Discovery just lifted off from Florida, finally returning the space shuttle to active service. They had a camera on the outside of the external tank this time, giving some interesting shots. They've just entered orbit, so it all seems to have gone pretty well.
B.J.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Now we can all stop holding our breaths. Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Some people who were on the CAIB probably won't.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Not until they get that boom out on the Canadarm to inspect the hull will I start to relax. There'll be nothing wrong, but it's new and will ensure that no errant foam hit anywhere critical.
Other than that, a flawless launch that was beautiful to watch. They done good. Notify the Discovery on subspace.
Mark
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mark Nguyen: Notify the Discovery on subspace.
Oh wow, you just said that. And worse yet, I knew what you were talking about.
On-topic, here's what I said in my site blog:
The Shuttle Returns to Space
Congratulations to NASA and Cdr. Collins of the Discovery OV-103 . . . a ship that hardly shows her almost-22 years of age.
"These shuttles . . . they are formidable vessels?" "Oh yeah."
There's also a bittersweet irony . . . after Challenger, the first ship to launch was Discovery. Now, once again after Columbia, she's the first ship to go up after the loss of one of her sisters.
Though I hope Discovery, Endeavour, and Atlantis the very best, one wonders . . . if anything happens to Discovery between now and her retirement circa age 27, what ship would they send up first?
The truth is, probably none at all.
Godspeed Discovery, and get home safe.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Out of all things that can go wrong with spacecraft named Discovery, the one that cannot go wrong with this one is actually a major design shortcoming...
...Would it really be that difficult to modify the remaining shuttles for completely computer-controlled, uncrewed operations? Instant "Shuttle-C" freighters with minimum R&D fuss; possible lifetime extension by decades, with reduced concern for safety as the fleet ages.
If crews are needed, they could fly with the shuttle for the next half a dozen years, but might later take a separate ride on a vehicle that has more survivable failure modes. The profilic satellite retrieval mission of the shuttle could be handled by launching the orbiter, launching the crew, rendezvousing, snagging the satellite, tucking it in, and landing the shuttle and the crew separately.
In any case, many happy returns for the Discovery.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Marauth (Member # 1320) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mark Nguyen: Notify the Discovery on subspace.
Would that be the discovery, or the Discovery? There's no canon evidence the Discovery launched.
I thought it ironic that Bush's missus was there for the launch given his antipathy for the whole concept of 'peaceful exploration' and 'scienctific research'. I hear he wants to cut most of the current 28 launches per month saying they're not necessary to finish the ISS, of course by finishing the ISS he's ommiting the European science module. Maybe they'll strap a big laser onto it and aim it at the middle east or something.
Though it was a good to see the families of the Columbia crew was it? present at the launch.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: ...Would it really be that difficult to modify the remaining shuttles for completely computer-controlled, uncrewed operations?
Because we all know putting ships called Discovery under complete computer control is a plan that has no drawbacks or pitfalls whatsoever.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
D.A.V.E. = Drive And Vehicle Execution module.... "I'm sorry D.A.V.E., I can't open the Pod doors"....
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000:
quote:Originally posted by Mark Nguyen: Notify the Discovery on subspace.
Oh wow, you just said that. And worse yet, I knew what you were talking about.
Well, we only have a 20 page thread that just wont stay dead on that....
I was very happy to hear of the successful launch- the Discovery is capable of ISS docking (as they are up there to re-supply the station, after all) so if anything is wrong with the shuttle, the crew can go there, I suppose.
I wonder if inspecting the hull will become standard operating procedure now?
quote:Originally posted by Marauth: I hear he wants to cut most of the current 28 launches per month saying they're not necessary to finish the ISS
Well, 28 launches per month might be asking for trouble.... Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Well, going to the ISS doesn't really help, short of massive decompression. They can stay in the shuttle just as well, if they're just looking for a way to get back to earth. And yeah, inspecting the hull is now SOP, which is part of the reason Hubble may be screwed. For the shuttle to inspect its hull thoroughly, it has to visit ISS, and it can't get to ISS and Hubble in the same mission. Though why they can't just boost Hubble into a higher orbit and then fix it later with the CEV, I really don't know...
