Launch Date Announced for Shuttle Mission STS-117

chuckpeters writes "After a two day Flight Readiness Review in Florida, space shuttle managers have announced an official launch date for STS-117 to be June 8, 7:38 PM. The launch window will run in two parts — from June 8th to the evening of June 12th when the shuttle must stand down for a June 14th Atlas launch. After that the windows opens again on the 17th. This first opening gives the standard four attempts in five days. If they have not launched by the 12th, they will replenish things such as liquid oxygen and hydrogen for the fuel cells to prepare for the 17th attempt."

Comments

This story need a car analogy

[bartyboy]

Imagine you are taking your Civic from Maine to Califorina and it's winter. You have 18" dubs and semi-slick tires, so you are looking for a day with no precipitation. Good luck. Maine has bad roads and permanent black ice, so you are stuck in your mom's basement until June 8th. But you have to start driving before June 14th, when all the cops are on the roads, giving out tickets to any driver not wearing a beret to celebrate Bastille Day.

During the Bastille Bash, you did burnouts in front of your house so you need to refuel your car and put in some sweet NOS before leaving on the 17th.

Re:This story need a car analogy

[sconeu]

Except that Bastille Day is in July.

Re:This story need a car analogy

[stud9920]

...And only ignorant americans call it Bastille Day

I think I speak for everyone

[Tibor the Hun]

I think I speak for everyone when I ask WTF is so special about the STS-117 mission?

I even skimmed TFA and found this:

The STS-117's eleven day mission will install the second starboard truss segment, S3/S4, to the International Space Station (ISS). The truss will be attached to the first starboard truss segment, S1. This will be ISS assembly mission 13A.

I mean seriously?

Re:I think I speak for everyone

[Ice Wewe]

NASA has to at least pretend like they're doing something to continue receiving funding.

Mars by 2020? Forget it, we can't even launch a freakin' shuttle in a descent amount of time!

Re:I think I speak for everyone

[Ice Wewe]

My mistake... Moon by 2020, Mars by 2050? Forget it, even if NASA can get their act together by then, they'll be so much space debris floating around from discarded Chinese satellites, and whatnot, we won't even be able to give low orbit space flights!

Re:I think I speak for everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

No you don't speak for everyone

If you spoke for everyone, you'd be asking what date and time the re-entry is set for so you can catch the fireworks, assuming the liftoff fireworks show doesn't pan out.

Re:I think I speak for everyone

[WindBourne]

She was to launch back in Feb./March. time frame. But was hit by a freak hail storm. Rather than use a new fuel tank, they "repaired" this one. It is possible that this may end up being a spectacular launch. Hopefully not.

This particular mission is not that big of a deal, other than others are lined up and waiting on this. In particular, the ISS needs POWER. This will increase it a bit, but current net is actually down. The reason is that P6 was rolled up to allow for this transfer. It is only after the NEXT shuttle that we will see major increased power. In addition, EU's ATV is waiting for this to be launch, but they will launch before the columbus goes up. Apparently, they have no desire to pay for the whole thing if they have a mistake. Almost too bad that we do not have a single unit up there for them to try against and vet everything. Oh well.

All in all, by the end of this year, we will see major expansions to the ISS.

Now, if there is a way to get CAM restored to there, which is one of the few really good uses for the ISS.

Re:I think I speak for everyone

[compro01]

nothing special at all really. they're just putting another piece on the ISS.

how else are they gonna get the parts up there and attached?

Re:I think I speak for everyone

[oni]

It is possible that this may end up being a spectacular launch.

aw, don't say that! Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong, but foam comming off isn't so bad in and of itself, right? What happened with Columbia is that you had foam soaked in water (and frozen) so it was substantially more mass and therefore did more damage.

Re:I think I speak for everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget it, we can't even launch a freakin' shuttle in a descent amount of time!

No, no, no...launch is all about the ascent! Or did you mean decent amount of time

</spelling troll>

Launch delays and the technical challenge of going to the Moon or Mars are mostly separate issues. Besides, what is a decent amount of time for launching something into space? There's not exactly an industry benchmark here, especially for payloads the size of the shuttle.

Re:I think I speak for everyone

[WindBourne]

I am not a mechanical engineer, but ... I was more concerned about the pounding that the metal took. From what I read, it sounds like that is where they spent all their time. The foam was probably pretty easy to deal with. In fact, I would not be surprised if it does not have a whole new coat on it. But outer skin of the fueltank is thin (every ounce costs), therefore it is possible to do damage to it.

As I said, I do not want to see this fail, though I suspect that there are quite a few here who would.

Re:I think I speak for everyone

[oni]

I have heard before that the outer skin is so thin that it actually wouldn't be strong enough to survive launch. But when they fill it with fuel, it gets colder and more britle and that makes it just strong enough.

So there is some truth to what you're saying. Well, I'll just keep my fingers crossed and hope the launch goes off ok.

Reasons for delays?

[ookabooka]

17th time? Thats an awful lot of attempts; what were the causes for delays? I heard on the radio today (probably NPR) that there was concern for bolts to some sort of fuel pump that were showing signs of corrosion, but these concerns were dismissed. I sacrificed the ability to get a first post trying to find a link but was unsuccessful. Anyone else hear about this corrosion issue?

Re:Reasons for delays?

[ookabooka]

17th time? Thats an awful lot of attempts; what were the causes for delays?

After re-reading it, I think by "17th attempt" the submitter meant "attempt on the 17th". . .lol

Re:Reasons for delays?

[YouTookMyStapler]

what were the causes for delays?

I think it had something to do with some mild corrosion on the fuel system and something being amiss with the heat shielding. Earlier this year it was hail damage.

The radio people this morning were saying that it could lead to catastrophic failures. That is something that has happened before and I'm sure they would like to prevent it from happening again.

Then again, the Atlantis Shuttle is the 1985 model. I think it's time for NASA to get some new "wheels".

Re:Reasons for delays?

[chuckpeters]

ookabooka wrote:
Anyone else hear about this corrosion issue?

Kathy posted something about it at "NASA managers mull shuttle engine issue and that links to a Florida Today article.

Kathy usually includes this sort of news and more in our newsletter the Starry Messenger. Here is a mailto link to subscribe to the Starry Messenger.

