Slashdot Mirror


Shuttle Endeavour Blasts Off For Space Station

Gwmaw writes "The space shuttle Endeavour bolted off its seaside launch pad on Monday on a voyage to install the last two main pieces of the International Space Station. The 4:14 a.m. EST (0914 GMT) blastoff from the Kennedy Space Center shattered the predawn tranquility with a deafening roar and a brilliant tower of flames that momentarily turned the dark Florida sky as bright as day." HD video of launch attached.

23 of 133 comments (clear)

  1. Extended? by Chris+Lawrence · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now that the return to the moon has been cancelled, I wonder if NASA will extend Shuttle missions beyond this year? They have already hinted they may extend the life of the ISS, but are they going to rely on the Russians for the next ten years?

    1. Re:Extended? by djmartins · · Score: 4, Funny

      If they do extend shuttle flights it will only take a few years to blow up the ones they have left....

    2. Re:Extended? by vlm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they do extend shuttle flights it will only take a few years to blow up the ones they have left....

      It may be modded funny right now, but its also correct. If an orbiter is destroyed every 50 flights, and they launch ten times per year, and they've only got two available (because of the need for a ready to go rescue orbiter).

      The funny part, is the only reason the shuttle program exists is to visit the station, and the only reason the station exists is to have a place for the shuttle to go. Every other purpose had to be removed to save money in budget crunches. So now that the shuttles are going away, the "almost finished" station will be deorbited in 3... 2... 1...

      It's kind of the spacecraft equivalent of "dig a hole and fill it back in, repeat". No one makes money off a built station that has been budget crunched to the point that it does nothing. But you can make lots of money by building a station.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    3. Re:Extended? by sznupi · · Score: 4, Informative

      Shuttle supply chain is winding now for quite some time, I wouldn't be very surprised if continuing it would be end up similarly costly to pushing Constellation and both Ares rockets forward...but with only three orbiters and not much to do with them.

      Shuttle is past its time; it wasn't really used as intented (landing quickly after launch to escape shutdown attempt), bringing down satellites was quickly abandoned, new space telescopes are beyond its abilities anyway, and we can launch space station modules performing rendezvous by themselves. We just need it this last few times to launch modules...designed to be launched by Shuttle.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    4. Re:Extended? by Chris+Lawrence · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So, without the new Constellation Program, we're looking at what, fifteen years before the US has manned spaceflight capability again? Even if NASA spends time doing research for Mars, a lot of practical and institutional knowledge is going to be lost during this period. There was already going to be five years of depending on the Russians to get to the ISS, now if this is extended, we could be looking at ten years or more. I hate to say it, but this really looks like the death of US space exploration, not a refocusing as the Obama administration is trying to spin it.

      http://www.watchinghistory.com/2009/11/future-of-space-exploration.html

    5. Re:Extended? by stoolpigeon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's weird. I could swear the shuttle performed a rather significant mission recently that did not involve going to the space station.
       
      I have to confess, while watching the launch this morning I didn't really care about what's practical or needed. A night launch of the shuttle is the most impressive feat of human engineering I have ever witnessed. When I was a kid working on an aircraft carrier I thought that was pretty cool, and it is to some extent, but the shuttle is in a completely different league of awesome. Lighting up the night sky is not hyperbole. I live an hour drive from Kennedy and it looks like the sun is coming up when they fire the engines. Then, when the shuttle lifts from the pad, it gets even brighter. Which my head has a difficult time taking in. I'll be sad to see it go, even if it does make sense.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    6. Re:Extended? by jollyreaper · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The funny part, is the only reason the shuttle program exists is to visit the station, and the only reason the station exists is to have a place for the shuttle to go. Every other purpose had to be removed to save money in budget crunches. So now that the shuttles are going away, the "almost finished" station will be deorbited in 3... 2... 1...

      It's kind of the spacecraft equivalent of "dig a hole and fill it back in, repeat". No one makes money off a built station that has been budget crunched to the point that it does nothing. But you can make lots of money by building a station.

      Now that the station on longer has to be in a shuttle-accessible orbit, could we not fit it with a nifty little ion engine and slowly boost it to a higher altitude?

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    7. Re:Extended? by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Now that the station on longer has to be in a shuttle-accessible orbit, could we not fit it with a nifty little ion engine and slowly boost it to a higher altitude?

      Not really. Much higher and the other vehicles (Soyuz, ATV, etc...) won't be able to reach it either. On top of that, while under thrust the micro gee environment aboard the station will ruined, ruining practically every experiment onboard.

