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 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

[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...

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.