|
Author
|
Topic: 190858818295: SPACEHAB Bulkhead Bolt
|
NASAgoob
Member Posts: 96
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 06-19-2013 07:17 PM
   
Ten of these sold on eBay last week an twelve are posted this week. Are these real? Thank you. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 06-19-2013 07:45 PM
They match the flown bolt and nut pair I received directly from Astrotech (formerly Spacehab). At one point, Astrotech had bags of these with hundreds of nut and bolt pairs. |
george9785
Member Posts: 196
From: Burnaby, BC, Canada
Registered: Nov 2010
|
posted 06-20-2013 06:06 PM
Q: Could you explain the apparent discrepancies with the dates describing these items - about being removed in 1996 but having been flown on the 1997 STS-86 mission. Thanks.A: Hmm very good question. I'll have to dig thru my copies of the deintegration procedures and see where the discrepancy is. I suspect the bondroom guy who filled out the MAT tag wrote the wrong mission, but the signed off deintegration procedure should tell me. I don't know whether he'll reply again to me but he ended his listing a little early after getting my inquiry. If these were actually flown and removed (from the SPACEHAB double module) when indicated in the description, then they would have flown on STS-79 not STS-86. |
NASAgoob
Member Posts: 96
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 06-20-2013 07:47 PM
Disappointing to read. They were selling fast. I hope you receive a response as I bought one last week. |
Jim Behling
Member Posts: 1463
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 06-20-2013 09:00 PM
quote:
Originally posted by george9785:
If these were actually flown and removed (from the SPACEHAB double module) when indicated in the description, then they would have flown on STS-79 not STS-86.
Those type of bolts flew on every module mission. They were used to hold the aft bulkhead on. They were also used on every double module mission to hold the two modules together. The modules were split apart for every mission to allow removal and installation of racks in the forward module. Since STS-86 was a double module and had an aft bulkhead, the bolts could have come from that mission. However, we had bags and bags of those bolts lying around, while I believe that the bolts flew, I would doubt the paperwork for which mission. There was no need to document one time use hardware after it was removed. |
george9785
Member Posts: 196
From: Burnaby, BC, Canada
Registered: Nov 2010
|
posted 06-20-2013 09:53 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Behling:
Since STS-86 was a double module and had an aft bulkhead, the bolts could have come from that mission.
You missed what I wrote Jim. The description stated that they were removed in Oct. 1996. If that was the case and they were actually flown with the double module, then they could only have possibly flown on STS-79. |
Jim Behling
Member Posts: 1463
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 06-21-2013 04:08 AM
You are right with regards to the time frame. But they could have flown on an earlier mission of the single module that became the forward half of the double module. |
george9785
Member Posts: 196
From: Burnaby, BC, Canada
Registered: Nov 2010
|
posted 06-22-2013 01:27 PM
Seller's follow-up reply:After digging thru the archived deintegration procedure, it appears that the person who filled out the MAT tag in 2001 to ship the bolts from Port Canaveral to Houston erroneously put "1996" instead of "1997" in the NOTES block. The deintegration procedure (FA162) shows that the bolts were removed on October 18, 1997, which makes sense as the flight was a few weeks before that date. Unfortunately for me, when I created the printed inserts for the display cases I used the same erroneous 1996 date that you (thankfully) noticed.I have updated the printed inserts by deleting the MAT tag, and replacing it with views from the archived FA162 Double Module Demate Procedure showing bolt removal, with tech initials, QA stamp, and date. That should eliminate the confusion. Thanks for catching this, which allowed me to stop the lsiting and correct the problem before I shipped. Just for the record though, I didn't purchase any of these from him and didn't have any interest in purchasing one. I only sent the inquiry because I noticed the discrepancy. |
advertisement