OT-Discovery Launch

[alittlebatty]

I hope they have a safe journey and a happy return....tho I gotta say with the foam falling off the thing,I would've scrubbed the mission altogether. Keep your fingers crossed! Maybe I should be running NASA......

[Justus A. Picker]

Even with the foam cracking I'd be willing to climb in and go for a ride!

[A String]

I agree. When stuff is falling off the vehicle you are about to send into space, you don't send it into space. But that's just me...

[Gruupi]

I have to agree with A-String on this one. If something that has already caused a catastrophy is still not fixed, they have no business sending the thing up. Its not just about human life, its about realistic goals. Half of the value of the space program is the propaganda (not always a word that has to be negative) of us as a society being able to push the levels of technology. If you fail, repeatedly, then you lose all the benefits of the P.R. side of the issue.

 

My dad is a retired rocket scientist(to bad some of those smarts didn't rub off on me, my brothers got all the good brain cells). He worked on stability and control for the Scout missile program. His opinion is a bit biased as Scout basicly competed with the Shuttle for payloads. He says that while the concept of having a reusable vehicle isnt all bad, it was supposed to save money and make it affordable to send up many more launches.

 

He argues that the Shuttle program failed miserably on its primary goal. At every stage of development and implementation, the Shuttle was more expensive by many times than the programs that came before it. Of course politics entered into all the decisions which is the reason why the costs became exhorbitant. The engineers them selves are all bright people but by the time you get them all to agree, you really don't always have the best or most cost effective solution.

 

NASA is in a no win situation, they have to constantly beg congress to keep funding them, they have to show results (I.E. problem free launches) to get this funding. I am a huge fan of the space program at several levels. The spinoff technology is incalcuably important. Our whole computer driven society is a spinoff of the miniturization needed to do the Apollo program. The discovery and exploration of the solar system and maybe even further keeps the human race on a positive growing track. And geez, we wouldn't have had Tang if not for the space program.

[alittlebatty]

Tang is what justified NASAs' existence! I watched the launch,and while I am like Gruupi,a huge fan of the space program (since earliest childhood),I think it's time for a new agency to take over space exploration that's not answering to Congress,or any political agenda. The way NASA has changed it's mind on deciding not to go by the safety standards it set after the Columbia disaster and continue to ignore warnings when the systems aren't 100%,I wouldn't trust them to check a car before a road trip.

Justus-while I would love a flight on the shuttle,there's no way I'd go on board with things going awry before launch! Call me a chicken........

[mdrs]

I was able to watch the launch on HD Net, and watching it in HD rules! My folks are retired and live in Florida. They watch it clear the tower for a couple of seconds on the TV, then go on their front lawn, and watch it go over their house!!

 

Don

[Justus A. Picker]

Where NASA has blown it, imo, is by being over cautious and budget driven. The first design for the shuttle would have placed the orbiter atop, not beside, the booster. The booster was to have been entirely reusable too. That would have been a more expensive design initially but would have proven safer and less expensive over the life of the program. Penny-wise, pound foolish.

 

Nearly forty years after the first moon landing we should have a permanent nearly self-supporting manned presence on the moon including manufacturing capability on the moons surface and in near earth orbit.

[Fumblyfingers]

It looked so awesome barreling up into space...everytime I see it I am just amazed....14,000 mph....WOW!!

[mdrs]

That's gotta be a primo ride.

 

Don

[guitarisawayoflife21]

Originally posted by Justus A. Picker:

Where NASA has blown it, imo, is by being over cautious and budget driven.

My uncle has told me he has tried to see a shuttle launch over 7 times. He'd take a trip down to Florida and wait to see it, then NASA would scrap the launch to a later date, and he'd miss it. But you have to think, if you were one of the people flying on that ship, wouldnt you want NASA being over cautious rather than under cautious.

[Justus A. Picker]

Originally posted by guitarisawayoflife21:

Originally posted by Justus A. Picker:

Where NASA has blown it, imo, is by being over cautious and budget driven.

My uncle has told me he has tried to see a shuttle launch over 7 times. He'd take a trip down to Florida and wait to see it, then NASA would scrap the launch to a later date, and he'd miss it. But you have to think, if you were one of the people flying on that ship, wouldnt you want NASA being over cautious rather than under cautious.

That's a different use of "cautious" than I intended. Perhaps conservative is a better word. The program itself should have been more ambitious.

 

After Apollo NASA kinda floundered with no clear objective. They used Skylab as a sort of stop-gap to fill the space between the Moon missions and the shuttle program. While the idea of a reusable vehicle is certainly worthy of investment by throwing all their eggs into that basket they allowed the idea of a permanent presence in space to whither.