Fantastic

[Anonymous Coward]

So...what other experiments are they going to do? Maybe test the effects of longterm exposure to microgravity and cosmic rays on 50 crayon drawings made by first graders across the USA?

Alternative fuels.

[quartic_influx]

The shuttle runs on hydrogen and oxygen fuel cells, eh? I hope we're not talking about the boosters here...

Re:Alternative fuels.

[WindBourne]

No, it provides electricty (and water) for them. In fact, one of the cool things about putting up this array is that it will allow the ISS to provide power back to the shuttles (and other ships such as the dragon), so it will allow them to stay much longer (not quite double IIRC). BTW, the H2 and O2 fuel tanks line the storage area of the shuttle.

Re:Alternative fuels.

[LordHatrus]

Technically speaking, the boosters are solid fuel, you insensitive clod. That large orange external tank on the other hand stores the Liquid Oxygen/Hydrogen. And, the poster really appears to be talking about the internal fuel cell ones for electricity in the shuttle.

this is why

[wizardforce]

17th time? Thats an awful lot of attempts; what were the causes for delays?

because the last time(s) we launched when we really shouldnt, people died. Challenger because they didnt want to delay the launch because of some faulty O-rings and the last disaster because of the fuel tank having a nasty tendency to shed foam. I would much rather them delay the flight then die- it is a terrible shame to lose human life and very bad for the space program in general if you rush things. what we wish could be done is be able to remotely install parts like this without risking human life but we haven't quite got that down yet- until then we have to be cautious with the lives we send up there.

Re:this is why

[Hugopig]

There's a sort of recursiveness to the shuttle program; the ISS exists to give the shuttle a reason to exist, which in turn gives the ISS a reason to exist. The shuttle fleet needs to be retired. Not after this mission, not after the ISS is completed. NOW. To continue to send up these fragile, aging birds is asking for another accident. And someone needs to ask, seriously and without fear of being attacked as cowardly, what the point actually is to sending human beings into space. We went to the moon, and found nothing particularly interesting there (certainly nothing compelling enough to make us want to go back). Technological society on earth itself is in a fragile state; perhaps now is not the time for human beings to be going out into space. Perhaps the time will never really come outside of fantasy novels.

Re:this is why

[Cassius Corodes]

ISS conducts experiments that cannot be conducted on earth due to gravity - some of which includes (and has included in the past) pharmaceuticals which save lives. Also space shuttles are not like your Ute - they are continuously reworked and have had numerous changes made to them over time, although I would still like to see something new developed. There is nothing cowardly about asking why humans should be in space - only short-sighted. Why did explorers explore the earth? Did they know the benefits of their recordings and observations? Finally space exploration as a whole is a good place for starting international cooperation, which hopefully might serve as a blueprint for other areas of international collaboration.

Re:this is why

[wizardforce]

The shuttle fleet needs to be retired.

Can't agree more- they're far too bulky and inefficient to be doing the work we ask of them- we wont become a cosmicly interesting species until we develop better spacecraft.

someone needs to ask, seriously and without fear of being attacked as cowardly, what the point actually is to sending human beings into space. We went to the moon, and found nothing particularly interesting there (certainly nothing compelling enough to make us want to go back). Technological society on earth itself is in a fragile state; perhaps now is not the time for human beings to be going out into space. Perhaps the time will never really come outside of fantasy novels.

because sitting here on this little speck of dust we call Earth is not an evolutionarily wise choice. there is only so much you can do as a species by sitting on your home planet. we can send probes places, gather dirt/gases what have you and send it back but that doesnt really tell us much about the places the probes went to. even after several probes sent to mars we still dont know much about its geology, the possibility of underground life or if it is even feasible to expand onto the planet. by sending people there we can get a literally hands on experience of what we're dealing with. the technology we devolop to get there along with the in flight experience of long term space travel will prve very useful if we intend to expand outward through space. for that matter, we need a backup home- Earth is just too much of a gamble. there are asteroids, overpopulation, wars and a number of other things we should keep an eye on along with having a way to survive far away from such things if we intend to survive as a species. even if that isnt enough of a reason, just think of all the other times we had a chance to explore- what would have happened if we had not gone- unthinkable. humans are curious-especially now and with good reason- instead of being relatively technologically backward on our planet from a lack of drive, we should push forward, outward and beyond into space and everythign we learn from going where no one has gone before.

Re:this is why

[ookabooka]

because the last time(s) we launched when we really shouldnt, people died. Challenger because they didnt want to delay the launch because of some faulty O-rings and the last disaster because of the fuel tank having a nasty tendency to shed foam. I would much rather them delay the flight then die- it is a terrible shame to lose human life and very bad for the space program in general if you rush things. what we wish could be done is be able to remotely install parts like this without risking human life but we haven't quite got that down yet- until then we have to be cautious with the lives we send up there.

Oh I understand that we must be cautious and make sure its absolutely safe before we launch. I suppose I was being more critical towards the methods in which these problems are detected, why do we have to get all the way ready for launch and then stop at the last second. For instance the corrosion that could cause a catastrophic failure. I hope that was detected on the ground during some routine maintenance and not shortly before they wanted to launch. As I stated before I do not believe this is their 17th try, rather the submitter phrased it somewhat ambiguously and was referring to the June 17th (the date) attempt.

Re:this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

The CEV is under contract to replace it already. They just finished hiring a lot of people for it in Houston. What they really need is to hire from schools besides Texas A&M because it was a bitch for me to get in here only because I wasn't from Texas... Luckily an Alum was here for me. They hire sophomores because of connections rather than skilled interns...

Re:this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

The last time NASA really rushed things, they killed three astronauts and landed twelve people on the Moon.

Challenger and Columbia weren't so much due to rushing things, but to rushing things for no reason and doing everything really half-assed.

If Challenger had happened back in the old days, those engineers would have stood up and said, "Hell no! I won't sign off on this, if we launch then that thing will explode!" If Columbia had happened back in the old days then as soon as the shed foam was discovered, NASA would have asked for and received pictures of the damage taken from spy satellites, then when the full extent of the damage was discovered they would have put Columbia into ultra-conservation mode, started a mad rush to prep Atlantis for a rescue mission, and started seeing if they could steal payload space on unmanned rockets to launch supplies.

