posted
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.
posted
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.
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.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
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.
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.
-------------------- Garbled, confusing and quite frankly duller than an inflight magazine produced by Air Belgium.
Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
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.
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....
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
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...
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
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.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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...
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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...
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
