 I'd like to welcome you to the fourth IUS TDRS PLWG that we have as we progress toward STS-26. I think most of you have been to all of them. I see a lot of familiar faces out there. The last PLWG you remember that we had was back in November and we've been running these about every six months. We had the FOR for 26T just a few months ago and we'll talk about what we'll schedule later but the next PLWG will probably be in the January of 88 timeframe based on what our current schedule is for STS-26 launch. The minute-taker for today is Mr. Zelton, you bank Zelton is sitting right here next to me. I'll remind you that all presenters should provide a copy of their view graphs to Zelton so that we can get that in the minutes. My name is Steve Gibson, I'm the lead timeline on this flight and I'm gonna go through the CAP status. My next formal publication is the basic CAP far away is in January of 88 and that's based on the OIA V-Load. It's going to take into account the new launch date, June 2nd and we don't have a preliminary for this flow actually. We took that out, I guess it was SC-8 out of the M2P2. As far as the 26A flow, which was which is the OIA88, there are no major flight design changes from the 26T flow so that means we will be using a 26T basic revved CAP for the November SIM. We're doing a lot of SIMs integrated and joint integrates between down then. Right now that, well any SIMs that are going to be using this CAP, basic revved. What about some things that might change the way we do business in the IUS world that ought to be in there for these SIMs? Well we, 60 minutes of flight sequence. It's not going to be instituted in any of the flight design, including the SMS mode until January. Or the SIM date following January. I think that the readiness date was somewhere, we had an IRT date of some time after January, like on March or something like that. So we won't be seeing it for 60 minutes, that's a little bit of a delay. At what point in that, we have more just, as you said with this year, or what just when you start using the 26A or 26T basic documentation? Okay well all the ones that's been, until our new CAP comes out, which is in January. I think these SIMs start in March. I think we'll use that. So probably all of the SIMs that come until the March timeframe will use the basic revved. And if there are any changes between now and then, we could either SIM-PAC or PCNs. Most likely it will be a SIM-PAC. I'm Fisher Reynolds, the IUS Deployed Book Manager, and all I've done right here is kind of give a status of outstanding 482s in the checklist. The 482s that have been out since the PCN-1 that we used for rev-APCN-1 that we used for the SIM along the SIM. As far as publications, you saw in the schedule that we've got a rev-B coming out in January to support the FOR. When I'm planning on doing right now, and this is, you know, depending on how things go, we've got the rev-APCN-1 and then we've got all these 42s. As the SIMs come up, I will begin incorporating these 42s into SIM-PACs and putting them out in support of the SIMs. If it looks like we're getting a whole lot of SIM-PACs with a lot of extra paper floating around, we would definitely consider either formally publishing a PCN or another or a revision B early. This first SIM that's coming up next month, we will not have any formal publication. We will have a SIM-PAC because there is no way to get a publication out in time for that. Why don't we target something like the long SIM in October? Well, that's what I'm thinking. I'm looking if not to do it. I can't do it for next month, but towards the end of the summer is when I would be doing it. Any questions? The initial pre-breathe is always 60 minutes from the LEH. If the time at 10.2 is 12 hours, the final in-suit pre-breathe would be 75 minutes. If we have new flight crew equipment for space and mobility reasons, a lot of our protection flight rules for oxygen or possible toxic environment are based on the LEH. And we just wanted to raise that due to mobility and ease of use, that's the way they did it in the rule. If we fire off more than one bottle, it's because we've got a problem where we think very seriously we have a problem. So I'm wondering if we ought to be testing that 0.3%, which is the one that is more likely and less likely to be tied to a real problem. Rather than testing the 1%, which means you probably have a serious orbit problem right then. That's a good point. We really, based on funding and everything else, have to pick one level to study. What we have up front for the study we get going is a pilot study. And if there are already significant changes in the first 24 hours, we'll look at the 1%. If there's something that raises a flag after being exposed for 24 hours at 1%, we'll back that level down. There's quite a bit of time. Some people are using a 1301 and a 1211 mixture. Most of the avionics are using that mixture. But with the 1200 unit in there, that just increases the exposure and makes it expel faster. I'd like to take just a minute to go around the table. A lot of you know where Ulter Ulter is. I'm sitting here with Bill Gunn. Also supporting us from Goddard is Dave Christopher. Are we reacting to a sim problem? Yes. On the day when we go fly, and we haven't disabled all the thermal shutdown, but we have had some type of shutdown, and we do a recovery and it goes blam and shuts itself right back down. The right thing to do is to wait and understand what it is before we screw up something, instead of reacting to a one specific type failure thing that we saw in a sim. And there's no rush in that type of, in that, where's mine, in that type of time. I think we're just reacting to a sim case, a specific sim. And if it happens again, we'll handle it just like we did in a sim. If we'll look at it, you will have gotten a burst of data, probably, but not certainly. And we'll think about whether we want to... It's a long time in the sim to sort it out. Well, we've seen the case now. We did good. The sim taught us, right? I think we ought to not do this. I would actually agree with Powell. That's right. I just wanted to get it resolved. That hurts me to say that, Powell. Okay. This next one is a small item right now. The last part of it is the recovery procedure, recovery from power down. Essentially, it says perform C-IQ safety status. Have the next slide, please. We'll talk about flight rules and launch commit criteria. Ed Gonzalez has already talked about all the data on this slide. I'd like to talk about the only one remaining open topic. And it's not an issue. It's something that I understand it's in the PIP process. Teeters folks have reduced the size of their eclipse constraint from the large top hat to real small eclipse constraints. And as I understand, they're going to be submitting or they have submitted a PIP change and it's starting a review process here. It's just a heads up that that's going to be being addressed. We don't see, from the up-stand point, any problem with it at all. Next slide, please. Launch commit criteria. From the orbiter side, as far as the payload operations related activities, there's been no changes since the last mission. From the control center, again, there's no changes since the last mission from the payload driven changes. On the IUS, again, there's no changes. As I understand from our discussions this last week, there's been some agreements to go back and look at the automatic launch hold. Cut off of that from T-minus 10 seconds back to 31, but currently is what's documented is at 10 seconds, rather. Seastick, there's no changes there. As far as their documentation of launch holds for networking facilities and flight rules, they still can hold the count for those functions down to all minus nine minutes. And after that, we won't hold the facilities. Next slide, please. Flight stands, there's been one small change. It's up here. They want to hold, they've always had a hold in there for, based upon the deployed time, they want to have this back up about two hours. They want to be back up, not later than two hours prior to the deploy. No more questions? Rick, are you happy? We're all in tune. Well, thank you very much.