Instead, the Challenger engineers shut up and sat down when told to do so, and the Columbia management refused to even ask for spy sat photos to evaluate the problem. Result: 14 dead people for no good reason.

I say, go off, rush things, take calculated risks, and kill some more astronauts! But do it because space travel is inherently dangerous, do it because they're accomplishing amazing things, don't do it because you're too dysfunctional to admit when you have a problem and you're flying a crippled, dangerously flawed design and going in circles in low-Earth orbit.

Re:this is why

[glitch23]

17th time? Thats an awful lot of attempts; what were the causes for delays?

I'd wager that "17th attempt" means the attempt on the 17th [of June] and not the 17th attempt (or "17th time" in your wording) because a couple sentences earlier in the summary it specifies the 2nd part to the shuttle window begins on June 17th. The cause for the delay (if it's even needed)? The summary says an Atlas rocket needs some launch pad time beginning on June 12th.

Re:this is why

[flyingsquid]

here are asteroids, overpopulation, wars and a number of other things we should keep an eye on along with having a way to survive far away from such things if we intend to survive as a species.

Mars isn't exactly much of a back-up plan. I mean, if we can't hack it on Earth, what are the odds we can survive in a hostile environment like Mars? That's like saying, "oh well, if I can't handle the challenges of community college, I'll go to MIT instead". Even on its worst imaginable day, the Earth is vastly more habitable than Mars or any other place in the solar system. If the Earth got hit by massive overpopulation, global warming, an all-out nuclear exchange, and then a giant asteroid, our species would still have a much better chance surviving here than on Mars, where the temperature, pressure, and gravity are all wrong, and where liquid water is in short supply. If disaster survival is the goal, then Dr. Strangelove's underground bunkers are the answer, not spaceships.

As for overpopulation and war, those problems don't have anything to do with Earth, those have to do with humanity itself. So if humans on Earth can't live sustainably or keep from killing each other off, why is there any reason to think that humans put on Mars would suddenly figure out how to do so?

Re:this is why

[wizardforce]

mars is a backup plan simply because it increases the number of planets we inhabit from 1 to 2- it doesnt have to be nice right now, we have the option of terraforming it in the long run and as for bunkers on earth- also an option but there are scenarios that can still really screw us over as a species- we may survive certain things by the skin of our teeth or not at all even with that kind of technology.

Re:this is why

[phulegart]

What is the actual point to sending human beings into space?

Think about that question you asked for a moment or two (more than you already have)...

What have human beings always done, from... I dunno... before we were considered "human" and lived in trees? Multiplied and expanded. We've got the multiplication thing (and division thing, but that's something else) pretty well covered. Two people become a family, which in turn begins a community, which becomes a settlement, which becomes a city, which becomes a country, which hits a water barrier, which crosses water barrier and continues to expand.

I'm not talking about any particular governmental ideology that is currently on the planet. Nor am I addressing any particular speed at which this needs to be accomplished. Of course there are still cultures on this planet that are still creating large settlements as opposed to organized cities, for a number of different reasons. What I am talking about, is how humans expand, encounter barriers, overcome and/or adapt to them, and continue to expand.

Now, on the one hand, we should most likely be focusing more time in creating our own pockets of permanent habitable environment under the ocean. This is mostly making more efficient use of our current space on the planet, and partly encouraging growth and strength in technological advancements regarding making stable pockets of permanent habitable environments. THAT would making going into space a bit more comfortable.

On the other hand, Space is far more attractive and romantic. If we skip the ocean thing, and jump directly to space, then the universe is our oyster. Imagine if you will, using the space elevator concept to first build a geosynchronous station, that would eventually be expanded into a lattice work ring to encircle the globe at a safe orbit. The construction of this could end world unemployment. What do you do with this lattice work ring? Lots. But maybe you use it to easily haul materials up from the planet, like a huge gantry. Use that same, now well trained and generational work force to build large space craft, things not designed to ever enter an atmosphere. Launch said craft toward Mars, and begin construction of another lattice ring. Then gantry down materials to colonize.

Sure, we have to perfect a lot of things between now and then. That's why we are sending people into space. If we are going to get off this Rock and start exploring the universe, one step at a time, we have to be doing silly, menial tasks along the way.

On that note, we do need to stop using the shuttles. If nothing else, build some better more efficient ones. Ok, build some new ones AND get going on a space elevator...

Re:this is why

[ildon]

I would much rather them delay the flight then die

This is an example of why it's important to know how to distinguish homonyms.

Re:this is why

[wizardforce]

oops?

Re:this is why

[Richard W.M. Jones]

There's a sort of recursiveness to the shuttle program; the ISS exists to give the shuttle a reason to exist, which in turn gives the ISS a reason to exist. The shuttle fleet needs to be retired. Not after this mission, not after the ISS is completed. NOW.

Couldn't agree more, but ...

And someone needs to ask, seriously and without fear of being attacked as cowardly, what the point actually is to sending human beings into space. We went to the moon, and found nothing particularly interesting there (certainly nothing compelling enough to make us want to go back).

When our ancestors lived in trees, the ground must have looked like a terribly dangerous, hostile place. Later when they lived in warm, fertile Africa, the north must have looked cold and uninhabitable.

We all know what happened - humans expanded their living area through technology - fire, clothes, tools.

The technology for getting to and living on Mars is another step up, but it's not unimaginably complex or anything. It's something that could be developed from what we have now in a series of small logical steps. It'll be dangerous, but the result will be a new planet to live on and exploit, and opening up the whole solar system to habitation.

Rich.

Re:this is why

[zcat_NZ]

But most of those experiments could be performed by a robot. Humans are bulky and fragile, can't work 23/7, and have very difficult requirements for fueling and waste removal.

Re:this is why

[zcat_NZ]

can't work 23/7 ... and they sometimes make mistakes too!

Re:this is why

[WindBourne]

OK, you say that we do not belong there. You want to be taken seriously without being attacked as cowardly. Cool. So why should we not expand? You do not give any real reason as to why you believe this. "Technological society on earth itself is in a fragile state;" is not a reason. Nor is saying that we "found nothing particularly interesting there". The truth is that we launched to the moon to show that we could, not to find anything. The voyage itself shows that we could do it. Heck, we have found a lot about the moon because of man being there. In particular, we are not well aware of a number of issues that we would never have thought of without being there for a short-time.

