DaveL59

be interesting to hear what the issue is with the quick-connect tho. I know from high pressure hydraulics that a slight nick in the seal or a scratch on one of the mating surfaces can easily result in a leak. Might start as a small seep and nip the union up and it seems OK, till there's been enough cycles and then the seep starts again and progressively gets worse. What they're dealing with is a lot of pressure and super-cold temps which makes me think did they have something similar, got away with it first run but next run it wasn't going to play. Surprised they didn't pop the connector and check/swap that seal while they had time tbh rather than cross fingers for run 2. Just seems poor engineering practise is all.

Having been working (started the new job today) I've not had a chance to look, have there been any further updates at all?

8 minutes ago, Robindonne said:

Best thing is to detank it and use it for another rocket

the LOX & LH2? That's in progress or done apparently and then they flush with helium to make the empty tanks safe 🙂 

Almost sounds like a roll back is the most likely as they're almost out of permitted time tho they are possibly going to try negotiate an extension so it can stay out on the pad. Perhaps they should just fit a huge spinnaker to it and pray for a hurricane... 😄 

Oh, apparently the public is super excited about return to the moon and a maybe jump to mars and the cost of 2 scrubs is a lot less than loss of the rocket. Second point sure, first, hmmm some are, others don't seem to know its even happening.

sounds like the LH2 quick disconnect that had the big leak this time under fast fill is the same that had the more minor leak last time. Sounds to me like first time the seal may have got displaced or damaged slightly and on the second try it had a bigger failure. Oh dear. So they talking about replacing the "soft goods" either at the pad so they can do a cryo test or they roll back and do it away from the pad, but then can't do a test at full cryo temps until its back on the pad again. So early next week before we really get a decision on what they're doing.

Sounds like we're back to being "Should Launch Someday" as they're running rapidly out of launch window.

well if anyone's interested in a snooze-fest the latest launch briefing should be on in about 25 mins

Watch NASA's Artemis 1 moon mission launch live online for free | Space

reading the report on the bbc I noted this also

Nasa: Artemis Moon rocket second launch attempt called off - BBC News

Quote

It's possible Nasa could try again in the next few days. But there are battery systems on this rocket that will soon need inspection. And if the vehicle has to be rolled back to the engineering building for further work, it could be mid-October before we see it again on the launch pad.

So it hasn't launched but already systems will need inspection? 

I guess the stresses on the fuel systems tanks etc may need checking over so they don't burst on attempt-3?

15 minutes ago, Steve Ward said:

My main fear is that corners may be cut and things fudged in order to get it off the ground .

The budgetary pressures must be building exponentially  , not mention the feeling of having Elon's eyes burning holes in the back of their heads right now.

I think they were already planning on that, given a faulty temp sensor on engine 3 so they were likely to ignore that to progress to lighting the fuse. After all they'd already skimped on not having any redundancy in the sensors to work around any failures, at least on non-flight critical areas (so they say). 737MAX all over again...

hmmm  I wonder if it needs an air worthiness certification if it passes over anyone else's controlled air space? 

Kinda thinking too, are these a totally new coupling for the LOX and LH2 supply or another re-use from the parts bin of the old shuttle gear? If so did they fit new seals, after all they'd likely have perished a bit by now if they were the old stock ones.

Maybe the US FAA need to step in and ground it since it will be flying in their controlled space 😉 

1 minute ago, AstroNebulee said:

Thank you they do seem so rare. I've sent of emails to 5 or 6 companies to see if they do them or can aquire any. 

I have seriously thought about 100% nylon screws but was a little worried if they breakoff in the thread. Or are they quite tough?

Lee 

I've swapped out a number of the metal thumbscrews on my scopes both for the eyepiece locking and finder shoes for nylon ones. Driven to that move when the tapped hole on the TAL100RS focuser body was mostly stripped when I got it. So far I've had no issues with them and can be safe in the knowledge that any overtightening will not strip the metal threads. Add that buying over-length they are easy to trim to size too, also no corrosion from dissimilar metals when things get damp from dew etc.

