backtop

Print 23 comment(s) - last by Amiga500.. on Jun 3 at 4:40 AM
Space Shuttle Discovery heads for the ISS

Shuttle Discovery yesterday successfully launched towards the International Space Station from the Kennedy Space Center for a 14-day mission with several important ISS repairs and upgrades on the docket.

Prior to launch at 5:02 p.m. EST, flight managers started fueling the shuttle with more than 500,000 gallons of liquid oxygen and hydrogen since early morning, with electronics systems aboard the shuttle working normally.

A small piece of protective foam on the shuttle's external fuel tank broke off during launch, but NASA officials initially do not expect it to cause problems when the shuttle attempts to re-enter the Earth's atmosphere.

The seven-man crew's main duty in space will be the installation of the $1B Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) "Kibo" space module that is 37 feet long and 32,000 pounds. The Discovery crew will conduct at least three scheduled spacewalks during the trip to help install the second of three different modules that will make up the $2B space research lab. Once properly attached, it will join the US and European-built labs on the ISS.

A robotic arm measuring 33-ft. in length has also been sent to space so it can be used on Kibo. Its main use will be to move science experiments that are located outside the space module and must be exposed to the harsh space environment.

A large number of politicians and Japanese journalists were on-hand to view the launch, as Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Arizona, is married to shuttle Commander Mark Kelly. One Discovery crew member, Gregory Chamitoff, will stay aboard the ISS for a six-month deployment, as Garrett Reisman will return to Earth aboard Discovery.

Discovery will also ferry several necessary parts so astronauts will be able to fix a broken toilet on the ISS. The section of the toilet system responsible for dealing with urine storage is malfunctioning, and two additional backup units on the ISS also malfunctioned after installation. Astronauts have been forced to use a different receptacle that ends up wasting precious time and water, as manually flushing the system takes two people up to 10 minutes to complete.

NASA continues on its mission to finish construction of the ISS before 2010, when the U.S. space agency will be forced to retire the space shuttle. The space agency will then focus on completing the six-person Orion spaceship, which should be completed in 2014. NASA will pay the Russian space agency to help ferry U.S. astronauts to and from the ISS until the construction of Orion is finished.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Orion is a joke
By FITCamaro on 6/1/08, Rating: 0
RE: Orion is a joke
By Poximex on 6/1/2008 10:58:46 AM , Rating: 5
The purpose of phasing out the shuttle is more of a question of cost, age, and the future of NASA.

The primary reason for phasing out the shuttle is that it simply cannot leave Earth orbit easily - it doesn't have the rocket power and efficiency. Nowadays it primarily services the International Space Station, which is in low Earth orbit (LEO). Because NASA's future missions include going to the moon and Mars, you would need to create a vehicle that can escape Earth orbit - something to the degree of the Atlas V rockets that took the Apollo capsules to the edge of earth orbit. Apollo is still the only space program where a man left LEO.

It would be possible to retrofit the space shuttle to go to the moon, but it isn't practical. The shuttle is a cargo hauler, with its giant cargo bay. This is apparent because the shuttle is the ONLY vehicle that can carry ISS parts into space. Having this much cargo room on a trip to the moon makes no sense, and the rocket energy needed to deliver the giant mass out of Earth orbit would be extraordinary.

In reality, the shuttle is an amazing vehicle, but has been around since 1981. You could argue that the shuttle design was an over-ambitious program, running on the success of the Apollo moon missions while NASA still had the support of almost everyone in America (personally I take that thought with a grain of salt). There will be plenty of time for new design on a trip to Mars, but NASA is doing what they can afford and they know what works. Look to the private sector if you want radical new designs.

Finally, since you brought the politics into this, you should know that adjusted for inflation, NASA's budget was higher in the Clinton years than in than either of the Bush's before and after him. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_budget .

If you don't want space to be a ghost town, look at the money NASA got in the late 60's to fund the Apollo program. As much as it pains me to say this, the only way to avoid this 'ghost town' is to give NASA and its contractors more money.


RE: Orion is a joke
By TOAOCyrus on 6/1/2008 11:38:16 AM , Rating: 4
While I agree with you Id just like to point out that it was the Saturn 5 rocket that took us to the moon, not the Atlas.


RE: Orion is a joke
By Poximex on 6/1/2008 11:54:19 AM , Rating: 2
Typo on my part, thank you.


RE: Orion is a joke
By Diesel Donkey on 6/1/2008 11:56:27 AM , Rating: 2
But without that huge payload, how ever will get our mining and other assorted colonizing materials to the moon? :)


RE: Orion is a joke
By AlexWade on 6/1/2008 1:09:39 PM , Rating: 2
I hope they never cut back NASA space funding, just funding to people who let political views affect science. Politics and religion should stay out of science.