OTH, a number of us have pointed out that putting all of cards in one basket is stupid. This has been pointed out by the best and the brightest time after time. Einstein was pushing for it. Hawkins currently is pushing for it. Kennedy pushed it. Shoots, even China, India, Israel, Japan, and Brazil are pushing to get to space. They are bright enough to see that we need to expand. That alone is a good reason.

So seriously, what reason do you have for keeping us here? Money? If you say that we need to spend money on local life, then I will point out that if we can get into space cheap, then we should be able to build power collectors and beam the energy down. Once we are on the moon, then CHEAP observatories with much greater capabilities will be able to be built there. No radio signal interference. No light pollution. No sky. Likewise, if we get to Mars, it is most likely there is life there. Can you sya that it does not hold anything interesting? And if there is life there, then there is almost certainly life elsewhere.

Re:this is why

[0123456]

"ISS conducts experiments that cannot be conducted on earth due to gravity - some of which includes (and has included in the past) pharmaceuticals which save lives."

Name some. Then explain why that's worth $100,000,000,000.

"Why did explorers explore the earth?"

Money, in most cases. Columbus, for example, was looking for a new trade route to India.

I hate to tell you, but there's no-one to trade with in this solar system.

Re:this is why

[coolmoose25]

I don't want to come off as insensitive here, but that is what is going to happen anyway... in this particular case, the big loss isn't the human cost, it is the orbiter itself. It's somewhere around $2 Billion to replace, and essentially no possiblity that we'd build another replacement, so any orbiter loss at this point likely shuts the program down. Shuttle shutdown likely shuts down ISS construction. The ripple effects are such that a loss at this point is catastrophic... As such, while it will always be a tragedy when we lose astronauts in space, they are being especially careful because the whole program is on the line...

Re:this is why

[hador_nyc]

the fuel tank having a nasty tendency to shed foam

The reason for this is the redesign of the fuel tank's foam. Initially, it was designed with chlorofluorocarbons in it; nasty thing if you're a fan of the ozone layer; the old foam had no issues falling off. In my opinion, this tank should have been grandfathered in past the treaty banning the use of CFCs, because it's not like there's either a lot of shuttle launches or is there a lot of CFC in it compared to the bazzillions of air conditioners in use in the US. I mean, we got an exception for the CFCs we use as an herbicide or something like that, so why not a few dozen or so shuttle fuel tanks to cover the life of the program? For the record, I fully support the ban, but obviously think the shuttle should have been exempted. After all, it was already planned to be retired when the ban went into effect in 1990.

Ironically, I see nothing wrong with the risk to human life in this. All the astronauts are aware of it, and take the risk willingly. I tried to become one as well while I was in the AF, but alas didn't make the cut. There's nothing wrong with taking high risks for high reward, but then maybe you agree with that, but your point is that the space station, particularly in it's currently and planned scaled down form, is not worth it. That, I agree with. Going back to the moon; however, is a different story.

Re:this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

Its certainly true that people are quick to forget just how important the landing of people of the moon has turned out to be...not at all is the answer to that i'm afraid.

Fact is, it was a typically pointless and empty gesture from the US. They reacted to the fact that the USSR had gotten the satellite into space, the first man into space etc and needed a publicity stunt to try and convince folk that they were keeping up.

In fact things only got worse for them; while the US quietly forget about the moon and tried to get somewhere with this pathetic and frankly rather disasterous shuttle programme, the Russians pushed ahead with their space station Mir, which was by all accounts a huge success.

Seems like all the money in the world can only get you so far, if you're a bunch of idiots that is.

Re:this is why

[imroy]

I hate to tell you, but there's no-one to trade with in this solar system.

No, but there's gotta be all sorts of metals and minerals in the asteroid belt. That might be worth something.

Re:this is why

[WindBourne]

not at all is the answer to that i'm afraid.
Hummm. Well, lets see.

1. Ability to land on the moon, And survive there.
2. Ability to see what is on the moon.
3. Ability to find out how hard the moon is.
4. Ability to find out how difficult living there will be due to dust PRIOR to starting to set up a lunar settlement.

How important is all that? Priceless. In fact, had we not shared that info with humanity, other countries would be planning on how to get there, not on settlements. Even now, Russia, China, EU, India are all making plans based on the knowledge that Apollo brought back.

Mir lasted 15 years and was a slow build-up of parts. It was a success, at least in my book. There are ppl who looked into the true costs on it and declared it a major waste. They are no different than you trying to declare that Apollo was not useful. MIR showed what it will take to survive in space. Apollo showed us the way to getting off this planet (and by nearly several decades BEFORE mir).

ISS is also a slow build-up due to launch capability, but is quit a bit bigger. More importantly, it gave America, EU, Japan, Canada, and Russia a way to learn to work together. Right now, we are talking about the moon with America acting all weird about it, but with the next admin, we will surely hook back up with Russia and EU on it. Again. Why? Because it benefits all of us. Putin and W are just trying to throw their weight around. In fact, this is W's way to try to force the missile shield. But the next admin will realize that it is in everybodies best interest regardless of the status of the missle shield (which is not designed to protect against Russian missiles but Chinese and middle east missile).

Apollo, like SPutnik, Mir, ISS are all important milestones for the world.

Re:this is why

[ypps]

It is impossible to create an independent colony on Mars without some fundamental technologies. From the top of my mind: *Nuclear propulsion (to be able to send a meaningful amount of advanced technology to Mars). *An extremely slim, clever "leapfrog" production system. Mars is not independent until they can build everything that we have here on Earth. Everything from paper and pencils (or e-paper) to things like solar cells, integrated circuits, heavy machinery and whole spaceships. With today's technology almost every factory on Earth is needed to produce all the items that the Mars people will need.

Re:this is why

[toxicity69]

I believe settling on Mars would actually be easier than settling underneath the ocean....the reason I say so is that the further down you go in the ocean, you have increasing amounts of pressure on everything due to the amount of water above you. This is a HUGE challenge to overcome.

