Slashdot Mirror


Atlantis Blasts Off On Final Mission

shuz writes "Space shuttle Atlantis lifted off today on its STS-132 mission to the International Space Station — the final flight for the venerable vehicle. The mission involves three spacewalks over 12 days (PDF), during which the team will replace six batteries on the port truss which store energy from solar panels on that truss, bolt on a spare space-to-ground Ku-band antenna, and attach a new tool platform to Canada's Dextre robotic arm." NASA has video of the historic launch and reader janek78 adds this quote from the mission summary: "Atlantis lifted off on its maiden voyage on Oct. 3, 1985, on mission 51-J. Later missions included the launch of the Magellan probe to Venus on STS-30 in May 1989, Galileo interplanetary probe to Jupiter on STS-34 in October 1989, the first shuttle docking to the Mir Space Station on STS-71 in June1995, and the final Hubble servicing mission on STS-125 in May 2009."

35 of 143 comments (clear)

  1. Well done, Atlantis... by Em+Emalb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Return home safely.

    --
    Sent from your iPad.
  2. Why, oh why? by yog · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Will someone please explain to me why we can't keep the shuttles running for another few years while we figure out how to replace them? Now that Obama has canceled the Constellation manned booster, and he granted a stay of execution to the Orion capsule (but it's still basically on life support) doesn't this leave the United States with no means to get humans into orbit? For several years? How is this give the United States any kind of strategic advantage?

    Granted, the Constellation project was controversial within Nasa, but it's a science and engineering project and as we all know, engineering involves risks, trials, and redesigns. That's the way we got where we are today. Simply canceling it because we don't like spending some $6 billion a year to keep it going is ludicrous, given our willingness to pour literally hundreds of billions of dollars into nebulous goals like "stimulating" the economy or propping up banks that deserve to fail.

    Even General Motors got some $18 billion in relief, talking about an organization that deserves to fail. Without GM, we'll still have a domestic car industry--Ford, Nissan, Toyota, and Honda are all operating in the U.S. and doing just fine--but without Constellation or the Shuttle, we'll have NO MANNED SPACE PROGRAM AT ALL. This seems like a strategic mistake in the extreme.

    To make matters worse, we are planning to rely on our old sometime friends in Russia to get American astronauts into orbit, and we're hoping that private companies will take up the slack and, almost overnight, come out with systems that are certified for human space transport. Given that none of them has done even one manned flight so far, this seems rather premature.

    Let's fund the Shuttle program for a few more years and restore Constellation to full funding. So, a few million people won't get free healthcare after all. Honestly, the economic benefits of the space program will more than make up for that. Eventually, tech spinoffs and the overall bigger economy will lift their boats--if they feel like working.

    The U.S. can't just cede human space flight to other countries who are eager to take our place up there. We're not quitters; vote this fall and again in 2012 and throw out those who are.

    --
    it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
    1. Re:Why, oh why? by sznupi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because the supply chain for Shuttles has been disrupted some time ago (FYI - yes, "before Obama"). Trying to restart it now to keep those costly mistakes flying would be a task not that far from a new space programme.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    2. Re:Why, oh why? by CasualFriday · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'll say what I said in an earlier reply: 1980's tech. I had a class with some of the guys who work in the firing room, and they are honestly amazed the shuttle still flies. My dad used to install the thermal tiles, he says that the safety violations and corner-cutting out at the cape are horrendous. Pair that with the old tech, and it's seriously time to replace/upgrade.

      --
      Raters gon' rate.
    3. Re:Why, oh why? by Jeng · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When people post "Oh I'm posting as AC to preserve my karma." I usually think how idiotic it is because most of the time their post isn't nearly as much flaimbait as they think.

      You sir have made a wise decision in going AC, your post is wrong in just about every detail.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    4. Re:Why, oh why? by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you think NASA's problems are entirely attributable to this administration, you have obviously been asleep for the last 40 years. Nixon slashed NASA's budget after Apollo and, for all their talk and hollow promises, no President since (Republican or Democrat) has ever restored it. Obama is just the latest in a long line of Presidents who've made NASA what it is today (i.e. a shell of what it was in the 60's).

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    5. Re:Why, oh why? by rijrunner · · Score: 2, Interesting

          They shutdown the Shuttle supply chain years ago. A lot of parts are now irreplaceable. The Shuttle was canceled by a Republican Administration and congress. The initial follow-on program with a lot of tested hardware (OSP and related programs were actually at the flight testing stage) was canceled by Griffin and turned into a jobs program.

