Slashdot Mirror
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."
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?
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
17th time? Thats an awful lot of attempts; what were the causes for delays?
.lol
After re-reading it, I think by "17th attempt" the submitter meant "attempt on the 17th". .
If you are about to mod me down, keep in mind that this post was most likely sarcastic.
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".
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.
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.
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.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
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.
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?
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.
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.
/ecological issues aside). Right now I think the Russians are closest to that model.
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
- Space elevator. First nation to build one owns space, but we need to be able to spin a flawless molecule 40000Km long first.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.Hummm. Well, lets see.
- Ability to land on the moon, And survive there.
- Ability to see what is on the moon.
- Ability to find out how hard the moon is.
- 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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.