    8. Re:Extended? by dpilot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So the number of "Space Camps" is increasing...

      The biggest camp is the "Every decision NASA makes is wrong"
      - The Shuttle is the biggest boondoggle ever, we never should have dropped the Apollo-era Big Dumb Booster.
      - Dropping the Shuttle is the dumbest idea ever, we've set our technology back 40 years.
      - Etc, with every decision NASA makes

      Then we have the closely related camp, "Everything the government does is wrong, and the private sector can do it better and cheaper."

      Now that we're about to test that theorem, at least with LEO access, a new camp has emerged, saying that by dropping LEO access, NASA has abandoned human space travel for the US. Interestingly enough, it has taken Aries from "can't possibly work" to "can't do without it" status.

      This of course is closely related to the "Obama (and Democrats, in general) is ALWAYS wrong" and "Bush (and Republicans, in general) is ALWAYS wrong" camps.

      I prefer to belong to none of the above camps. Through my career I've noticed in general that killed projects tend to develop a sunny afterglow, problems forgotten. Projects that are killed before ever being tested in the real world get a particularly sunny afterglow.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    9. Re:Extended? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In theory, but actually, if Hubble had been launched the same way KH satellites are, once the optical flaw was found Congress would have never budgeted the money to NASA to build one that worked. So we'd be stuck with the joke that Hubble couldn't see and no one would have floated another space telescope.

      Hubble isn't an excuse for the Shuttle, the Shuttle was an excuse to upgrade the only astronomy space telescope.

  2. Is this really news? by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And, considering the bleak future of the shuttle program, the ISS, and manned spaceflight in general, wouldn't a more appropriate headline be "NASA puts another $700 million on the national credit card for our grandkids to pay off"?

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Is this really news? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Which right there tells me we shouldn't be sending people out into space anymore. It is a colossal waste of money to send us weak ass little humans, who need protection for our weak bodies, plus food, water, a place to go to the toilet, etc, instead of robots.

      And we should not continue farm subsidies, wars in obscure places for no strategic interest or gain, enormous financial support for incompetent bankers, stock traders, real estate mavens and a host of other dumb things the government does.

      NASA is a really cheap date when you look at the totality of the US budget.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  3. Think of it as a wake instead by OldEarthResident · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Try thinking of it as a wake for the US manned spaceflight program.

    It saddens me to see the US lose it's manned spaceflight capability.

    --
    I have a unusual vision problem which the NHS has failed to diagnose. Can you help? More at failedbythenhs.blogspot.com
  4. Last Night Launch by realsilly · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It was a glorious morning when my alarm beeped at 4:10am. I awoke, turned on the TV to the pre-set NASA channel, checked to make sure the launch was still 'a Go'. I then donned a bathrobe over my birthday suit, watched the last 10 seconds on TV until I heard "We have Liftoff" and stepped out on my back porch. I looked to the east and the tree line was shadowed in a orange glow that was beautiful during the pre-dawn hours. The sky was clear and the air was crisp and the sight of the flames was facinating even at 50 miles away. I watched at the shuttle began to head in a northward direction. It was around 6.5 minutes later that the sound waves rumbled through the still night air. It was more of a low rumble, but it was distinctly felt and heard. At aroun 7.5 mintues, between my screen porch, the trajectory and my poor vision I could no longer see the bright spec of light that was the shuttle that was now a couple hundred miles away. I stepped back inside watched NASA TV until about the 9.5 minute mark during the last separation, and knew our astronauts doing ok. I hung up the robe, climbed back into bed, turned off the TV and went back to sleep.

    What a beautiful way to wake up in the pre-dawn hours. And to think, /sniffle that was the last manned night launch we'll see for quite some time. Oh how I wish everyon could have seen this first hand.

    --
    Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
  5. Decommission the shuttles in space? by jgtg32a · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I just had a random thought, would it be useful to just decommission shuttles in space, meaning just leave them up there, possibly integrate them into the ISS?

    1. Re:Decommission the shuttles in space? by proslack · · Score: 3, Funny

      Kind of like nailing a mobile home to your nice brick house...it'll give Cousin Eddie someplace *real nice* to stay while visiting.

      --


      Floating in the black seas of infinity without a paddle.
    2. Re:Decommission the shuttles in space? by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Now the ISS will have shuttles up on blocks in the yard.... a mangy pitbull in a space suit tethered by the front porch..

