Beta Gimbal assy

So, we have a rotating joint problem on the same side as the sarj problem. I
bit of a coincidence, don't you think?

Obviously this assembly was made on a Friday afternoon after a liquid
lunch?
I jest, but if it turns out to be poor manufacture, I wonder what they can
do abhout it?

So, I'm not sure from the description exactly what occurred on Saturday. Was
it a short?
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!

"Brian Gaff" writes:

So, I'm not sure from the description exactly what occurred on Saturday. Was
it a short?
Brian

If you're talking about the launch scrub, the root cause is yet to be
determined.

One of the engine cut off (ECO) sensors flaked out again during
filling of the external tank, and the modified flight rules they were
under indicated that unless all 4 sensors worked without incident,
they weren't gonna fly. One of the sensors repeated its false
alarming tricks of a few days (and few years) back, and they called it
off pending an root cause analysis and a fix.


--
Todd H.
http://toddh.net/

So, we have a rotating joint problem on the same side as the sarj problem. I
bit of a coincidence, don't you think?

Well, there is speculation that the beta gimbal joint problem could
have been a micrometeorite strike he

http://www.floridatoday.com/floridat...ect-joint.html

although they don't elaborate on whether there is evidence for that or
whether it is just one guess among many.

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:13:42 GMT, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

So, we have a rotating joint problem on the same side as the sarj problem. I
bit of a coincidence, don't you think?

Obviously this assembly was made on a Friday afternoon after a liquid
lunch?

Or much more likely, a side effect of the vibrations from the failed
SARJ.

Brian

Yes, I thought that as well. The loose particle sounds the most likely, but
whatever it is it is apparently conductive, which is a little worrying.

So we have magnetised particles in the sarj, and conductive debris in the
bga. Sounds a bit odd to me. Did anyone actually ask how come all the
particles in the Sarj are standing on end as they are apparently in the
photo which was shown?
I thought these units were all kept in clean environments and launched
clean too?

Just trying to think back to the mission which installed this sarj and
whether there were any issues at that time in the processing reported.

Maybe the manufacturers test samples might show something, as the surface
hardening of the race ring should not allow the problem to occur.

If the other surface is the same, they have a problem.

Be interesting to find out what the surface facing down is like.
The rotary joint should be fixable I'd imagine, and its gratifying that only
one is affected.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:13:42 GMT, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

So, we have a rotating joint problem on the same side as the sarj problem.
I
bit of a coincidence, don't you think?

Obviously this assembly was made on a Friday afternoon after a liquid
lunch?

Or much more likely, a side effect of the vibrations from the failed
SARJ.

Brian

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 08:48:29 GMT, "Brian Gaff" wrote:

Yes, I thought that as well. The loose particle sounds the most likely, but
whatever it is it is apparently conductive, which is a little worrying.

So we have magnetised particles in the sarj, and conductive debris in the
bga. Sounds a bit odd to me. Did anyone actually ask how come all the
particles in the Sarj are standing on end as they are apparently in the
photo which was shown?
I thought these units were all kept in clean environments and launched
clean too?

Just trying to think back to the mission which installed this sarj and
whether there were any issues at that time in the processing reported.

Maybe the manufacturers test samples might show something, as the surface
hardening of the race ring should not allow the problem to occur.

If the other surface is the same, they have a problem.

Be interesting to find out what the surface facing down is like.
The rotary joint should be fixable I'd imagine, and its gratifying that only
one is affected.

Brian
We should know a lot more come Tuesday.

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:13:42 GMT, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

So, we have a rotating joint problem on the same side as the sarj problem. I
bit of a coincidence, don't you think?

Obviously this assembly was made on a Friday afternoon after a liquid
lunch?
I jest, but if it turns out to be poor manufacture, I wonder what they can
do abhout it?
Brian

First thing that I thought about after hearing of the problems with
the SARJ was this:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/26/nas...eut/index.html -
'NASA finds apparent sabotage'.

Anyone know when the final closeouts on S4 were?
--
Brian Heil | Stay Alert! | Technology Services
Systems Administrator/Programmer | Trust No One! | University of Iowa
| Keep Your Laser Handy | College of Business