Whereas if we went to Mars, ok, theres a few things to work out, like; how do we get there fast enough; what kind of building materials to use when there; how to deal with the radiation; how to produce water. These are probably a lot easier to solve however, than "how the hell do we build a structure capable of holding up the entire freakin' ocean". As I understand it, Mars has a similar atmospheric pressure to Earth - and even if it doesn't, it still has to be a lot easier to deal with than holding up the Atlantic on your walls.

I am not a scientist or anything but I can't even imagine how you would even get any buildings or building materials down onto the ocean floor! The pressure and buoyancy (sp?) would be a major hurdle to overcome. Sure they are building underwater buildings in some parts of the world as hotels, but they are generally less than 100 feet underwater. Now imagine something like 1 mile or further. Friggin' impossible.

Re:this is why

[iamlucky13]

There's a lot more to it than that. If you're one of the people who followed the Columbia accident investigation, than you heard the term normalization of deviancy: things not going according to plan must be ok because it was ok last time. Foam loss had happened frequently before, and even a couple impacts, with the worst consequence being some dings in the tiles.

If the engineers who raised the concerns had been truly been convinced this was a problem they would have stuck to their guns (or they were fatally worthless). As it was, they accepted the arguments that this had happened in the past and all the options for addressing it were needlessly expensive. I hate to risk being misinterpreted on a point where this criteria was proven faulty, but if NASA balked at every tough call we'd still be launching unmanned boilerplate Mercury capsules right now trying to iron out all the kinks. What I'm saying here is not that they made the right call on Columbia, but that it was a hard call to make, and they interpreted history in their favor.

It was a hard call to make because they didn't have any good indicators of a problem. With Apollo 13, they had a big bang, an out-of-control spacecraft, and rapidly dropping pressure in their oxygen tanks. Within an hour the oxygen was gone and they had no power on Odyssey. These were absolutely concrete indicators that the crew was in immediate danger. With Columbia all they had was a low-speed video of a piece of foam glancing off and disintegrating, and the shuttle operated almost flawlessly for a week afterwards.

Also, while the "old" NASA took a lot bigger steps, they easily cut more corners. Seemingly worse things happened and they continued ahead anyway. A hatch blew open early on Mercury 6 on splashdown, nearly drowning Gus Grissom. No changes were made to the hatch on future missions. Gemini 8 had a thruster malfunction that sent it into such a violent spin the crew nearly blacked out. The Lunar Landing Research Vehicles had a total of three crashes where the astronauts were saved by ejecting. The tank that blew up on Apollo 13 was known to have problems on the pad. Apollo 13 also had a second stage engine shutdown during launch due to a long-known "pogo" problem that had potential to vibrate the ship apart. Apollo 12 was hit by lightning during ascent. Apollo 11 had to manuever until it only had a few seconds of fuel left before touchdown. Skylab litterly had large, important pieces fall off during launch. A lot of engineers and the astronauts fussed about the wiring and the crew hatch on the command modules, but nothing was done with either until they combined to kill the three astronauts of Apollo 1.

Perhaps Challenger wouldn't have happened under the old NASA, but some of the circumstances were similar to the Apollo 1 fire, and I daresay they would've laughed at the foam loss on Columbia when they first saw it. Even if they hadn't, their best efforts might still have come up painfully short, although I admit then they would at least have had the grace of trying.

Re:this is why

[phulegart]

Don't forget, that the idea of traveling to space was only so much Science Fiction and considered impossible... until it was done.

There are people who still say that some of our historic space missions were hoaxes, due to disbelief that we can actually get out there.

I agree that heading out into space might be easier than to the depths of the ocean. And getting killed in either environment, is still getting killed in either environment. However, dealing with the ocean first and overcoming the obstacles there is closer to working with a safety net, since in the end, we are still on the planet. If building to 1000 feet depths crushes all structures we attempt, then we would build to 800 feet, and keep working on adding that extra 200. Working with the ocean gives us the ability to deal with it as we can. Space is closer to an All or Nothing deal. We are either practicing for space on the ground, or putting it to the test in space.

The ocean can also prep us for dealing with different atmospheric pressures on different planets. If we "master" our oceans, we are that much closer to dropping a manned probe into Jupiter's soup.

Overall, I agree with you that at THIS point, from what we've been doing historically, getting to Mars with a manned mission will happen before we develop a permanent every-man city under the ocean.

Re:this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if they hadn't, their best efforts might still have come up painfully short, although I admit then they would at least have had the grace of trying.

That's exactly my point. I'm not saying that the old NASA wouldn't have gotten anybody killed, far from it. But rather, they would have accomplished something while doing it. The new NASA is so weak and scared that they don't do anything interesting at all with manned spaceflight, but they still kill astronauts. I believe, and I think the astronauts agree, that it's ok to get some astronauts killed in the pursuit of a good goal.

another one?

[DeadDarwin]

NASA == Need Another Seven Astronauts

Re:another one?

[Usquebaugh]

OK we'll let her drive

Re:another one?

[Anonymous Coward]

1986 called. It wants its joke back.

Should we really be announcing the date?

[iminplaya]

Isn't that what they're expecting us to do?

I'm not too interested in a shuttle mission.

[je ne sais quoi]

What I am interested in is this. According to this:

In an interview with NPR's Steve Inskeep airing May 31, 2007 on NPR News' Morning Edition, Griffin said the following: "I have no doubt that global -- that a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change.

"First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown, and second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings - where and when - are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take." [17]

James Hansen, a NASA climate scientist, stated that Griffin's comments showed "arrogance and ignorance", as millions will likely be harmed by global warming.[18] Jerry Mahlman, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said that Griffin was either "totally clueless" or "a deep antiglobal warming ideologue."

This James Hansen fellow is the same one who had his work censored by the 24 year old Bush appointee with no college degree. Sorry but I can't trust a god-damn thing any Bush appointee says any more, and that includes Griffin. Earth's climate may not be optimal but trying to keep the one we got sure is cheaper than going out to look for the "optimal" one. What a loony! Shuttle missions? That's just fiddling while Rome burns. Space Research at NASA has been cut 25% under this guy.

Re:I'm not too interested in a shuttle mission.