I get a chill down my spine watching a Space Shuttle go up. The last time I was in Florida, I made a special trip to see the Shuttle go up. One day, I want to go to space just for a few days. Seeing the shuttle go up keeps that dream alive.


RE: Orion is a joke
By JBird7986 on 6/1/2008 4:11:44 PM , Rating: 2
This launch was the first one that I went to go see and it was absolutely incredible! I absolutely recommend going to see one if you are able.


RE: Orion is a joke
By Ringold on 6/2/2008 1:25:24 AM , Rating: 2
I was watching from Sanford, 40-50 miles or so away I reckon, and it was the best launch I'd ever seen from way over here. The visibility was fantastic from here; I swear I saw the SRB's after seperation for a few moments, as the sun reflected off them just right. I would discount it as possibly having been birds or something, if not for hearing from the TV inside that the SRB's had seperated.

Then my gaze shifted to the exhaust trail for just a moment, and lost them.

I would recommend to people to see a Shuttle launch up close before it is too late. Ares I launches won't be half as impressive.


RE: Orion is a joke
By FITCamaro on 6/1/2008 1:54:59 PM , Rating: 1
I'm not saying that the shuttle will go to the moon or Mars. And while Orion might go to the moon, it will never go to Mars. It's not large enough to carry the stores required.

Besides, Orion will use largely the same parts to get into orbit as the shuttle. They are reusing the main booster rockets from the shuttle.

And my point was that had Clinton not cancelled and scrapped the X series prototypes, we'd have a viable alternative to the shuttle. One that doesn't require us to revert back to the Apollo days and recover a capsule.


RE: Orion is a joke
By Ringold on 6/2/2008 1:09:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Finally, since you brought the politics into this, you should know that adjusted for inflation, NASA's budget was higher in the Clinton years than in than either of the Bush's before and after him. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_budget .


I've discussed this briefly before; the CPI is the Consumer Price Index. NASA buys relatively little clothes, food, and fuel as part of its overall budget. I don't know if it pays for the ground it occupies or not, being a government agency, but if it doesn't have to pay rent, then it is just that much more divorced from comparisons with CPI.

High-tech component costs, I would assume, make up a large portion of NASA's budget. If you take a gander at the components of the CPI, you'll note powerful deflationary trends over the last 20 years or so, making a nominal dollar today worth more than during the Clinton years. Various types of capital equipment cost inflation has also lagged the overall CPI -- some have also been higher.

The wikipedia data is therefore a rough guide at best. Just in case anyone forgot that Wikipedia is a left-leaning encyclopedia, I like how they also throw in the Iraq spending, as if that is in any way more or less relevant than, say, Medicaid spending. At any rate, the dollar amounts from 1990 to today are uniform enough, and the CPI a sufficiently lousy choice of deflator, that saying Clinton or Bush spending is higher or lower than the other is rather hard to defend.

Now, if NASA, as a typical government agency, has been capable of realizing that cost savings.. that's a different issue. From the looks of COTS, they're at least trying.


RE: Orion is a joke
By mmatis on 6/2/2008 8:36:47 PM , Rating: 2
It's also worth noting that a significant amount of the NASA funding under the Clinton administration went directly to our Russian friends. That bought us benefits like the flame thrower on Mir which almost killed the crew, not to mention the "demolition derby" docking of a Progress that would have made Tony Stewart, Paul Tracy, or Roberto Montoya proud. But who can put a price on shoveling the $$$ where the administration wants it to go?


RE: Orion is a joke
By Amiga500 on 6/3/2008 4:40:53 AM , Rating: 2
High-tech component costs, I would assume, make up a large portion of NASA's budget. If you take a gander at the components of the CPI, you'll note powerful deflationary trends over the last 20 years or so

You saying Clinton funded NASA (taking all things in) much more than Bush Snr then?


RE: Orion is a joke
By Amiga500 on 6/3/2008 4:39:34 AM , Rating: 2
In reality, the shuttle is an amazing vehicle, but has been around since 1981. You could argue that the shuttle design was an over-ambitious program

The shuttle was a good concept - it had one fatal flaw - it needed to be manned for all missions.

Around the time of Challenger, Bush Snr. declared no American Astronaut would be lost for the good of the commericial world (or words to that effect), so the Shuttle was prohibited from flying up commericial satellites - which was a massive chunk of revenue factored into the business plan - up in smoke.

