STS-132 Space Shuttle Atlantis
- Thread starter long_time_DNC
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 47
- Views 4K
-
WELCOME TO THE NEW SERVER!
If you are seeing this you are on our new server WELCOME HOME!
While the new server is online Scott is still working on the backend including the cachine. But the site is usable while the work is being completes!
Thank you for your patience and again WELCOME HOME!
CLICK THE X IN THE TOP RIGHT CORNER OF THE BOX TO DISMISS THIS MESSAGE
Should have many flights left but...
Sorry, I think it is a death trap that should have been retired years ago.
Having any part of the rocket above the re-entry capsule was poor design.
Many original aspects of the concept (such as launching satellites and bringing back ailing ones) were not practical.
Just poorly thought out all around...
IIRC, the original shuttle design was massive, with internal fuel tanks. Then, after interest in space waned after the moon landings, it was scaled way back to meet budget goals. The vast majority of the thrust comes from the solid fuel strap on boosters. But the liquid fueled main engines helps "smooth things out."
I think the concept of repairing satellites in space, and returning some to earth (as well as large experiment packages) was sound. Certainly the concept of the reusability of the "capsule" part was a good one. Things just did not work out very well. Those goals will one day be achieved, with better technology.
Taking a step backwards, or at least one perceived as a step backwards, was a terrible mistake. Come up with a larger Apollo capsule, then back off to where it won't carry any more people than the original Apollo, and put it on top of a solid fuel "spleen buster" rocket- well, as you say, poorly thought out. Had to fail to generate any interest or support. The whole idea of space travel implies moving forward. Nothing looked advanced about Ares/Orion.
Solid fuel has it's advantages, but also drawbacks such as vibration. Perhaps a hybrid solid fuel, where the rubberized fuel was oxidized by a separate, throttleable liquid, would have been a better idea. And moving to a smaller, human only transporter, with separate launch of materials, may also be a "better idea."
I support space exploration. I'm just not thrilled with NASA. I hope to see this shuttle launch succeed; same for the remaining ones. The shuttle pushed forward the art, just not to the degree hoped for.
I think the concept of repairing satellites in space, and returning some to earth (as well as large experiment packages) was sound. Certainly the concept of the reusability of the "capsule" part was a good one. Things just did not work out very well. Those goals will one day be achieved, with better technology.
Taking a step backwards, or at least one perceived as a step backwards, was a terrible mistake. Come up with a larger Apollo capsule, then back off to where it won't carry any more people than the original Apollo, and put it on top of a solid fuel "spleen buster" rocket- well, as you say, poorly thought out. Had to fail to generate any interest or support. The whole idea of space travel implies moving forward. Nothing looked advanced about Ares/Orion.
Solid fuel has it's advantages, but also drawbacks such as vibration. Perhaps a hybrid solid fuel, where the rubberized fuel was oxidized by a separate, throttleable liquid, would have been a better idea. And moving to a smaller, human only transporter, with separate launch of materials, may also be a "better idea."
I support space exploration. I'm just not thrilled with NASA. I hope to see this shuttle launch succeed; same for the remaining ones. The shuttle pushed forward the art, just not to the degree hoped for.
Which is why the current plan to have people like Branson and Allen do it instead of NASA is an excellent idea.
By far my most enjoyable flight was Virgin Atlantic. For example, during the flight, the stewardesses continually came by, handing out various interesting or useful gifts, such as re-usable ear plugs or ice cream bars. For a change, I did not feel like cattle being transported to market.
Also, this "last flight for Atlantis" "last flight for Discovery" etc. is silly, because I am sure that there are less than 100 people who can tell them apart (of course, aside from identifying markings).
These things are trucks... and there is not anyone who always used the same one, so it does even have that sentimental significance.
These things are trucks... and there is not anyone who always used the same one, so it does even have that sentimental significance.
A space vehicle that is launched on a rocket, served for many years as a orbital science lab, is able to launch satellites, provide parts for the space station, and then re-enters the atmosphere and lands as a glider is far more than a truck.
I saw Columbia and Challenger on Pad 39A and B in January 1986; saw Discovery on the pad five years ago, and stood next to Enterprise in Washington DC. They have served an important role in space exploration, and to me, their retirement, is sentimental.
I saw Columbia and Challenger on Pad 39A and B in January 1986; saw Discovery on the pad five years ago, and stood next to Enterprise in Washington DC. They have served an important role in space exploration, and to me, their retirement, is sentimental.
Would be better if they gave us the option to "mute Greg Dobbs" so we could enjoy the whole process without him babbling on...
That's why I record the launch on HDNet, but watch it live on the NASA channel, with all the pre-launch activities, etc. Then I watch the HDNet recording later...
I watched both... But would love to see & listen to the other HD views of the launch without him chattering away...
I agree, it'd be nice to have a mute button just for Greg. He gets annoying with his commentary during the ascent...