[syncrotic]

Why should we assume that Griffin is "antiglobal warming," as Hansen so eloquently put it? That is, why assume that Griffin's comments are just insincere justification for toeing the Bush party line? I think his comments are a very reasonable position for an informed person to take.

Can you answer his rhetorical questions: is today's climate really the best possible one, and is human action making it worse? All we know it's making it different. Is letting nature take its course, as free as possible from human intervention, the "right thing to do?" Is anthropogenic climate change automatically bad just because it's anthropogenic? What if it has positive consequences for some?

I'm not advocating a position on this: I'm just saying that Griffin's comments should be evaluated on their own merits rather than being lumped into "pro" or "anti" categories and accepted/rejected on that basis. The guy has a point; don't dismiss him just because his argument leads to a conclusion that you don't agree with.

Re:I'm not too interested in a shuttle mission.

[Usquebaugh]

25% is a start NASA needs its budget cut 100%, it's all pork and no benefit.

The shuttle is a disgrace, by now NASA should have a daily scheduled launch system, capable of hauling 40 tonnes to LEO. No fuss, drama or excitement just like a bus service. I think old fashioned non-reusable rockets were the answer.

Commercial services should have begun in the early 80s. But guess who tied up all the suppliers with one way contracts.

Instead the US displays it's crumbling empire every time they wheel out the shuttle, rather like Ford and the Edsel. China, India & Pakistan are going be getting the job done while the US decides who to invade next.

The only good thing in the last 20 years was the X-Prize, pitiful.

Re:I'm not too interested in a shuttle mission.

[The Master Control P]

There will never be any real commercial space service other than data bouncing off satellites so long as we are bounded by the pitifully small energy output of chemical fuels, which impose a cost of (at the very least) hundreds of dollars to put one Kg in low orbit. We have alternatives, but they are all impractical for various reasons at the moment:

1. Space elevator. First nation to build one owns space, but we need to be able to spin a flawless molecule 40000Km long first.
2. Nuclear engines. We had the technology to build them almost 50 years ago, including ones able to acheive over 1:1 thrust:weight. Unfortunately, any nuclear engine that can lift itself off will be unshielded and this is unacceptable.
3. Project Orion. Could potentially launch a spacecraft weighing millions of tons into orbit. Unfortunately, this would generate significant (though not truly massive) fallout. The worst effect would be injecting a massive amount of radiation into the van Allen belts. Due to test ban treaties, it's drive system cannot legally be activated lower than geosynchronous orbit.
4. Maneuver asteroid into orbit. Find a suitable asteroid the size of a football field; Use one nuke to kick it into a rendevous with earth. Then aerobrake and use more nukes to slow it into a stable high (1000km) circular orbit. Sidesteps "getting shit into space" by using shit that's already there. Obvious public fear issues; Lack of ability to think on necessary time scales. I forsee 2004-mn4 Apophis maybe getting this treatment in 2039.
5. Electromagnetic launch. Sidesteps need to carry launch fuel by putting the fuel on earth where it's cheaper. Issues with initial expense, aerodynamic drag at low altitudes, necessarily extreme acceleration preventing human use.
6. Fusion power. Yeah, it's been 20 years away for 50^h^h 60 years.

If any of these can be fully-developed and made working, great. Until then, space utilization is a non-starter. Heck, we do have launches by large space corporations. It costs several tens of millions of dollars to launch a satellite on an Ariane or Delta-IV. You can buy your way onto a Proton, and it still costs millions. Capitalism can do a lot of great things, but defeating the laws of physics isn't one of them. Until we get around chemical fuels, there will never be a meaningful human presence in space, and that's not NASA's fault.

Re:I'm not too interested in a shuttle mission.

[WindBourne]

First, NASA's mission is NOT to make space access cheap. Their mission is to go where others can not. Though, they have tried to make space access cheap to be able to do more with less. In the 70's, they designed the Apollo replacement. It was to be a plane launcher carrying a rocket up to about 100K at multiple mach, and then launch the top half (where do you think scaled composites got their work from). Nixon killed it. He pushed for lower costs on the development. The shuttle is Nixon's legacy.

Gov. hind sight is like so many 20/20. They will continue to make mistakes. In addition, so will other gov. China has blown a few rockets. In addition, they have developed very little (though I love their concrete tower; great idea). They have bought or stolen almost all of their program. Brazil had a MASSIVE failure. Pakistan has not launched anything (yet). At this time, they have missiles. India is moving ahead slowly. So that leaves EU, Russia, and America as the big space launchers. EU has the ariane V, which is actually a decent rocket. But it has fairly high launch costs on a /lb basis. Russia has smaller launchers (which is why ISS was compromised) and they are old. Even now, they want to design new ones, but their gov. does not wish to spend the money. That leaves America. Right now, we have the shuttle, saturn, deltas, and pegasus. We are about to have falcons and SS2/Tier-2's. In addition, we have Ares to be designed and built(though I would rather see the direct launcher due to low development costs and time).

While the X-Prize helped get citizen focus, the reality is that bigelow and spacex would have happened regardless of the x-prize. NASA made this possible. How? By doing the bulk of the research that BOTH companies currently use. They are simply applying a low cost approach to this. But the heavy lifting was done by Germany, USSR/Russia, and American Research dollars. If they had to pay for even a fraction of it, they would not be looking at doing these.

Finally, you speak of non-reuseable rockets. Yet, the lowest costs space access appears to be the falcons (which is on track to have lower launch costs than Russia OR china). How are they doing it? Be re-using just about everything. On the falconI, the cheap 2'nd stage and payload will not return. On the falcon 9, but stages will return AND be re-used. Most of the dragon will be re-used. Musk has made a HUGE point of showing that it is re-usablilty of nearly everything that is half of lowering his costs. The other half of lowering his costs is the russian way; Develop minimal amount of hardware and re-use it over and over. He has developed 2 engines. And one design is used up to 27 engines for the falcon 9 heavy. Smart on his part (assuming that it works).

Re:I'm not too interested in a shuttle mission.

[Mr2cents]

Well, just yesterday I read two articles on spacedaily:

1) Griffin Not Sure Global Warming A Problem
2) NASA Research Suggest Earth Climate Approaching Dangerous Point

Somehow I have problems reconciling these two standpoints.

