Slashdot Mirror


NASA Readies Discovery Shuttle For Final Flight

gabbo529 writes "After 38 trips, 352 days in orbit and more than 5,600 trips around the Earth, the space shuttle Discovery is preparing for its final launch. Since its creation, it has flown to orbit more than any other craft. It has set a number of precedents including first craft to feature a female shuttle pilot and female shuttle commander (Eileen Collins), the first African American spacewalker (Bernard Harris) and the first sitting member of congress to fly in space (Jake Garn). In its final foray into space, the Discovery will set another precedent when it flies the first humanoid robot to fly in space, Robonaut2."

15 of 153 comments (clear)

  1. Can I have it now you are finished with it? by ASDFnz · · Score: 4, Funny

    I would give it a good home!

    1. Re:Can I have it now you are finished with it? by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Informative

      The shuttles are not reusable in any real cost saving sense. They have to have many tiles replaced, the main engines replaced, and numerous other little odds and ends. The SRBs are one of the shuttles main failings, SRBs are cheap but notice that no one else uses them for a man rated launcher.

      The Shuttle will not find a buyer, it is not cost effective and never was.

    2. Re:Can I have it now you are finished with it? by Frangible · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's just not true.

      Orion: 1.5bn per flight, $50bn spent on development before cancellation.
      Shuttle: 450m per flight, 1.5bn per shuttle to build
      Soyuz seats: $45 million each
      SpaceX Dragon: $300-$400m (est.) per flight

      For the amount we wasted on the ostensibly "cheaper" Orion program, with disposable components similar to the Apollo program, we could've built *11* new shuttles. The Shuttle also is far more capable, able to transfer a tremendous amount of cargo (the Orion / Soyuz fit in the cargo bay...) and hold nearly twice the number of astronauts for rescue missions.

      The SpaceX Dragon isn't significantly cheaper than the shuttle, and is again, far less capable than the Shuttle, and is still an unproven design. (the SpaceShipOne/SpaceShipTwo are just X-15 / X-20 ripoffs and can only get 10% of the altitude needed to reach the ISS, they don't even count)

      The Soyuz seats are probably the most cost-effective and time-tested design, but the Soyuz holds three people max, and in the past, two of those have always been cosmonauts.

      The Russians developed a pretty nice shuttle of their own -- the Buran -- though the end of the Soviet Union doomed it.

      I'm sorry it doesn't have a warp drive, subspace communicator, artificial gravity, or "inertial dampening" (whatever that is)... but the space shuttle is the most advanced spacecraft ever developed, and a very economical one at that. And we let it die. The canceled Orion program was a failure that was uneconomical, and the amount of money we blew on that could've gotten a lot more shuttle flights, or a great many Soyuz seats.

      I hope we maintain good ties to Russia, because as of this June, the only way an American is getting into space -- or to the ISS -- is if they let us. Ironically, it will be on a rocket originally intended to deliver a nuclear warhead as an ICBM to us.

    3. Re:Can I have it now you are finished with it? by Kjella · · Score: 3, Informative

      SpaceX Dragon: $300-$400m (est.) per flight (...) The SpaceX Dragon isn't significantly cheaper than the shuttle, and is again, far less capable than the Shuttle, and is still an unproven design

      At least for the cargo operations, SpaceX will deliver 12 flights for 1.6 billion. That works out to about $133m per flight. And it is tested so they have a working rocket and a working capsule. How reliable they are can be questioned, but the design works.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:Can I have it now you are finished with it? by hcdejong · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think the figures you have for the Shuttle are low. Endeavor cost $ 1.7B to build from spare components. That does not include the cost to acquire those components, and it assumes the design has been paid for already.

      From Wikipedia: Roger Pielke has estimated that the Space Shuttle program has cost about US$170 billion (2008 dollars) through early 2008. This works out to an average cost per flight of about US$1.5 billion.

  2. Re:Still unclear what will replace the shuttle by ravenspear · · Score: 3, Informative

    False. Orion has not been cancelled. The most recent NASA authorization act passed last year authorizes over $3.6 billion in funding to develop the vehicle over the next 3 years. The Ares I/V launch vehicles are what was cancelled.

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:3:./temp/~c111kXpLQV:e14982:

  3. Re:goddammitsomuch by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just how exactly do you think it would stay in orbit next to the ISS with no fuel for station keeping? Or did you think delivering that would be free?

    How are they perfect for orbital operations?

    They are old, they waste lots of space on stuff not needed on orbit and they are not safe re-entry craft.

  4. Re:Still unclear what will replace the shuttle by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 3, Informative

    Orion+Ares 1 wasn't going to be finished until 2017 at the earliest.

    The first test-article of Dragon has flown, and its launch vehicle (the long pole of the system) has flown twice. Everything I hear about the Boeing offering is going well, and will probably be on a Delta IV (a flying vehicle). Orion is even still alive, and Lockheed is planning to fly a version on an Atlas V (again flying).

    No one is ready to go to the moon yet, but developing a real multi-supplier infrastructure to get to LEO is a critical first step. Even more importantly, if the next administration changes plans again, the infrastructure will remain in place and make it easy to do whatever the powers that be decide.

  5. Re:We're Broke! by MrEricSir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While I agree that austerity measures make sense, let's be honest about the numbers. NASA is such a tiny percentage of the budget that canceling their program isn't a realistic way to save money or pay down our debts.

