Mission Space, the real thing.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Magic069
  • 64 comments
  • 1,652 views
Columbia lost 140 tiles on her first launch (THE first launch, actually). This mission is also designed specifically to test out tile - and leading edge (Columbia's downfall) - repair methods.

STS-300 is the designated rescue mission for this flight. Atlantis is on a 2 week countdown.
 
"It appears the tip of the shuttle's external fuel tank also hit a bird as it launched from Kennedy Space Center on Tuesday."

:( Poor Bird.

Didn't it see a very loud, 150ft rocket charging towards it at thousands of miles per hour?
 
danoff
I have mixed emotions about this launch.

On the one hand I wanted the shuttle to go up successfully. It had such a great run that I didn't want it to end on a bad note.

But I also want the shuttle program to die - and as soon as possible. It's a waste of time and money that we should be spending on something better.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, do you mean the entire space program or just the over priced shuttle program?

DQuaN
"It appears the tip of the shuttle's external fuel tank also hit a bird as it launched from Kennedy Space Center on Tuesday."

:( Poor Bird.

Didn't it see a very loud, 150ft rocket charging towards it at thousands of miles per hour?
Click to expand...


In the press conference the guy said, "On a moral note, it was early in the launch and at a low speed as you can still see the launch tower in the photograph." He then went on about how birds don't fly high enough to be in the vicinty of the shuttle at high speeds and how they expect the bird may have lived.

I have two questions: 1) What bird wouldn't be frightened away by the sound of two solid rocket boosters igniting?

2) How close was the bird to the engine exhaust/flames as the shuttle continued to rise? Roast duck anyone? It is a little well done though.
 
Out of curiosity, do you mean the entire space program or just the over priced shuttle program?
Click to expand...

Just the shuttle program. The space program needs more money even. But the shuttles are old and were slapped together in a rather odd way even when they were new. I think we could do major "lessons learned" revision of our manned vehicles - especially now that NASA is supposed to be planning a manned mars trip a off in the very distanct future.

Bottom line:

The shuttles were klooged (sp?) together in the first place.
The shuttles are... what is it now a quarter century old?
They belong in a museam and I'd lay odds that most engineers at Johnson Space Center would tell you that. It's the public that wants to see them going. Just like the public wants to see hubble going still.... I have a message.

GET OVER IT PEOPLE!!! IT'S CALLED PROGRESS!

With major reasons to retire the shuttles - why would we waste 2 and a half years trying to make them safer?? It's a waste of money.

[/rant]


Edit: Don't get me wrong, the shuttle and the SRBs are some sweet pieces of engineering that have a fantastic track record. They've been absolutely astounding and perform some increadible feats. It's just that they're old and we can do a lot better now. That's why I was kinda hoping that columbia would be the nail in the coffin.
 
danoff
Just the shuttle program.
Click to expand...

OK, because I agree on that. I was just making sure I didn't need to defend the space program and the many technologies it has given us from my mattress pad to WD-40 to life saving medical tests.


I agree the shuttle program is old, outdated and was designed to save money wasted when rockets splashed down and were not recoverable, but it costs more than rockets just in the upkeep. We can definitely do more and I hope NASA hasn't decided to give up on the plans for something new.

Until we have that I will enjoy watching every shuttle launch I can.
 
danoff
(stuff)
Click to expand...

That's mostly true - and Challenger wasn't even intended for space flight in the first place.

But, as it stands, we have nothing to replace them with. The Shuttles are the only way to carry that much crap up into space. Until there's a viable replacement - slated for 2010 - the space programme needs the orbiters.

It is telling that, when OV-099 Challenger went, they took a decision on whether to refit OV-101 Enterprise for space or build a new one (OV-105 Endeavour) from spares (and went for the new option - as it was cheaper), but there will be no replacement for OV-102 Columbia - leaving three orbiters (OV-103 Discovery - the oldest - OV-104 Atlantis and Endeavour; Plus the not-spaceworthy Enterprise and the museum-piece mock-up OV-098 Pathfinder) to see out their time.


You probably shouldn't hold their age against them though - especially not if you intend flying in a Jumbo jet any time soon. OV-105 is considerably newer than many in-service 747s...
 
Saw it live it was great, I'm glad they made it... let's hope the rest of the mission goes well. :knock on wood:

Famine
Columbia lost 140 tiles on her first launch (THE first launch, actually). This mission is also designed specifically to test out tile - and leading edge (Columbia's downfall) - repair methods.

STS-300 is the designated rescue mission for this flight. Atlantis is on a 2 week countdown.
Click to expand...