Re:I'm not too interested in a shuttle mission.

[jafac]

Still - there were a lot of politics involved in the cancellation of X-33. It's been 10 years. I think this approach merits another try. The Shuttle has some advantages in certain mission profiles, and the X-33 approach could yield a launch vehicle, or family of launch vehicles that has a potential to realize some of the benefits that the Shuttle was intended to deliver, but never did.

There are some pretty serious technical challenges to conquer to make the X-33 approach work. I would rather have seen those challenges conquered, rather than the whole approach dumped because of a few failed tests. Looking back at the early space program work - there were many, many failures, and they pushed forward anyway.

I think the Falcon approach is good too: but I think that Musk, and the SpaceX organization is currently re-learning some expensive and hard lessons about spacelaunch, after going into the business with a high degree of arrogance. Musk's statements after the last test flight's failure show that the arrogance is still there. And SpaceX is going to likely burn through a lot more money before they learn some humility. I hope they survive that phase of corporate growth. I really do.

Re:I'm not too interested in a shuttle mission.

[WindBourne]

Oh, I was a major backer of X-33. What burned my hide is that the X-33 would have replaced the shuttle already. From there, we could have started creating another true heavy lift vehicle, along the lines of ares V or bigger. At the least, L-Mart tried to continue with the tech, but Air force would not allow it (it was not NASA that said no, but the air force). But that was another bad decision by W. in a long string of bad ones. The funny thing is that he made it sound like it was goldin's choice, but it never was. It was no different than what happened at the CIA.

But the advantage of the 33 was reuse-ablility. That is what SpaceX is doing. In addition, that is the same place that Scaled is heading. Once that happens, not only will the shuttle die, but so will Ares I. And if SpaceX can get the BFR off the gorund before the Ares V does, then it will be the dominant rocket for at least 10-15 years.

Re:I'm not too interested in a shuttle mission.

[Anonymous Coward]

The shuttle is a disgrace, by now NASA should have a daily scheduled launch system, capable of hauling 40 tonnes to LEO. No fuss, drama or excitement just like a bus service. I think old fashioned non-reusable rockets were the answer.

Not be a flamer, but "group x should do y" statements coming from people outside group x who have never tried y always get to me. There is a huge difference between saying something and doing something. Your statement is an arbitrary opinion without any basis in cost, benefit, or technical feasibility.

You call the shuttle a disgrace, but only one other nation had anything close and it flew only once. In fact, despite the hindsight recognition that a one-size-fits all solution was the wrong approach, the Shuttle is technically an astounding vehicle, and has many capabilities (like payload return and a versatile work platform) that will be completely unavailable for the next 20 years at least after its retirement. The Hubble would've been abandoned years ago without the shuttle. As far as manned spaceflight goes, China is where we were in 1965, and frankly, I think it's encouraging that they're following suit. Far from being a display of a "crumbling empire," I'd say the investments of other nations in space exploration are a case of imitation being the sincerest form of flattery. It shows us it's worthwhile to continue.

The X-prize was relatively meaningless. It showed that space was not completely off-limits the the little guy, but it changed nothing with regards to exploration or commercial applications. SpaceX's nearly successful orbital shot a couple months ago is 10 times as important as the X-prize's fully successful conclusion. Potentially the same applies to Bigelow's decision to make a serious committment to making a financially viable project out of NASA's old Transhab technology, although I have my doubts about his chances of success.

Re:I'm not too interested in a shuttle mission.

[khallow]

I don't see why this works you up so. If global warming is a genuine threat, then we will acquire evidence of this. Sure, there will be political forces that attempt to stifle the research, but note that as in the case you mention, they fail. In the meantime, it would be irresponsible to exaggerate the threat of global warming and warn vaguely of "tipping points" that may or may not be there. But there is a good reason to think that a higher CO2 concentration is more optimal since one will have to trade off some environmental damage against economic activity.

Further, it's not clear to me why melting of the ice caps is considered a tipping point. It doesn't directly change albedo in most parts of the world and would actually increase (I don't know by how much) temporarily the amount of CO2 that the oceans can absorb. The sea level changes would be insignificant in their effect on global climate.

My take is that the genuine tipping points will occur when increasing temperature causes an increase in greenhouse gasses particularly methane. Melting of the ice caps won't do this IMHO.

Re:I'm not too interested in a shuttle mission.

[iamlucky13]

Holy climatologist knee-jerk, Batman! Suddenly it's arrogance to have an opinion? Even if it's in line with most of America?

Griffin's statement is basically that he doesn't think "battling climate change" (whatever the hell that means...don't even pretend Al Gore has any idea) is a do-or-die committment, the same as the 95% of the rest of America whom continue life more-or-less as normal. Some journalist asked his personal opinion on it and he gave it. It was not a policy statement. In fact, even as an opinion it was very non-committal. He fully accepts the last century's temperature trends and even generally seems to accept the theory that it's human-caused. He never said no one should take action on it.

If you want a policy statement, you should read the rest of the interview, where he noted that NASA not only has no mandate to "battle climate change," but not even any authorization. However, they do quite actively study the climate, which is in their authorization and the reason Hansen has a job.

Frankly, I'm not surprised at Hansen's response. He tends to be a little inflamatory and he's definitely gotten some inappropriate responses from higher up on some of his research that he's probably very defensive about. I find his response excessively critical, but perhaps it was taken out of context as poorly as Griffin's was. Mahlman is clearly presumptious, however, calling him a "deep antiglobal warming ideologue" when he pretty much just ascribed to the theory.

Furthermore, Griffin is only a minority force in driving the cuts in earth observation science. His office presents a recommended budget, but it's based on the total dollars budgeted by Congress and the President and has to be accepted by both. It also has to reflect the priorities established by both, and the top one is currently building a replacement for the shuttle. Even this, the highest priority, has faced its own budget cuts, so it's hardly like there's a war on earth-studies. Additionally, NASA is only one of many public entities funding climate research, including NOAA, the Navy, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Agriculture. Some of the earth-oriented satellites actually come from their budgets.

And it may re-assure some of you to know that NASA currently still has 16 space-based earth-science missions with eight more slated to launch over the next five years, including the Orbital Carbon Observatory. To the best of my knowledge, this is significantly more activity than at almost any time in the past.