          Also, on a somewhat bureaucratic side, but with real implications, the Shuttle's Certificate of Airworthiness needed recertification this year. It could not pass any real safety inspection. They would have had to waiver most of their certification criteria. And, at its current demonstrated safety level of around 98%, that amounts to a 50% chance of Shuttle loss over the next 30 launches. Nor is there any real expectation that Orion would have been ready in 2015. Constellation is not a good engineering design. You could pour money and get a marginally useful vehicle, but its not *necessary*. The O'Keefe plan of building manned capsule for existing launch vehicles is a much more compact realistic approach than concurrently building a manned capsule and launch vehicle.

          The funny thing is that there is actually no official "manned certification" in NASA. No set criteria. No testing procedure. Nothing. The closest thing to a certification is the FAA's certificate of airworthiness and that is a completely different creature. Man-rated is a political question usually used to get funding for another vehicle.

          Last point - there are very few, if any, people in NASA who have actually developed a working manned launch vehicle. The Shuttle was designed 40 years ago. And most of it was contracted out. Since Shuttle, NASA's development of vehicles has been good at the R&D level, but once ramped up to flight testing, it becomes just plain dismal.

          Look, the reality is that we would have had a working prototype flying now had they not brought Constellation into the picture. X-38 and the X-37 programs were concurrent and shared pretty much the same design concept and programs. (I would even go so far as argue they were the same program saved by the military after NASA dropped the ball). It is not out of the question that the X-37 could be adapted for manned use by keeping the shell and combining the forward section with the cargo bay. It would be tight, but so is Soyuz. Or, they could modify the X-37 to use the parasail used by X-38. Either modification would be a lot faster than anything NASA has proposed wrt Constellation.

    6. Re:Why, oh why? by wiredlogic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      First of all the space shuttle is mostly 70's technology. Second of all there is no reason why "old" should be equated with "inferior". Soyuz is the most reliable manned spacecraft and it has direct roots all the way back to the start of the Soviet space program. Old can also mean simpler and less likely to suffer from mysterious technology failures. I have lab equipment older than you and it ticks along nicely and serves its purpose just as well as it ever did.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    7. Re:Why, oh why? by caseih · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This comment is very ignorant. As I look at the projected budget deficits for the next few years I'm struck by the fact that the vast majority of this deficit is really the war coming due. Things like the health bill don't even figure in (the CBO calculates the health bill is paid for from other budget savings). So basically the Bush wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, in which countries we now have a huge moral obligation to fix things, have cost us trillions of dollars, and continue to cost u, that we haven't really paid for yet, and can't afford to pay for.

      The republicans are big on the idea of tax cuts, but they are traditionally the ones who run up spending and increase government size (goes back to Reagan). The hypocrisy coming out of that party is mind-blowing. Bush simultaneously decreased taxes, increased spending by a staggering amount, and increased the size of reach of government by an unprecedented amount, more than at any other time in recent history. The party of small government I think not.

      Honestly, if we had plowed even some of the money we've wasted in Iraq over the years (IE if we'd not gone to war) into things like NASA, we could have paid for constellation several times over and covered social programs and other important things easily. Scientists are clamouring to send new robotic missions to the planets. As one scientist involved put it to me, 3 days of war in Iraq and Afghanistan could pay for an entire mission to Europa. Three days!

    8. Re:Why, oh why? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know, you'd have a really interesting point there, if what you wrote had any relation whatsoever to reality.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    9. Re:Why, oh why? by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'll say what I said in an earlier reply: 1980's tech.

      To what specific 1980's tech are you referring? The SSME's were upgraded in the 90's and early 2000's, as were the AP-101 flight control computers. The original 'steam gauge' cockpit was also upgraded to a fully modern 'glass' cockpit in the same time frame. The airframes have been well maintained and many smaller parts/systems have been replaced or upgraded as needed as well.
       
      Seriously, saying "80's tech" is nothing but FUD. There's plenty of places where 80's (or even older) tech does just fine.
       
      Heck, just a couple of miles from me the shipyard still uses a lathe installed in the 1940's. The forging furnace a few buildings over (modulo a few overhauls) basically dates from the 1930's. A few miles in the other direction is the submarine base, where the hydraulic valves in the submarines are basically unchanged since the 1950's. The missiles they carry are built with 80's technology in their electronics - and the still can achieve a CEP of [a classified but very small number] of feet. The submarines navigation system uses computers designed in the 1970's.
       
        Don't be misled by consumer culture into believing that 'old == useless'.

    10. Re:Why, oh why? by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Informative

      First of all the space shuttle is mostly 70's technology.

      No, it's a mix of 70's, 80's, and 90's technology. The Shuttle has been heavily modified, updated, and upgraded over the years.
       

