ones in
back are rotated a bit counter-clockwise.

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

They finally got the digital photos of the Endeavour docked to the ISS
released, and they are mighty spectacular:
http://www.onorbit.com/node/3474
The camera memory card they were on accidentally got left on the Soyuz
after landing, and they only got it back after the Soyuz was transported
back from the recovery site.

Pat

On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 08:52:21 -0400, Jeff Findley
wrote:


Seriously though, the ISS solar arrays (the big US arrays) seem to be
pointed every which way. I'm sure there is some logic behind that, like
you don't want the arrays in back to be in the shadow of the ones in
front. Still, it looks a bit weird, especially that shot from the side
where the arrays in front are rotated a bit clockwise, but the ones in
back are rotated a bit counter-clockwise.

The arrays are in free-drift (not holding attitude or sun-tracking)
during proximity operations, something about thruster plumes from
visiting spacecraft not ripping them... instead they'd just "rotate
with the wind" if a plume reaches them. This all goes back to the
SkyLab ad-hoc sunshield that flapped like crazy when blown by Apollo
thruster plumes.

Compare to the photos taken by the amateur astronomer on Earth, where
the arrays are all nicely lined up.

Brian

On 6/8/2011 4:52 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:

Seriously though, the ISS solar arrays (the big US arrays) seem to be
pointed every which way. I'm sure there is some logic behind that, like
you don't want the arrays in back to be in the shadow of the ones in
front. Still, it looks a bit weird, especially that shot from the side
where the arrays in front are rotated a bit clockwise, but the ones in
back are rotated a bit counter-clockwise.

They try to minimize rotation of the side that has the bad gearbox that
metal shavings were found in. So I assume they just set it at a angle
where it's just approximately aimed at the Sun and live with the
decreased power output.

Pat

On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 18:09:52 -0800, Pat Flannery
wrote:


Seriously though, the ISS solar arrays (the big US arrays) seem to be
pointed every which way.

They try to minimize rotation of the side that has the bad gearbox that
metal shavings were found in. So I assume they just set it at a angle
where it's just approximately aimed at the Sun and live with the
decreased power output.

You know what they say happens when you assume!

The SARJ is working normally and has been since it was repaired in
2008, although NASA pays it special attention, looking for signs of
wear and tear again.

The SAWs are left "in neutral" to prevent thruster plume damage. Here
are photos from the ground showing how the arrays look when a visiting
vehicle isn't coming or going...

http://legault.perso.sfr.fr/STS-134.html

(Note that his arrow doesn't really point to the AMS, which is on the
other end of the truss and on the far side.)

Brian

On 6/8/2011 6:24 PM, Brian Thorn wrote:

You know what they say happens when you assume!

The SARJ is working normally and has been since it was repaired in
2008, although NASA pays it special attention, looking for signs of
wear and tear again.

If it's working so great, how come they were trying to lubricate its
insides on the last mission?

Pat

On 6/8/2011 2:23 PM, Brian Thorn wrote:


The arrays are in free-drift (not holding attitude or sun-tracking)
during proximity operations, something about thruster plumes from
visiting spacecraft not ripping them... instead they'd just "rotate
with the wind" if a plume reaches them. This all goes back to the
SkyLab ad-hoc sunshield that flapped like crazy when blown by Apollo
thruster plumes.

The original Hubble solar arrays took off like bat out of hell after
they were detached and the Shuttle's RCS plume hit them on the solar
array replacement mission.

Pat

In article cK-
hdakotatelephone,
says...

On 6/8/2011 6:24 PM, Brian Thorn wrote:

You know what they say happens when you assume!

The SARJ is working normally and has been since it was repaired in
2008, although NASA pays it special attention, looking for signs of
wear and tear again.

If it's working so great, how come they were trying to lubricate its
insides on the last mission?

Preventative maintenance.

In the long run, it's cheaper for me to periodically repack the front
wheel bearings on my car (1991 Ford Crown Victoria) than to ignore them
and wear them out much sooner. Repacking them costs less than $10 each
time I do it. New (quality) bearings run closer to $100 (for all four
sets), so I can repack them at least 10 times for less cost than one new
set of bearings.

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

On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 00:16:25 -0800, Pat Flannery
wrote:

On 6/8/2011 6:24 PM, Brian Thorn wrote:

You know what they say happens when you assume!

The SARJ is working normally and has been since it was repaired in
2008, although NASA pays it special attention, looking for signs of
wear and tear again.

If it's working so great, how come they were trying to lubricate its
insides on the last mission?

They didn't. The starboard SARJ is the one that failed in 2008.
STS-134 lubricated the port SARJ as preventive maintenance, because no
one is really sure why the first one went glitchy.

Brian

On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 21:24:04 -0500, Brian Thorn
wrote:


http://legault.perso.sfr.fr/STS-134.html

(Note that his arrow doesn't really point to the AMS, which is on the
other end of the truss and on the far side.)

He has since updated the photo to correctly point to AMS.

Brian