Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Shuttle Launch Success

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the still-should-have-fixed-the-crack dept.

mkosmo writes to tell us NASA is reporting that shuttle launch today was successful. This launch occurred despite the safety warnings from many top NASA officials.

7 of 355 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Yeah, it was safe... by Volanin · · Score: 3, Informative
    Very good explanation from Wikipedia:

    There were reports on the BBC from NASA officials that four pieces of foam had broken off the fuel tank during take off, but these breakages were not considered to be too important, as they occured outside the "time window" of foam break off anticipated by NASA. If, for some reason, the Shuttle cannot safely return to Earth immediately, the astronauts can try to fix any damage using the machinery in the Shuttle, and, if this were to fail, the astronauts would be able to stay on the ISS for up to 80 days. In preparation for such an occurence, the SRB's and External tank for Atlantis are coupled inside the VAB; the Orbiter available for launch within 50 days.
    --
    If I clone myself, can I call it a thread?
    If a girl winks to us, can I call it a race condition?
  2. Re:When is it my turn? by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 4, Informative

    Burt Rutan makes the observation that when he saw the Redstone rocket at the national air museum he wondered, "why don't we fly this anymore?".

    Indeed why! It's cheap, it's simple - simpler can and often does mean safer. The Redstone can get a person or two into orbit. And why not launch a couple a week? Burt Rutan goes on to point out that after each new space vehicle is created the old designs are never used again.

    Rutan does have a point, but the Redstone isn't a good example. It never took a man into full orbit, only the sub-orbital run and it was bettered by the Atlas which got Glenn into orbit. It was never powerful enough for orbital launch.

    If anything he should be talking about Atlas and Titan. Which have evolved into the new EELV systems that the military are using. So the designs and evolutions are still there.

    The Saturn 5 was a massive beast of a launcher, but they canned it after Apollo. With a heavy lifter like that, NASA could have launched the space station in half the time and much safer. And now they are redesigning the whole heavy-lift launch vehicle for the Moon project.

    --
    Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
  3. Beautiful naked-eye sight by product+byproduct · · Score: 4, Informative

    Since the shuttle is going to dock with the ISS, make sure you check on Heavens-Above for ISS and STS-121 sightings from your city in the next few days. The best time is just before they dock (or right after they separate) because then you see two small dots in the sky racing in close formation.

  4. Re:Yeah, it was safe... by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 3, Informative

    Which if you read your link was reported harmless....it was a piece of ice.

    --

    Gorkman

  5. NASA's MP4 video file of the space shuttle launch! by antdude · · Score: 4, Informative

    Click here to download the 16.3 MB MP4 video file. It is about 3 minutes and 22 seconds long. Awesome stuff.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  6. Re:When is it my turn? by tftp · · Score: 4, Informative
    don't think even the ruskies stuff can rival the saturn 5

    The Energiya booster is configurable to 400,000 lbs, and that exceeds the 285,000 lbs orbital lift capacity of Saturn V. This is not surprising, given that Energiya was designed decades later and was using the latest technologies.

    There were only two flights of Energiya, compared to 32 of Saturn V, and it is not manufactured any more. However its technology is not only up to date, it is being actively used in other boosters. So if anyone wants to lift 175 tons to the orbit, it can be done. It only costs money. See here for available configurations.

    If you really need to launch anything that heavy, it would be cheaper and smarter to pay for manufacturing of Energiya rather than for redesign and manufacturing of Saturn V, and you get more bang for the buck at the same time. Engines of that power that are time-tested and proven to be OK are invaluable.

  7. Richard Feynman's Paper on the Challenger Disaster by bcnstony · · Score: 5, Informative

    For those who haven't read it, Richard Feynman's Personal observations on the reliability of the Shuttle is a fascinating look at some of NASA's inner workings, and the problems that led to the challenger disaster. What is suprising (or perhaps totally expected) is that once again we hear managers and engineers differ on what is acceptable levels of risk.

    For those who don't know Richard Feynman, he won the Nobel prize, helped develop the atom bomb, and suggested ways for geeks to pick up women.