Viewing page 59 of 63

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

22
Solar Maximum Satellite, MMU, RMS, and Orbiter interactions could be modeled simultaneously. The SES provided the only training in the three body problem of MMU rescue. The SES was not as useful as the SOS for MMU malfunctions training due to the limited display and lack of motion cues. Docking and close prox ops were not realistic because of the limited field of view of the visual. The rotational hand controller (RHC) on the SES was of low enough fidelity to be noticeably different from the SOS and flight MMU. The limited visual field of view and hand controller made suited ops on the SES of little value.

Air Bearing Floor: The air bearing floor was used to train on TPAD ops. The capture envelops of the TPAD and the docking velocity requirements were established there. Three runs on the Air Bearing Floor were sufficient. One added benefit was the exposure to the noise and dynamics of real gas jets. Pressurized suited operations were not required. 

WETF: MMU don/doff training on the WETF was excellent The mockup prepared us well for zero-g ops.

EVA Repair: The most obvious reason that the EVA repair activities went smoothly was the extensive amount of training. A number of years of planning and designs took place before the crew was assigned so that the year before flight could be spent refining procedures and hardware. Approximately 6 months before fight, procedures were frozen and all the training hardware was on hand.

The repair training consisted of WETF runs, one-g walkthroughs, GSFC training, KC-135 flights, MSFC Neutral Buoyancy Simulator, and the Large Amplitude Space Simulator (LASS) at Grumman Aerospace.

WETF: WETF training was indispensable. Other than the MMU flyover, it was possible to simulate both EVAs end-to-end. The WETF was also tied into the SMS, MOCR, and payload operations control center (POCC) to enable integrated simulations. Tool and procedure development was possible to an extremely high fidelity. The two power tools, the MST and power screwdriver, however, were battery powered and were simulated with pneumatic devices. Training would have been enhanced with a higher fidelity power screwdriver since the one used was quite different in configuration.

The FSS and Solar Maximum Satellite mockup for the WETF were outstanding and the support from GSFC was superb.

One-G Walkthroughs: At various stages of training, the EVA crewmen went through a series of tests with actual flight or qualification hardware. This included both the ACS and MEB changeouts. These sessions while in 1-g allowed a periodic analysis of techniques developed in the WETF.

GSFC Training: A worthwhile 3-day period at GSFC was spent looking at the FSS locker and flight tools as well as practicing contingency procedures on the flight FSS.

KC-135 Flights: One zero-g flight was dedicated to EMU don and doff as well as MFR stow and unstow. It was felt that the minimal amount of actual zero-g time was extremely limiting and was probably not worthwhile.