If you do ever snap one off, then a hot screwdriver tip inserted into the stub should allow you to back it out without needing to strip the unit down. They are quite tough and I've not had any wear out on the threads, but they're also cheap enough to carry a couple spare just in case. I would say tho don't tighten them too hard as that will eventually shred the nylon threads.

Nah launch it, at least we'll get a nice firework show for all that cost 😉 

Maybe they should consult an aircon specialist to try find the leak?

Makes you wonder tho, I take it this was the same one that mysteriously fixed itself last time?

4 minutes ago, bomberbaz said:

Cheers buddy, no chance of it. He will have to make do with the h20 and a 2x barlow.

Thanks for trying

no prob, you might post a wanted as the 0.965's have come up from time to time. I got lucky when I started a thread on that old vintage scope and got offered a set that was from a Prinz 660 IIRC. 

The h20 gives a nice clear image tbh and barlowed would be very usable. If you do find shorter FL ones try for Or types rather than Sr tho. I have an h12.5 that's also pretty good, the HM6 is harder to use but sharp and an Or4 in the set. Also obtained a Meade MA40 in 0.965 that's pretty good, so they are about just don't come up that often. Only thing I don't have is a barlow in that size but no real need for one for the old scope.

So a quick test on a tree top about 300m away using the vintage 3-inch scope. First up, with the H20 0.965 eyepiece and prism diagonal got me a drawtube extension of 115mm.

Next up the SVbony 8-24mm set to 24mm, sat in a 0.965 to 1.25 adaptor, drawtube reduced to 75mm

Finally the SVbony 7-21mm set to 21mm, again via the 0.965 to 1.25 adaptor, drawtube reduced to 72mm

Also tried a Vixen NPL 30mm which turns out to have been parfocal to the 7-21mm.

Hope that helps. It's quite a big reduction as you can see, 40-43mm inward travel in the case of these eyepieces tested. Somehow doubt that on a newt the focuser will give you that amount of extra in-focus travel so shifting the mirror may be in your future... 😉 

45 minutes ago, bomberbaz said:

 

You could help Dave. Assuming the difference in focal position between 0.96 - 1 25 eyepieces is equally correlated in frac and reflector, could you simply fit a H20 then do like you said and hold a 8-24 zoom to advise your findings. It is only the difference in the drawtube travel between the 2 that I need to know. 

could give it a go, or rather would except for total clouds here. Will try it in the day tho and see. My 8-24 is the huge SVbony one but I do also have their 7-21mm so will see what they give.

1 minute ago, bomberbaz said:

Thanks dave, didn’t actually take that fully into account. 

Given I have no idea about the focus point of a H20 0.965 vs a 1.25 zoom I will hold off.

I do know someone who can help in this matter though, cheers. 

no prob, if you have a zoom you could give it a go and see just holding it just above the drawtube end. Might get lucky. I can't really offer to test as the old vintage scope is a frac and has a pretty long drawtube so I can hit focus with either size even with a diagonal in the train. With the TAL-1 and M with the older 32mm eyepieces you'd have to fit the barlow to use 1.25's as they couldn't focus without unless you shifted the mirror so could be similar with the older 0.956's vs 1.25

you'd need to consider if there's enough travel to reach focus as the 1.25 to 0.965 adapter will place the eyepiece and the nosepiece outside the end of the focuser drawtube. Quite possible that there won't be enough in-travel in which case you either need to swap the focuser or move the mirror up the tube (longer screws/springs maybe).

HTH

PS - it may work OK with a barlow in front but then you're pushing the mag a bit far for the scope?

As I'd mentioned before, can't believe on a ship that cost billions they cheaped out fitting non-redundant sensors, but then Boing have a track record here...

7 minutes ago, Swoop1 said:

Ahhh, the dulcet tones of technology.

The youth of today are missing out on a lot- dot matrix printers, electric (or even manual) typewriters etc. 

and the banks of flashing lights on the front panel so you knew "the machine" was doing something, perhaps even be able to tell it was stuck in a loop.

8 minutes ago, maw lod qan said:

I'm scheduled to work, so will watch it livestream.

I still think it will be 50/50, but hope it goes. Boeing I'm my opinion is hanging on a thread.

