STS-132 Space Shuttle Atlantis

The crowds for the launches have been much bigger this year for obvious reasons. We are planning on going to the next one. The last one I went to was the Challenger Launch in 1986. Still have the home video .

A bit late to the party, but I'd like to make a few comments.

kstuart said:

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...

Click to expand...

If the proper precautions are taken, it can work just fine. Since Columbia, there have been no threats of any unacceptable damage, each flight keeps getting cleaner and cleaner. I think they've really hit the nail on the head to ensure it is safe and debris won't cause a problem again.

navychop said:

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.

Click to expand...

Agree but disagree. The original design was much different, namely with flyback boosters and much smaller wings, but cost cuts and Air Force requirements shaped the design changes.

Completely agree that Ares I was a huge hindrance. Orion was great, at least to begin with - it was a very capable capsule. However, Ares I's shortcomings caused Orion to keep getting cut back. Ares I was a small human transporter and Ares V was the separate launch of materials, so it fit that criteria. But Ares I is a terrible rocket.

I'm more of a fan of using identical launchers for crew and cargo (with the presumption that more than one launch is required). Something like Ares IV or DIRECT would lower development costs, lower operating costs, be ready sooner, and have the same lift capabilities.

kstuart said:

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.

Click to expand...

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Branson and Allen aren't doing anything in regards to NASA's interests - they're not getting to orbit. Virgin Galactic's Space Ship Two is only going to go suborbital and exists solely for tourism. Not that I don't support this - it's a great venture - but not useful for NASA or the science community's spaceflight interests.

It's guys like Elon Musk and the "New Space" companies that you want to mention. SpaceX is developing a launcher and spacecraft (Falcon 9's first flight is next week).

I support using commercial services, but I'd like not to rely solely on them when untested, rather transition into an era of commercial spaceflight services slower, with something like an Ares IV or DIRECT launcher being a cooperative NASA and commercial venture (more commercial involvement than currently with the shuttle, which is actually mostly contractor-run), while competing systems are developed in parallel for the future.

kstuart said:

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.

Click to expand...

rockymtnhigh said:

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.

Click to expand...

Most people in the space program and those who follow it think of the shuttles more along the lines of navy ships than trucks. Each one is significant, and just because they look identical (although I guarantee thousands of people can tell them apart, at a minimum) doesn't mean their individual role is any less diminished. Plus, they are processed independently.

televisionarchives said:

The crowds for the launches have been much bigger this year for obvious reasons. We are planning on going to the next one. The last one I went to was the Challenger Launch in 1986. Still have the home video .

Click to expand...

Agree. I watched this one from the causeway and the whole area was swamped. Much more crowded than when I saw STS-118 three years ago.

This was my view of this launch:



Absolutely spectacular...if you can get down for one of the remaining launches, do it.

dfergie said:

National Geographic had the "Seconds from Disaster" Challenger episode on yesterday, ended up watching it again... I have the pre-launch & launch from C-Band ...

Click to expand...

If you saw it in person you saw at in a much different way. You could see how the computer was fighting the Shuttle to keep it on track . It went off course and Television really didn't show it well. This video is very close to what I saw that day. Somebody has a much better video then this and in that video you can see the Shuttle go off track. It was filmed by a NASA Employee.
Look at this video.

Here is the video I posted about. According to a few people I have talked to you can see the Shuttle go off course starting at about 1:10 in the video. This angle is much different because the video was shot from the landing area. The computer puts in back on course at about 1:18 at the correct angle to space not knowing what was causing it. This was happening because of the leak .

Speaking of Space Shuttles. Remember this? The Buran?

long_time_DNC said:

Looks like duplicate of our orbiters, almost 100%...

Click to expand...

Yes. And this thing flew only once by computer only.

long_time_DNC said:

I'm guessing it was a sub-orbital flight?

Click to expand...

The shuttle orbited the Earth twice in 206 minutes of flight. And you would be surprised at how many don't know that Russia even had a Space Shuttle. Here is an excellent website about it.Buran Space Shuttle - Energia Rocket Launcher

The Buran did not have any atmospheric support equipment on it. Development of such was never completed. And, IIRC, the main engines were on the tank, in order to enable a cargo use of the system, with no Buran. Per the article, it had the two onboard engines for some flight control, possibly including a missed approach go around.

But it was a damn good project, just never carried to completion.

Andrewwski said:

If the proper precautions are taken, it can work just fine. Since Columbia, there have been no threats of any unacceptable damage, each flight keeps getting cleaner and cleaner.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, this is a pretty silly statement.

Columbia was after Challenger. (Meaning that Columbia was launched after the complete safety overhaul that occurred after the Challenger disaster.)

You only know that proper precautions were not taken after the problem occurs.

A few months ago, it was common knowledge that "proper precautions" were always taken on oil drilling platforms.

Someone who relies on someone else taking "proper precautions" is in serious trouble.

If you start with the assumptions "I like space and I like the Shuttle", then you end up with "there is nothing intrinscially wrong with the Shuttle design".

If you start solely with engineering principles, you end up with "what idiot came up with this design?".

NASA Administrator Griffin said that he was very uncomfortable with the idea of any shuttle flights past the bare minimum necessary to finish the space station...

It will be interesting to see if they decide Atlantis needs another mission... Anyone have a spare 1.2 billion lying around?

mike123abc said:

It will be interesting to see if they decide Atlantis needs another mission... Anyone have a spare 1.2 billion lying around?

Click to expand...

Again, while Griffin is no longer in charge, his evaluation (as an engineer) was that it should not happen due to safety concerns, rather than expense.

But, since you mention it the total cost of the Mars Rover program, including the extensions was less than $1 billion. If I had to choose between the Mars Rover program and the entire Shuttle program, I'd probably choose the Mars Rover program.

Certainly the Mars Rover program was thousands of times more important to space science and future space travel than one shuttle flight.