      Rednecks in spaaaaace...... Nope the other countries wont put up with it.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:Decommission the shuttles in space? by Graymalkin · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not in the slightest. There's two big hurdles using the Shuttles as long term space stations or hooking them up to the ISS. The first is the electrical power systems of the Shuttles. To provide power while in space the Shuttle uses hydrogen fuel cells where the ISS uses solar panels. While the fuel cells provide a lot of power to the Shuttle they do have a finite fuel supply. The life support system aboard the Shuttle is also a short duration design using chemical CO2 scrubbers. At best a Shuttle station would need to be refueled and resupplied every few weeks. Besides power and life support the Shuttle doesn't really carry its own scientific payload. If you were going to leave one in orbit you would need to send it up with a SpaceLab module or something to be able to do anything useful.

      Hooking a Shuttle up to the ISS for long periods would also not be very useful since without the weekly resupply of hydrogen and oxygen the Shuttle would be a power and life support vampire for the ISS. It would also affect the ISS' atmospheric drag such that it would require more reboosts than it already does. These could not be performed by the Shuttle because it carries a limited fuel for its OMS/RCS system which can't be refueled in orbit. A Shuttle plugged into the ISS for a long period of time would end up being a dead weight with no real scientific utility of its own.

      The Shuttles were designed for relatively short term missions and for resupply and refurbishment on the ground. Leaving them parked in orbit is a nice thought but ultimately impractical.

      --
      I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
  6. I actually saw the shuttle in the morning sky... by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I was up taking care of my infant daughter, looking out my sliding glass windows I could see it like a blue diamond in the sky rising.

    Totally amazing.

    --
    Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
  7. Re:I'm a rocket scientist, but... by durrr · · Score: 3, Funny

    Many people talking at the same time can be confusing, they probably can talk at the same time but don't to keep the confusion to a minimum.
    There is of course a better solution: they should give up voice altogether and start using IRC.

  8. Re:I'm a rocket scientist, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Many people talking at the same time can be confusing, they probably can talk at the same time but don't to keep the confusion to a minimum.

    I've taken a tours of both Kennedy's Control Room and Houston's Mission Control. There are several voice loops that NASA uses and they can be individually enabled or disabled at a headset. There are only a couple of people of people listening to more than a few loops at any one time during launch. The majority of the staff is focused on the particular system or sub-system assigned to them, and therefore only listening to the applicable voice loop(s).

    There is of course a better solution: they should give up voice altogether and start using IRC.

    I almost literally cut my teeth on MSDOS 2.0 (Dad gave me his old Eagle 81 computer when I was 5), so I have no fear of scrolling text. However, I don't think that would be net gain for NASA to drop the voice loops in favor of IRC. Remember that most of the people working in the control rooms are monitoring more than one screen already. The switch to IRC would require split their visual focus to yet another batch of visual information. Also, most people can listen to someone talk while watching something simultaneously without much difficulty because audio and visual information are processed in different parts of the brain. Thus using an audio feed is complementary rather than competing sensory input.

  9. Read and learn Grasshopper. by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Informative

    The ISS uses thrust to adjust it's orbit already. It won't 'ruin' anything. The Zvezda module already has two main engines used for orbital adjustments.

    Those thrusters operate for short periods of time at great intervals. Considerable effort is expended to set up the schedule such that usage of those thrusters, docking and undocking visiting ships, station attitude changes and other such events occur in clusters with lengthy intervals between them in order to provide the maximum time of 'uncontaminated' micro gee. (There's even a vibration isolation system on some experimental racks to minimize disturbance in between those events for experiments that require an even higher level of micro gee.)
     
    So yes, continuous usage of an ion thruster will ruin the micro gee environment, and yes this will be a great disruption to experiments onboard.

  10. Not quite correct, read and learn Grasshopper. by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Informative

    Only nobody said anything about continuous thrust, just using thrust to move it to a higher orbit.

    The original poster specified an ion engine, which must operate continuously or nearly so in order to have any significant effect on the station's orbit.
     
    Now, you could use normal thrusters (preferably from an external source to conserve Zvezda's fuel) to raise the orbit, but you cannot raise it significantly without affecting the ability of other servicing craft (Soyuz, Progress, ATV, HTV, Dragon) to utilize their full design capacity. (The higher the orbit, the lower the delivery capacity.) You can't raise it high enough to significantly reduce atmospheric drag without getting into the region where those craft, at best, no longer have a useful cargo capacity or may not be able to reach it at all.