If this gets put off for long, he who I shall not name will get his monstrosity in orbit first!

yeah, wonder if they sorted all the glitches with the capsule/crew module from its run up to the ISS a while back or is this the second proving flight for it?

Am curious too if/how they've tested this abort/escape thing or is it a case of crossed fingers if/when they ever do need it.

2 minutes ago, Swoop1 said:

I still receive stock from a supplier accompanied by delivery notes and invoices that are the product of a dot matrix printer. I loved the sound of those.

oh yeah a truly versatile device, tho I didn't try this on the big IBM system printer we had on the System-34

1 minute ago, Louis D said:

Yeah, last year my son-in-law the gamer and webpage hosting software developer got one of those 49" ultrawide monitors that nearly fills the width of his 5 foot wide desk in his home office (not his actual office pictured below):

I'm not sure if his new employer paid for it or if he did.  I didn't ask or care.  It looks comical to an old timer like me who learned programming using 3270 terminals in the 70s/80s:

At least they were a major step up from punch cards and punch card readers that were still in use at some universities well into the 80s:

Graphics?  Here's what passed for computer graphics back then:

Oh I remember those too, used to punch my own cards back then. Lets also not forget the teletype terminals with paper tape punch and readers 😉 

didn't pick up the briefing session yesterday but seems it Should Launch Saturday

Artemis 1 moon mission is 'go' for Saturday launch, NASA says | Space

They've decided its a faulty sensor and sounds like they'll ignore it in the lead up to launch. Leak is apparently fixed and the crack in the foam is known risk.

Surprised they didn't drop someone down on a rope with some of that spray foam filler to fill the gap 😉 

sounds like one of the ultra-wide screens I've seen at client sites, 34-37 inch wide but regular height. Great option to having dual or triple monitors per person in some ways. Was almost tempted to get one myself for the home office/desk but in the end went for dual 24-inch HD curved ones. That way I can switch one to the work laptop and retain a display for the home PC (well in fact 2 remain on the home PC as I now have 3 screens 😉 ) 

8 minutes ago, Louis D said:

What telescope are you using that swings through such a wide variety of eyepiece heights?  A giant Dob?  If so, Starmaster used to make an observing chair/stool that you could probably duplicate with a bit of woodworking and pipe cutting skills.

I believe its a DX102 starsense from other posts, so a basic Alt-AZ on a tripod. Likely no pillar attachment available for that so a case of extending the tripod legs or sitting lower.

10 minutes ago, Louis D said:

But imagine the surprise of an Ark ship arriving at a planet that has been fully colonized for centuries by folks who arrived via faster drive technologies.  That, and they're tech knowledge is centuries or millennia out of date.  Perhaps they would have appreciated being "hailed" centuries earlier now that they have no place in the modern world except perhaps to make period dramas.  Imagine a 1600s cross-Atlantic ship full of colonialists just now arriving in the Americas.  Awkward!!!

thing is what could they do if you did hail them. Unless you could bring them aboard to travel on with you they're still stuck and of course by the time you've caught them up they're probably already way out of date in terms of tech and social/cultural ways.

Unless of course you mean hailing them in the Klingon style? 😉 

There's a number of height adjustable stools out now, this thread may help:

There are also a number of wood height adjustable chairs or some use an ironing chair for this purpose.

1 hour ago, Dark Adaptation said:

Thanks, I'll try this! Looks like exactly the same problem I've got.

Let's hope I don't mess up. But after all--the eyepiece was off already, so what could possibly go wrong? 😁😁

It's a bit involved but I used a piece of steel bracket cut to shape after drilling out the hole to suit the central hinge. Ally would be easier but I figured steel would be stronger. Skiming the original arm to reduce it for the steel to overlap I just used a file, not ideal but worked.  Bolting the 2 parts together at the overlap I had suitable taps already, epoxy in the join to keep things secure and keep moisture out. Been a while not and still working well. Best to remove the occular element and carrier from the arm tho to protect it from the metal swarf and filings.

I guess another way would be to make the steel part and cut it and the arm to butt together in the right alignment, then fix a plate (over/under/both sides) to join them. Won't look as neat but should work.