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.

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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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: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.

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.

[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.

[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).

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...