      Second of all there is no reason why "old" should be equated with "inferior". Soyuz is the most reliable manned spacecraft and it has direct roots all the way back to the start of the Soviet space program.

      Well, in the first place Soyuz's reliability rating is roughly the same (that is, within a few tenths of a percent) as the Shuttle's. In the second place, while the basic design has 'roots' all the way back to the start of the Soviet space program, it too has been heavily modified. Almost nothing beyond the basic shape remains from the original.

  3. Re:And one to go by Admodieus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I love the shuttle program, but I would never wish something to go wrong on a mission just so they can launch another shuttle.

    --
    "It's a reverse vampire...they....they crave the sun!"
  4. Re:And one to go by sh00z · · Score: 5, Informative

    Uh, actually two more

  5. 12 days? by ivandavidoff · · Score: 3, Funny

    Replace six batteries, bolt on a spare antenna and attach a new tool platform? If only my honey do list for tomorrow was that easy.

    1. Re:12 days? by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 3, Insightful

      More like "without up or down".

    2. Re:12 days? by confused+one · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not quite. That allows too much freedom of motion and visibility.

      Try an arctic survival suit over a wetsuit with a full motorcycle helmet, faceplate down, wearing hockey gloves, carrying a hundred pound backpack, all while hanging upside down in the dark. Now begin by changing the batteries and...

  6. Re:It doesn't come soon enough by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    when we cannot afford anything on Earth

    We can afford most everything on earth. We just simply can't pay billions of dollars that we don't have to failing businesses, ruin health care and do a million other things.

    I just hope we can keep the space program close down long enough (along with many other ineffective members of the government) so as to get our country back in the black.

    The problem is, how are we going to get ahead in technology then?

    If the US government released all taxpayer-funded studies to the public to jump-start private businesses, that is one thing. But in reality everything is so classified that private businesses are starting from 1950s-era technology with very little funding.

    The US needs to take a clear stand and do one thing or another.

    A) Let a private company buy-out NASA and release all information for free to any US business or individual with an interest in producing spacecraft.
    or
    B) Continue to spend money developing new spacecraft and using taxpayer money to do great things.

    We can't continue to have an under-funded NASA. If Obama wants to waste taxpayer money on bailouts and such thats one thing, however then let the taxpayers have their money spent in research fulfilled, let a private company take over all of NASA and release information to the public. We can't move on with a crippled NASA and a crippled private sector. It just doesn't work.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  7. Re:Obsolete ! by Volante3192 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, curse old technology. Why haven't we moved on from this 'wheel' shape, by the way? Surely, new = better...

  8. I outlasted Atlantis by Brett+Buck · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I worked on mission 51J (first Atlantis flight) and now it's done. Man, I am old...

    1. Re:I outlasted Atlantis by Kozz · · Score: 2, Funny

      He installed the only remaining non-depleted Zero Point Module. (There's just not enough Naquadriah to go around.)

      --
      I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
    2. Re:I outlasted Atlantis by Brett+Buck · · Score: 3, Informative

      All due respect but I must jest: Tell us a story grandpa!

      Are you one of those kids I chased off my lawn last night?!

      What did you do for NASA? ./ is curious!

            I was an MCC console analyst on the mission control team for the payload. So I didn't work for NASA, but a contractor working for our governmental customer.

            A lot of people don't realize this, but NASA is not the biggest player in the space business. Some individual DOD and other government customer *programs* have budgets rivaling NASA, and there are a pretty good number of programs.

              Brett

    3. Re:I outlasted Atlantis by powerlord · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Time flies. I remember getting Chicken pox and being over-joyed because I got to stay home from school and watch all the coverage of the first Columbia mission, and then I was out at the cape (for most of the week), till Challenger went up (and blew up). Wish I could find the Kodak Disc Film (oooo trendy).

      Here's hoping the next launch vehicle (Government or Commercial) helps gets us that much closer to a permanent place in space.

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
  9. Falcon 9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Speaking of that, the Falcon 9 is scheduled to launch this Sunday (May 16th, 2010). This is one of the potential replacements of which you speak.

    1. Re:Falcon 9 by confused+one · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Been pushed back to no earlier than May 23, according to this

  10. Re:It doesn't come soon enough by morgauxo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's so sad that some people think this way. The space program is not stopping the country from getting into the black. The money required to pay off all the debt and solve the counties problems is orders of magnitude greater than the money required to properly fund the space program to do great things. Complaining that we shouldn't be spending money on a space program is like complaining that some kid playing on the beach shouldn't remove a bucket full of water from the great lakes because global warming has lowered water levels. It is ridiculous.