 

They should have run with the Skylab concept, placing it in a higher, more permanent orbit and left room for it to be expandable while perfecting the reusable vehicle concept. A more permanent Skylab would have proven useful not only for science purposes but also as a staging point for further lunar exploration.

 

The Shuttle as it exists is a compromise vehicle without any real mission.

[AeroG33k]

I somewhat agree...not necessarily the foam thing alone, but they also mentioned a bad thruster. Now one thing that's particularly true from aerospace related accidents is that there's so much redundancy that one issue alone rarely leads to a catastrophic failure...but when you have cumulative errors, you have a recipe for disaster. Foam falling off, bad thrusters...maybe other issues they didn't catch...and declaring weeks ago that it's a "done deal" sounds a little too determined to launching in an impatient way. Reminds me of the challanger...

 

I agree though, it's good the "climate" of NASA has changed to one of criticism and careful skepticism, hopefully they go beyond that and ACT on it too. Anyhow, they're the experts, I'm sure they know what they're doing. And best of luck to the crew as always!

[guitarisawayoflife21]

I agree that they need to be more ambitious with their endeavors. It seems that they use transporting astronauts to and from the space station as a distraction from the fact that they arent really focused on one thing right now. Everyone is just happy the mission goes through safely rather than asking NASA what its real goals are. I think you put that great. Well said, Justus.

[Junior 1]

You have to realize that it is the most complex machine in the world!Trying to insulate the external fuel tank filled with liquid nitrogen must be something that is near impossible! Nobody solves more complex issues than NASA. The sixties space race fueled technology for decades.

[Dr. Ellwood]

Could the Shuttle be used to carry personnel and cargo (maybe a LEM) once the shuttle is in space could it be launched toward the moon, serve as the landing platform for desent to the lunar surface. Could the shuttle go into lunar orbit and get itself out of orbit and launch it's self toward earth and re-entry?

[Junior 1]

Great point. It's supposed to be a multi use vehicle. What NASA did going to the moon with those frail ships was amazing. One of my favorite movies is Apollo 13. Imagine getting those guys back after what went wrong! I believe that the shuttle has out lived its original life span. The days of the sixties with tons of cash are forever gone. Where's Russia when you need them!!!

[Dr. Ellwood]

Yeah, what I'm not sure of is if the launch vehicle has enough fuel/boost to carry the shuttle vehicle OUT of earth's gravity completely? As it is now it is still in a shallow decaying orbit and I don't know if it's onboard maneuvering rockets could get it into deep space?

[Justus A. Picker]

Originally posted by ellwood:

Yeah, what I'm not sure of is if the launch vehicle has enough fuel/boost to carry the shuttle vehicle OUT of earth's gravity completely? As it is now it is still in a shallow decaying orbit and I don't know if it's onboard maneuvering rockets could get it into deep space?

It couldn't go as it's configured today but I'd imagine the rocket scientists could figure out how to get it from earth orbit into lunar orbit. The energy needed to get into a lunar trajectory is fairly huge. You'd probably need a way to either fix it to another booster in orbit or figure out a way to refuel it.

 

The other option, assuming it is refuelable in orbit, would be using it as a kind of space tugboat in orbit. It's such a shame to just let the Hubble die, if they could get it into a geosynchronous orbit and get back to repair it when needed......

[AeroG33k]

Well, the shuttle as is could definitely not support a moon mission in "one phase" but the shuttle replacement system was designed with the 'return to the moon' missions in mind. Mars is really where we need to go though.

[Justus A. Picker]

Originally posted by AeroG33k:

Well, the shuttle as is could definitely not support a moon mission in "one phase" but the shuttle replacement system was designed with the 'return to the moon' missions in mind. Mars is really where we need to go though.

Definitely, but the Moon would be a good launching point for the Mars missions.

 

First, you get the experience living and working in the harsh enviroment with the bonus of being close enough to home that rescue is an option.

 

Second, it appears as though fuel sources may be available on the Moon.

 

Third, it's more energy efficient to escape the Earth gravitational pull from the Moon.

[AeroG33k]

first and third, I'd think the ISS would lend itself as a better place for that, a bit more...conventional and closer, while still having the advantage of already beig in orbit. Last thing i heard is that the craft to go to mars would be "assembled" with help of the ISS with a few modules.

 

You're right on the fuel though, that is an option worth considering, if not some sort of particle decay or even solar sails which might be feasable at that distance.