VIEW OF STS-40 FROM THE MISSION EVALUATION ROOM Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden, Edwards AFB, CA: A colleague (Lou Adornato adornato%asd.dnet@aio.jsc.nasa.gov) asked me to pass this on, since he doesn't have access from this machine. Someone who understands the technique of e-mailing to berkeley to post should pass the information to both of us, please. NOTE: The following is onofficial and unauthorized and should be taken as heresay only (otherwise a guy named Bruno's going to come down from Washington and rearrange my pulmonary system). I am happy to report that there have been no orbiter DPS or avionics concerns on this mission so far. (The reason I'm happy to report that is that it means that Mike Wallace won't be showing up at my place with a film crew). On flight days 4, 5, and 6 I'm the second shift's avionics team lead in the Mission Evaluation Room (MER). Here's the view of STS-40 from where I've been sitting. Initial ground radar data indicated that STS-40 missed it's MECO velocity target by 22 fps. Subsequent analysis of the observed orbital elements now indicate that MECO velocity was within 4fps of target, and that the radar data was incorrect. Further analysis is planned post flight. As of the end of my shift on Flight Day 5, there are no major IFA's on any spacelab or orbiter systems, with the exception of the environmental seal on the PBD and some loose thermal blankets on the aft bulkhead. Thermal reports that there are no potential hazards in the loose blankets. At this time it looks as though proper thermal conditioning (via sun angle) will cause the seal to deflect away from the door and prevent it from interfering with the latching mechanism. (My understanding is that a failure of latch group 4 wouldn't be a problem anyway - you have to loose at least 2 latch groups before you have a situation) Contingency plans are being put in place for an EVA IFM "just in case" (the incredibly unofficial motto of the Mission Operations Directorate). Current plans are for one crew member to reenter the hab module after deactivation to observe the PBD closing (through the spacelab's endcone window). There was some concern over the safety of this procedure since the cabin air fan will be off at this time (it's turned off to save power as part of the deactivation procedure, and running it without the condensate separator could impact the turnaround for US MGL). The observer should be in the module no more than 15 minutes, but a localized CO2 buildup (in the absence of convection currents) was a concern. Analysis indicates that there is no safety concern because several of the racks will be forcing air into the subfloor, and there should be an air flow down the tunnel from the middeck. Aditionally, the observer will be in constant contact with the rest of the crew, and there's an emegency breathing station right by the viewport. One RCS vernier (R5F, I think) has failed off (due to erratic chamber pressure readings, I think), but there's no impact on vernier attitude control (the verniers are arranged in such a way that it would take at least 2 adjacent jet failures to cause even an inconvenience). An APU3 Exhaust Gas Temperature sensor failed on ascent (indicating +/-200F changes is less than a minute), and the crosstalk took a gas generator bed temp sensor with it. This isn't considered critical - I can't be sure but I think there are redundant backups, and I don't think either reading is really essential to safe operation of the APU. An unknown problem resulted in the S/L computer being re-IPL'd on FD4, but no experiment data was lost and the problem has not returned (dump analysis is still in progress). The humidity seperator experiment (DTO976, I think) was aborted early on FD2 because a large slug of water broke off from the prefilter and temporarily swamped the humsep. The PI suspected it might be a transient or startup condition. The test was rerun yesterday, but not for as long as was originally planned (due to timeline considerations, I think). Some free water was detected by the crew in the lower equipment bay on the waste water tank drain valve solenoid, but it was wiped off and the source wasn't found - the crew will probably check again today to see if the water has returned. Other issues that have come up are include a loss of about 7lbs of N2 on FD1, which was apparently due to a leak through the WCS (the handle wasn't thrown all the way after use, resulting in inadequet seal on the WCS vaccum line (even in space you sometimes have to jiggle the handle to make the toilet stop running). The OMS crossfeed line A heater failed off (apparently due to a thermostat failure), and the line has been isolated (there's a backup). The pressure 'ducer on the RAHF (the rat-rack) water supply has failed, but the POCC will determine water useage indirectly by using the Lixit counts from individual cages along with pre-launch calibrations (which means that someone, somewhere has a fairly precise number for the value of a rats lick). Some problems with the Obriter Refridgerator/Freezer (ORF) have caused it to be shut down, and several short IFMs have been done to try to isolate the cause. Similar problems appeared on the S/L fridge on FD1, but went away, so there's no risk to the samples. Also, a strange smell has been coming fromthe ORF (the crew reports that it smells like aldehyde), which is suspected to be acetic acid ougassing from the silicone seals - toxicology says there's no risk to the crew. One of the LIOH storage locker doors jammed on FD1, and the crew had to pry it open, but it's been left open since then, and will be shut for structural reasons just after the deorbit burn. The IV pump experinent was having some problems on FD1, but the IFM guys had the crew wrap a blood pressure cuff around the intake bag to provide suffient head pressure (this one has to be my personal favorite IFM...), and it's working fine. The GAMS 1 experiment (I have no idea what that is...) has been causing some problems, but the crew's been using the backup without any problems, and will probably try an IFM on the last flight day. There have been some problems with one of the video cameras, but I haven't been following them. The rats seem to be enjoying themselves (they don't know what's in store for them once they get back), and the jellyfish are healthy but somewhat confused (probably a natural state in something with a nervous system only slightly better than that of a slime mold, but they've been swimming in circles). No one had a chance to make a visual on the soviet MIR station on either opportunity yesterday. Current consummable levels are good for a 9+2 mission, with LIOH being the limiting factor. Proper NASA terminology is "nominal" for the mission, but I prefer "fan-dam-tastic". Considering the number of things that can go wrong, I'm still astounded when things go this right. All that planning and care really means a lot when it gets around to flight time. I wish the news media had shown those views of the lower equipment bay that came down yesterday. It's really sobering to think how many pieces in there could cause a loss of *at least* mission success, and to realize that this mission is coming off so well.