    Poverty will exist so long as mankind is mankind. There will always be good, hard working poor people so long as there is greed. There will be lazy poor people so long as there are people who are neither motivated to better their lives or crafty enough to cheat. There will be disease so long as there is life. There will be natural disasters so long as we live on a planet. To wait for humanity to solve all it's problems before expanding into the universe is to wait for extinction.

  11. Re:It doesn't come soon enough by Jeng · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Information is classified to help slow down the development of weapons by countries we are not happy with such as Iran and North Korea.

    If you can think of a way around that I'm sure someone would like to listen to you about it.

    --
    Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  12. Re:It doesn't come soon enough by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But eventually we have to realize that Iran and North Korea are going to get rockets. We need to diplomatically (or, if it hits a point, forcefully) make sure that they don't aim the rockets at us or any other country. Both Iran and North Korea have made getting WMDs and the launch vehicles needed to use them a top priority. Even though both countries are rather poor economically, they are not above starving their citizens to achieve their goals.

    We already use a lot of scattered contractors for NASA, if we can consolidate them into one efficient company in essence, we could do great things. The information is already out there, it is just scattered throughout various offices. If we make a few requirements needed to get the information, we would be running at about the same risk we already are running at. Such as if we make sure that they don't disclose the information under an NDA (corporations are great for this because with competition comes closely guarded secrets, look at Apple, and an iPhone is a lot harder to conceal than large amounts of blueprints and such).

    As a nation, we need to face the facts, assuming that Iran, North Korea and all other dictatorships don't get WMDs and launch vehicles is unreasonable. They will get them eventually. What is needed is to prevent unstable rulers from controlling nations. If Kim-Jung-Il wasn't ruling North Korea, there would be very little reason for us to be worried if there was a sane person ruling, but instead we have a cult of personality mixed with lack of reasoning and total isolation.

    Would it be worth it to us if we had never started our space program so the Soviets could not gain the information? No, of course not. But we are still shooting ourselves in the foot by looking to countries who are going to get rockets and such no matter what we do.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  13. Re:It doesn't come soon enough by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The money required to pay off all the debt and solve the counties problems is orders of magnitude greater than the money required to properly fund the space program to do great things

    Just so - especially when you consider the trillion dollars going into defence spending every year. Some people may argue that defence spending stimulates economies and provides jobs but it strikes me as absurd that those same people couldn't be equally gainfully employed developing similarly advance technology for peaceful space exploration.

    --
    Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
    altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
  14. Re:It doesn't come soon enough by sznupi · · Score: 2, Informative

    Both Iran and North Korea have made getting WMDs and the launch vehicles needed to use them a top priority. Even though both countries are rather poor economically, they are not above starving their citizens to achieve their goals.

    [citation needed], as they say? (sure, I will be the first to give you "starving" part with N.Korea, not really with Iran though; and "top priority" seems pulled out of your ass)

    Also, did you just propose there forcing all assets into one legislated monopoly?...

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter
  15. 1960' and 2010's space flight equations by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    60's: Country + Government + NASA = Man on the Moon

    10': Country vs. Government vs. NASA = Bum a ride with the Russians

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  16. Re:Perspective by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Better yet, how many people are still driving a car with 115 million miles on the odometer?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  17. Re:Perspective by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Funny

    Al Bundy, but that's it.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  18. "...moral obligation to fix things..." by tlambert · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So basically the Bush wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, in which countries we now have a huge moral obligation to fix things, have cost us trillions of dollars, and continue to cost u, that we haven't really paid for yet, and can't afford to pay for.

    I'm pretty sure it was John Candy who said, in 'Planes, Trains, and Automobiles', "I've never seen a man helped up by hist testicles before".

    Given the kind of "help" we've given them so far, they would probably be better off without our "help" than with it.

    -- Terry

  19. Atlantis' First Last Flight by TrekkieTechie · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is probably Atlantis' last flight. However:

    When she lands later this month, Atlantis won't be mothballed. She'll be put back in the standard post-flight turnaround process to ready her for the Launch On Need (LON) mission STS-335, intended to provide rescue capability if necessary for the last currently scheduled shuttle mission, Endeavor's STS-134. It has been pointed out that, assuming all goes well on STS-134, there will be a bought-and-paid-for STS stack checked out and ready to go... why not use it? STS-335 would become STS-135, and would fly next year with a four-person crew to the ISS, delivering a Multi-Purpose Logistics Module and extra supplies and equipment. Russian Soyuz ships would be used if rescue became necessary.

    Source.