I love how their back up plan is to send ANOTHER ship up there... :lol::dopey:
 
You probably shouldn't hold their age against them though - especially not if you intend flying in a Jumbo jet any time soon. OV-105 is considerably newer than many in-service 747s...
Click to expand...

While that's true, I'm not planning on re-entering in a 747.

I don't hold their age against them. I hold their cost and capability against them - which is partially due to their age.
 
Famine
You probably shouldn't hold their age against them though - especially not if you intend flying in a Jumbo jet any time soon. OV-105 is considerably newer than many in-service 747s...
Click to expand...
I've been trying to find some specific numbers, but I have heard tales of Douglas DC-3s / C-47s that have been off the ground for more than thirty years.
 
foolkiller79
OK, because I agree on that. I was just making sure I didn't need to defend the space program and the many technologies it has given us from my mattress pad to WD-40 to life saving medical tests.
Click to expand...
I think Dan is the last person here you need to defend the space program against. ;)
 
Sage
I think Dan is the last person here you need to defend the space program against. ;)
Click to expand...

That's what I figured, which is why I asked for clarification.
 
Why Hold the Shuttle's age against it?

Consider the B-52. It went into service in 1955.The Airforce can't forsee retiring them until At least the year 2040. It'll be 85 year old!!! Most people don't last that long, let alone A high-altitute Strategic Bomber.

You do realize most of the 737-300s that we fly on were built in the 1970s, right?
 
That's not his point though. He's saying that the technology and engineering in the shuttle is outdated, which I fully agree with: We should (and could) have a much more efficient and safer shuttle by now. In fact, I think Boeing was working on one about a decade ago (somebody correct me if I'm wrong), but then decided to scrap it for whatever reason.
 
DQuaN
I have been tracking it today. I just went to look and saw "The shuttle is not currently in orbit"

:nervous:


*edit* Panic over, it's back. Must have gone into hyperspace for a bit!
Click to expand...
I was wathcing it when it went in "sleep mode." It was headed for South East Asia at the time. Hmmmm, spying on North Korea, are we? ;)

It seems to be spending a lot of time over South Africa and Australia.
 
Sage
That's not his point though. He's saying that the technology and engineering in the shuttle is outdated, which I fully agree with: We should (and could) have a much more efficient and safer shuttle by now. In fact, I think Boeing was working on one about a decade ago (somebody correct me if I'm wrong), but then decided to scrap it for whatever reason.
Click to expand...
Yep.

My father moved to California in 1963 to work on the Shuttle. Yep, the shuttle is early '60s technology.
 
Solid Lifters
Well, they suspended all launches of the Shuttle, again. 👎
Click to expand...


Yep, apparently after looking through all the launch footage frame by frame, NASA found that a few pieces of foam insullation still fell from the external fuel tank. NASA doesn't think any piece hit Discovery, but are using the robot arm to look over the orbiter, also when it links with the space station, camera's will be looking at the shuttle closely.

CNN's cover story on Discovery's problems
 
Magic069
Yep, apparently after looking through all the launch footage frame by frame, NASA found that a few pieces of foam insullation still fell from the external fuel tank. NASA doesn't think any piece hit Discovery, but are using the robot arm to look over the orbiter, also when it links with the space station, camera's will be looking at the shuttle closely.

CNN's cover story on Discovery's problems
Click to expand...
It seems to me that someone at NASA would say, "Is there any foam that can safely withstand the friction as the shuttle accelerates to 16,000 mph?" I might not be an engineer but it seems to me that something stronger needs to be created.

menglan
Why Hold the Shuttle's age against it?

Consider the B-52. It went into service in 1955.The Airforce can't forsee retiring them until At least the year 2040. It'll be 85 year old!!! Most people don't last that long, let alone A high-altitute Strategic Bomber.

You do realize most of the 737-300s that we fly on were built in the 1970s, right?
Click to expand...
When was the last time any of those things had to withstand the stress that the shuttle does?

As Danoff said:
danoff
While that's true, I'm not planning on re-entering in a 747.
Click to expand...
 
Re-entry is always going to be more hazardous when your protection is compromised... ;) :p
 
Some Questions and answers pulled from CNN.com that I thought were interesting:

Q: What if some sort of damage is found?

A: Space shuttles routinely suffer some damage on their flights, but in 111 previous missions, it has not been severe enough to bring down the spacecraft.

Q: If NASA finds damage that is deemed dangerous, what would happen?