    Realistically, the mandatory budget and the defense budget are what will have to be (painfully) trimmed down if we want to stabilize the deficit.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
  6. Re:We're Broke! by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Or, dare I say it, raise taxes on those most able to pay higher taxes.

    Gee, that would solve a whole bunch of problems, wouldn't it?

  7. Re:We're Broke! by currently_awake · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If the USA is broke, then might I suggest a few areas to cut? How about farm subsidies. You are paying a bunch of foreigners to take your food, that's just dumb. And if you could get over the idea of being in charge of everything then maybe you could have a UN army do all the global cop stuff. It would mean no more american sons and daughters getting sent off to third world battlefields, or at least not with american flags on their uniforms so it would be harder to spot them. If you transfered half your army/navy/airforce to the UN then the world would split the cost, and you'd only have to pay a little bit of it instead of all of it. That right there would end your budget deficits. If you taxed gas like europe does there would be plenty of money for renewable energy (and the political will to make it work). Oh yes, and if you had cost controls on your medicare system (like everyone else does, with much lower medical costs as a result), you'd save billions a year. There are many places you can eliminate deficit spending, it's not the how that's stopping you- It's lack of political leadership that's sinking your boat. Your country has spent decades letting the politicians/bankers/oil companies run around unchecked, and now you're finally getting the bill.

  8. Eileen Collins actually commanded Columbia first by RoverDaddy · · Score: 3, Funny

    NASA technicians investigate fuel leak after rare nighttime landing

    First female commander earns praise for "safe, if overly cautious" flying

    CAPE CANAVERAL, Florida (CNN) 7/28/99 - 419SPP

    Even before NASA's first female mission commander touched down on the tarmac at Kennedy Space Center late Tuesday evening, investigators were speculating on the possible cause of the fuel leak observed at the launch of shuttle Columbia at the start of its historic 5 day mission.

    "At first we thought maybe she left the gas cap off," reported Chief Inspector Gerald Schmitt during a post-mission press conference yesterday. Schmitt was referring to mission commander U.S. Air Force Col. Eileen Collins, who led STS-93 to a complete success despite the glitches that plagued the start of the mission.

    However, the inspectors ruled out that scenario after an exhaustive examination of the video launch records. They are now considering alternative theories, as well examining the shuttle engines for possible damage, such as a burned-out clutch. "We'll get in there and take a look," explained Schmitt, "but the real test will come on the next flight for Columbia, when the next mission commander can let us know if the shuttle still handles the way it did before."

    Schmitt went on to explain that the launch is usually performed in an "Automatic" mode, but the shutdown of 2 flight computers just seconds into Friday's launch required Col. Collins to switch to "Manual" mode, which she may have had less experience with in the past.

    Shuttle failed to reach "nominal" altitude

    By the time main engine cutoff, or MECO, took place at the end of Columbia's vault into space, the shuttle was about 7 miles beneath its intended orbit. At the time, NASA had not yet confirmed the fuel leak, so ground control was at a loss to explain this result.

    Launch controller Peter "Pete" Castle recalls, "For a few minutes I was beside myself. Did [Collins] fail to advance the engine throttles to 104 percent as called for in the launch sequence? Everyone knows you can drive those engines a little bit over the limit. There aren't any cops in space. Why are we here staying under the limit? We'll never get where we need to go like that."

    Fortunately, Columbia had sufficient fuel onboard to boost itself to its full intended orbit, and the mission objectives and the crew were never in danger.

    "She really took us by surprise"

    Mission controllers at the Johnson Space Flight Center in Houston, Texas, were very complimentary of Col. Collins. Third shift controller Michael Childs recalls one incident in particular:

    "During orbit 15 of the mission, Col. Collins called down for directions on the next scheduled maneuver. At this point in the schedule we had not expected any communications from Columbia. Past shuttle commanders always ran through this sequence without asking for directions, even if they had lost track of where they were. It is a little known fact that on STS-96 [when shuttle Discovery docked with the International Space Station (ISS)], Mission Commander Kent Rominger reached the station three orbits late, basically because he insisted on 'just flying around in circles until we found it', to quote Mission Specialist Patty Jernigan."

    Most call the landing 'flawless'

    The touchdown of shuttle Columbia in the final minutes of Tuesday evening was called "flawless" by ground controllers at the KSC. However, U.S. Air Force Col. Jack "Cracker Jack" Jackson, the last mission commander for a Columbia mission, was more critical.

    "That's not where I left it," Jackson said of Columbia, noting that Columbia rolled to a stop on the runway over 500 yards earlier than it did when he landed the same vehicle back in February, 1998. "When you take that baby out for a spin, I expect you to put it back where it belongs when you're done." After a moment, Jackson added one final thought, "God, I don't want to think what happened to those brakes."

    419SPP - The Associated Press and Reuters did not contribute to this report.

    --
    RETURN without GOSUB in line 1050
  9. Re:We're Broke! by Frangible · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wow, and I thought I saw a lot of teabagging on XBox Live playing Halo.

  10. Re:Still unclear what will replace the shuttle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Working for a DoD contractor that did work for Orion, I can say for certain it was cancelled (even if they do not call it that). There's no more work being done for a very critical portion of the capsule right now that our company was responsible for, and that stuff is now sitting in the corner of the lab, the responsible engineers are off working on other things.

    The two words that are a death knell for any project are: "Stop Work"

    Gotta post AC, simply because I cannot speak for my company, but I have eyes and can plainly see what is going (or not going) on.

  11. Countries that stop exploring... by k6mfw · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... become third world countries.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com