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Because adjusting its orbit like that (or adding a propulsion module to it, as has been proposed) would have to be done by shuttle as well.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Ohh, I was thinking that the booster module could be attached by remote. Thanks. Maybe we should design things to be more robot-servicable in the future...
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
The European ATV should be able to rendezvous with the Hubble easily enough, and deliver both a propulsive module and robotics that would allow it to be attached. OTOH, as such robotics are in an early stage of development today, they could be sized to fit something launched by a Proton or an EELV instead of Ariane V; assorted upper stages for orbit adjustment would be off-the-shelf items.
The capability to support Hubble and its ilk without the shuttle would be far more useful in the near future than the capability to launch crewed lunar expeditions or shuttle-sized LEO payloads. Heck, the old concept of using the space station as a base for OTV "tugs" and satellite maintenance robots is among the most reasonable uses for such a facility...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
When are we finally going to build the space elevator and be done with launches?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
It might be a good idea to invent a construction material capable of handling the strain, first.
(What about carbon nanotubes, you ask. Well, sure. Figure out how to spin them out in bulk for dirt cheap and you'll be in business.)
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
This just in... NASA has grounded the remaining shuttle fleet pending an investigation of a sizable chunk of insulating foam dropping off the fuel tank during liftoff. The chunk is slightly smaller than the one that struck Columbia. Fortunately, this time around Discovery was not hit and is deemed in safe condition for the return. Had Discovery been severely damaged for a safe return, Atlantis would have been sent up for a rescue mission at her regular launch window in September.
I'm not sure if they would still send up Atlantis if Discovery is deemed unreturnable. I'm guessing if the situation ends up being a grounded shuttle fleet and Discovery unable to return, NASA would need to rely on Russia's Soyuz capsules again.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yeah, but if Discovery was damaged and Atlantis were sent to retreive the crew....what would happen to Discovery? Someone would get the short straw and have to pilot a repaired Discovery back...
The real trick (and part of this mission's goal) is to develop a in-orbit repair program for the heat shield. I was reading about some epoxy like paste they are supposed to be testing as a tile repair/replacment. No idea how they'd test a re-entry of the stuff though- the test was supposed to be done EVA, but not actually to the shuttle itself.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
You know, these bits of insulation probably fall off every time they launch. They just never noticed it until it caused a problem.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I had the same initial thought, but during the Challenger investigation, they never mentioned it (and they went over every millimeter of footage the way we did BOBW and FC ship battles).
Mabye the foam thing is something added since the Challenger era?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
They should probably have got us to take a look at the footage. Granted we'd have found two Millenium Falcons, a 2001-Discovery, a McQuarrie Enterprise and Mickey Mouse on the Grassy Knoll, but we'd have been sure to find something they missed. . .
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
The foam has been sprayed onto the ET since STS-1.
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
In the early days of the shuttle, the ET was painted white to match the orbiter and the SRBs. The painting was stopped to save weight.
I don't recall, however, hearing anything about falling foam in those early days. Of course, what second-grader cares about such things?
Still, I wonder if there could be some kind of sealer or clearcoat or paint that could be applied to the ET that would prevent chunks from forming and falling.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mark Nguyen: Notify the Discovery on subspace.
Mark
LOL! Classic!
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
We've also never had this many close-in cameras on a launch before. I think this is just a knee-jerk reaction. I believe NASA would have gone on with more shuttle flights, but with that footage, someone would have eventually noticed the foam falling off and cause trouble, so they went ahead and grounded the fleet to avoid that.
So, what now? The foam has been falling off since the first launch, so how do we fix it? I'm sure it can be fixed to the engineers' satisfaction, but not to the general public's. I don't think you can get rid of the problem completely.