A: The astronauts and the shuttle could remain at the international space station for up to two months and await a rescue from the shuttle Atlantis; after two months, the oxygen would run out. But Atlantis is officially grounded, and deciding to use it for rescue would mean risking the lives of a second crew of astronauts.

NASA officials have said repeatedly they don't believe a rescue mission will be needed. There is the possibility, of course, that the astronauts could go out and make repairs as best they could with the experimental patch materials on board, and attempt a landing.

Q: What do the astronauts think about all this?

A: We don't know. The astronauts were told about the foam debris and the grounding of the fleet and they have been sent pictures related to the problem. But so far they have not been heard discussing it over NASA communications monitors and have not yet been available for interviews.

CNN's Story on Discovery's Docking to the ISS, Plus photos of the Orbiter.

Crew's Reaction to the news that Discovery may have been Damaged.
 
I just read that second CNN article and I saw this quote:

The space agency has said it would suspend shuttle flights until it re-evaluated why the foam still falls from the tank.
Click to expand...

Maybe because it is foam and it is accelerating to 16,000 mph?

It seems to me a new insulating material or a covering on top of the foam is what is needed. Another option would be some sort of shielding connected to the tank that is between it and the orbiter somehow.

Of course, this is all speculation from a non-engineer. The closest I ever got to rocket science was model rocklets in my backyard. I'd love to hear from anyone that would know better than I do.

Even with a new craft design to replace the shuttle I think this will still be an issue unless they find a fuel source that doesn't need to be kept that cold.
 
UPDATE:

Space Walk to fix discovery considered a success! Two different spots underneath the nose of discovery were fixed earlier today in what was said to be a lot easier then orignally thought.

Full Story, CNN.com

Also at the bottom of the article they talk about a thermal blanket underneath one of the cockpits window that may be a problem.
 
Watching the shuttle landing live... link here on the BBC site... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4133680.stm

45 minutes to landing as I type...

15 minutes to 'entry interface' (when shuttle first encounters the effects of the Earth's atmosphere...)

current altitude: 150 miles.... first encounters atmosphere at ~ 75 miles...

current speed: ~17000 mph :sick:

12:37 - altitude now 100 miles

12:39 - 1 minute to entry interface :nervous:

12:41 - starting to maneouvre to reduce speed in 4 minutes...

- - - - - - speed still 17000 mph... altitude 60 miles

12:48 - 23 minutes to landing .... roll maneouvres are slowing down the shuttle - 16,100 mph... left banking

- - - - - - arm rests and tray tables in the upright position - fasten seatbelts and extinguish cigarettes :sly:

12:51 - altitude 230,000 ft

13.00 - within range of ground tracking radar - Mach 9 - 155,000 ft ... 360 miles from touchdown

13:03 - 'visual' contact - infra-red camera is now tracking the shuttle live :cool: 7.5 minutes to touchdown

13:05 - speed 2000 mph, altitude 87,000 ft

final turn towards runway...

13:12 Discovery has landed 👍 :)
 
Nice play-by-play action there, TM.

I just got done watching the whole thing. I even went outside to look for it landing, since I'm 60 miles South of EAFB. I saw nothing.

Smooth as silk landing. It feels good to have her home. God knows the next time she goes up.

EDIT: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8515881/ Live Video EAFB.
 
Watched it from here at work. I loved the infrared views. As a former Space Camp attendee (I'm even responsible for a couple of pennies in Pathfinder's fuel tank) it feels good to have her home safe.


Can someone explain to me why there are people I work with who have apparently never paid attention to the space program but are suddenly incredibly interested? People heard them say the word plasma and started freaking out because they heard it was what made Columbia burn up. I had to move to another TV to enjoy the landing.

And don't even get me started on the conspiracy theorist who doesn't think that it really happened.

Anyway, ranting aside, welcome home to the crew!
 
Those infra-red images were pretty cool... as it came closer and closer, you could gradually make out the shape of the shuttle better and better - I sure wouldn't like to try to glide that thing home in the dark though :nervous:

Shame you didn't catch a glimpse of the real thing, Solid, but I guess it was probably going pretty quick even with only 100 km to go.... I'm not sure when it went subsonic though... probably a fair bit before it would have passed you, therefore you wouldn't have heard much either, since it was gliding...
 
I couldn't see it, but my gawd – that was one hell of a sonic boom! I live about a mile or two from a powerplant, and I thought it had exploded! I've heard sonic booms before (I live, I dunno, maybe 50 miles from Edwards AFB), but this was hundreds of times more powerful than anything I've heard before. Scared the **** out of me.
 

Latest Posts

Back