Re:I'm not too interested in a shuttle mission.

[jafac]

I'm not so sure about the BFR taking over.

Going back to Nixon's bad call, and now the Ares fiasco - this technology delivers a critical jobs-preservation effort to the industry that grew around first, Apollo, then the Shuttle (which very much contributes to the high cost of Shuttle missions). At least in part - it's about retooling our nation's Launch Vehicle Manufacturing Infrastructure. Neither Lockheed, nor Boeing, can sustain EELV (Atlas and Delta) manufacturing at a rate that could fill in for the demand that would be necessary to replace the shuttle. Ares (reusability) is about maintaining the Shuttle hardware manufacturing infrastructure, so we can produce hardware at a rate that can sustain our space program. I don't know that SpaceX is going to have the capability to manufacture in volume - though reusability will somewhat take care of that (Musk has actually been downplaying Falcon's reusability, and says that they can be profitable even without reusability.)

In any case, I don't see Falcon "taking over" anything. But becoming a significant player? Sure. (incidentally, this is also a big problem for the X-33 "what if" - even had X-33 fully succeeded, there would still have been a ton of political, and production-type issues, as the Shuttle phased-out - OR, some real significant infrastructure funding would have been needed (for manufacturing, reprocessing, launch facilities, etc. ) - - I'm not certain, but I believe that Katrina may have even played a role in the political finagling around Ares - in the drive to adapt Shuttle hardware - to preserve the huge economic boon to the New Orleans area that the Shuttle Main Tank manufacturing facility represents. (this facility, and its staff, of course, could be re-tooled to build some kind of main-stage booster. Fairly easily. But it would have been more than NASA wanted to spend on Ares - in a Bush regime).

Correction

[p0tat03]

"Imagine you are taking your Civic from Maine to Califorina and it's winter."

Correction: Imagine you are taking your Civic from Houston to Orlando and it's winter, and you're wearing astronaut diapers...

Prophecy, the number 23.

[Anonymous Coward]

June 8, 2007

06 08 2007 -> 6+8+2+7 = 23

It's the number 23!

To see The Number 23 movie.

Died Atlantis space shuttle after died Columbia space shuttle.

Have to disagree wrt Challenger

[SirBruce]

Challenger certainly was the fault of "rushing things". This was back when NASA was still thinking they could launch as many as 12 flights a year, and there was a lot of pressure schedule to fill commercial launch contracts as well as space science. The desire to launch on time was certainly a major factor in the decision to launch Challenger when they did. While a Challenger-style loss would probably have happened eventually, chances are it would not have happened on that particular flight.

As far as Columbia, that was more of a case of ignoring a problem that many people didn't think was a big problem and didn't really have an answer for if it turned out it WAS a big problem, so it was better out of sight and out of mind.

In both cases, long-term stand-downs were required to fix the problems. Even if NASA had recognized and tried to fix the problems in advance, it is likely they would have kept flying with the old designs until the new ones were ready. So in that sense, schedule pressure would have played a factor in increasing the risk of a failure of both types.

Excited because its so mundane, long live Russia!

[fantomas]

I'm excited because it's so mundane, and actually disappointed because they are making a big deal out of it ... I think we're making progress in spaceflight when it *isn't* a big deal to be launching spacecraft, and when the mission is just a construction job. Guys going up there not to undertake groundbreaking science but to bolt on some bits of steel. That's when I believe we're making progress and it might just succeed.

That's why I've always loved the Russian/ Soviet space programmes. In the USA, everything seems to be one-off, hand crafted. Soyuz capsules seem to get produced like tractors. Feels like the USA is in the early days of hand crafting cars. When we get to the Ford of US spacecraft, a production line just rolling them off, that's when we might have a chance of actually getting into space and expanding from this planet (philosophical /ecological issues aside). Right now I think the Russians are closest to that model.

Long live Russia! I like Russia because US stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

How many tractors?

1000 tractors per day? Or 1 tractor per year?

I like the evolved design of the russian tractors in the production chaining.

good place to watch the launch

[s-sagerian]

My family and I will be in Florida and I wanted to take my kids to see the launch. Can anyone recommend a good place to see the launch? Is traffic and crowds a problem around the launch facility? Since its going to be an evening launch I was thinking of getting a hotel room close to the beach, can anyone recommend one ? Thanks!

Summary

[DerWulf]

Would it have killed the OP to give a small summary of the planned mission?

Re:Summary

[skynexus]

A small summary of the planned mission:

The mission will deliver to the International Space Station (ISS) the second starboard truss segment (the S3/S4 Truss) and its associated energy systems, including a set of solar arrays. During the course of the mission the crew will install the new truss segment, retract one set of solar arrays, and unfold the new set on the starboard side of the station. STS-117 will also bring Expedition 15 crewmember Clayton Anderson to the station, and will return with ISS crewmember Sunita Williams. For more information, see also the Wikipedia STS-117 article.

Don't update your calendars just yet

[dekkerdreyer]

The crane operator's union is having a meeting next week, which is likely to delay the mating operation. Expect a possible delay in the launch schedule.

emissions

[Anonymous Coward]

So how many tonnes of pollution are vented into the atmosphere when we launch this beast? Or does NASA get a pass because "intellectuals" have a thing for space travel and not drag-racing? After all the junk we've put in orbit what did we get? Freeze-dried ice cream (where can you buy it now?), Velcro and Tang.

We know it's June, but what year?

[Roadkills-R-Us]

2007? 2008? 2017?

At the rate we're going, Belgium, Ethiopia and Rhode Island will have space fleets before THE USA does much else in space.

Texas needs to get its rear in gear on this.

That's No Moon

[bill_mcgonigle]

I mean seriously?

Yeah, really, I mean, all they're doing is building a frikkin' permanent space station in orbit around our planet. What the hell? We've got dozens of them already.

Oh, wait, no - this is a first-of-its-kind monumental achievement for Man, and perhaps a real stepping stone to the human colonization of the galaxy.

Seriously though, just ignore the space stories if you don't care about space exploration. Some of us think it's really cool - 'stuff that matters', even. I realize some people think a new sub-rev of an AMD chipset is more exciting - that's OK too.