You know, the space shuttle will probably be the only manned vehicle in history with this particular problem. All previous designs and all future proposed designs have been shown to be mounted on top of a rocket, avoiding any falling foam altogether. Mind you, all of these designs are also significantly smaller than the space shuttle.
B.J.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Would the space shuttle fall off the rocket if its own engines weren't firing at the same time? I've always wondered how it is fastened onto the rocket.
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
Why launch the shuttle in such a way that gravity pulls falling insulation TOWARD the Orbiter?
Why not wait to perform the roll manuver until after the Shuttle separates from the ET?
Get the Orbiter out of the way of falling debris.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"Would the space shuttle fall off the rocket if its own engines weren't firing at the same time? I've always wondered how it is fastened onto the rocket."
It's not a rocket. The central orange cylinder is just a fuel-tank that doesn't have any engines.
As to wether the (100-ton or so when fully loaded) orbiter would fall off if its main engines failed, since roughly 70 percent of the thrust at liftoff and during first-stage ascent is provided by the two booster rockets with the rest coming from the shuttle's, the extra stress on the connecting struts between tank and shuttle would probably cause them to fail too if a forced separation wasn't executed, but don't base your application to NASA on that somewhat uneducated guess. B)
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
For great DOUBAL-POTSING.
"Why not wait to perform the roll manuver until after the Shuttle separates from the ET?"
Because it has to be done before maximum dynamic pressure is reached (which happens about a minute after launch) so as to relieve aerodynamic stress on the shuttle's airframe.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
What's the fastest mammal on land?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Mongoose. The tasty, tasty mongoose.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
lol i taught it was teh cheatah
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
The correct answer is the North American Politician Caught in Scandal (scientific name Politicum scandalus). This species is known to be capable of speeds of up to 157 backpeddles per second in cases of extreme duress.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Russia has indicated that if need be, they are able to send up three Soyuz capsules until February to rescue the Discovery crew and perhaps to retreive the ISS crew at the expense of the US.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"The foam has been sprayed onto the ET since STS-1."
Poor little guy...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Siegfried: The correct answer is the North American Politician Caught in Scandal (scientific name Politicum scandalus). This species is known to be capable of speeds of up to 157 backpeddles per second in cases of extreme duress.
Yeah- we just had one blow his brains out at the Miami Herald yeterday after the articles on his corruption led to initements.
Though some speculate he was there to shoot the reporter....
Fortunately, no shuttle tiles or insulation foam were harmed in this tangent post.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Yeah, I read a few years back that the shuttle uses it's heatshield side to cover any spacewalk- there's just that much debris up there zipping along that an astronaut could be killed by a small flake of gold foil.
Looking back, it's a wonder that the heatshield was never seriously damaged before the Columbia disaster.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
It isn't entirely clear in the image, or the article, but from the context I assume many or most of these are from the insulating foam, not micrometeorites or other space debris.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Looking back, it's a wonder that the heatshield was never seriously damaged before the Columbia disaster.
While not caused by damage, incorrect application of the thermal tile sealant on Atlantis in a 2000 space flight caused superheated gases to enter that shuttle's wing during re-entry. Here's an article on that incident that apparently only became public during the Columbia investigation.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well, fuck.
Amazing how the dangers are downplayed (which leads to public apathy, then decreased budgets, then acciadents...) My favorite bit of the article-
quote:One of the seven Atlantis astronauts, Mary Ellen Weber, said NASA never told her about the breach, which was not discovered until the shuttle had landed.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
NASA not telling astronauts things is/was pretty standard. After all, the Columbia wasn't told at all about the foam strike or that anyone had any misgivings whatsoever about the condition of the shuttle.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Hmmm.....you'd think they could tap a satellite transmission from up there. Or just push the FOXNews sat into decaying orbit for fun...
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Or for the good of humanity.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
And how often do those two really coincide, after all?
![[Wink]](wink.gif)