Ironically the Soviet/Russian Buran was capable of unmanned orbiting, but there was no private industry in Soviet Russia that had satellites waiting to go up.


RE: Orion is a joke
By Carter642 on 6/1/2008 6:40:59 PM , Rating: 2
Actually the modularity of the Orion program is likely going to be the basis for the future of manned missions.

The shuttle resulted from the need for some payload capacity and the need to place a crew in orbit with scientific equiptment for a self contained medium duration flight. Unfortunately due to it's design and mission profile the shuttle is the most expensive and dangerous way to and from orbit. I do agree that there ought to be funding to close up the launch gap by giving the shuttle one last upgrade.

I also think that the years before Orion and after ISS completion should be used to put an orbital assembly platform in place. The ISS is designed for science, we could put standardized living modules, docking facilities, and a couple of robotic arms up for a tiny fraction of the ISS's price and in only a couple of years.

What will result from the ISS and it's decendents is that there will be a 'place to go' in orbit allowing for the breakup of the shuttle's capabilities over multiple cheaper, safer, and more capable vehicles. We're going to see a crew/supply delivery module, a heavy lift module and a long term habitation station/assembly platform. The ability to assemble spacecraft in orbit is going to be our ticket to the solar system.


RE: Orion is a joke
By divided421 on 6/2/2008 10:17:37 AM , Rating: 2
The shuttle is from 1981, aka developed was in the 70's. I say this while sitting in the facility that still produces 1980's model replacement processor and computer components that power the thing. Old, proven components that are all massively outdated power our shuttle. The shuttle was and is still a fantastic design, but its primary function is cargo. It could not realistically be re-purposed with power and weight constraints to adequately service a moon mission. So much energy goes into just maintaining a reusable spacecraft that the benefits are rarely seen. On a larger moon mission, that effort amount would be exponentially greater. The sheer number of complex and sensitive components on the space shuttle alone is mind boggling. Add in enough power to get to the moon, plus a lander and all the life support needed to sustain that operation and you will see why a capsule is a smarter choice.


RE: Orion is a joke
By johnsonx on 6/2/2008 5:27:28 PM , Rating: 2
What about them super shuttles from Armaggedon? We just need a couple of those.


RE: Orion is a joke
By Felofasofa on 6/2/2008 10:33:41 PM , Rating: 2
You'd have to ask Michael Bay for those. Armaggedon, now was that plausible or what?


Most Recent Positions
By Ringold on 6/2/2008 3:57:42 AM , Rating: 2
Assuming the word from their selected representatives is worth anything:

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?ma...

I'm in the process of watching it now, almost done, but I think Obama's rep (Steve Robinson) believes we could power a warp drive on Obama's smile alone. I'll also say that, in stark contrast to Obama, Clinton has said in clear, unambiguous language that she wants NASA to get back to NASA.

From the perspective of someone who views manned exploration as critical, Clinton wins, McCain comes in a close second, and Obama isn't even in the race. I mean, the Clinton rep just talked about exploiting the Moon for energy resources, as well as supporting private space ventures (she actually sounds like a capitalist!), while the Obama guy was talking about how inspirational pictures from robots are. Later, he even played a class warfare card.

Hey, Obama, here's an inspirational picture (and my current desktop image, cropped):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Buzz_salutes_th...




RE: Most Recent Positions
By maven81 on 6/2/2008 6:20:18 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure why you brought politics into this, but anything Clinton says should be taken with a BLOCK of salt. If there's one thing her and her cohorts are good at it's pandering. She could have said that if she's elected she will make a mars mission a top priority. That doesn't mean anything really.


RE: Most Recent Positions
By Ringold on 6/2/2008 7:25:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not sure why you brought politics into this,


Well, if one cares about NASA, then because NASA exists at the whim of Congress, and Congress is staffed by politicians, and an election is on the horizon, NASA and politics are rather inseperable. It would matter far less if the candidates had similar positions, but Obama's and McCain's positions starkly contrast.

quote:
but anything Clinton says should be taken with a BLOCK of salt.


Agreed! It was nice to hear unwavering support for a manned Martian mission, though. McCain wouldn't commit to that, and Obama's rep essentially promised it wouldn't happen.


Orion, a joke?
By Horus on 6/2/2008 10:04:53 AM , Rating: 2
Yes considering that the Ares VI launch vehicle is twice the size and has considerably more thrust than the shuttle. I think seeing one of those things take off will be pretty darn impressive. No Saturn V, of course.

Not to mention I don't see why it's a step backwards. Most of the parts are reusable, just like the SRB's in the current shuttle system. I think even the command module in the Orion is reusable, saving a ton of cash.




RE: Orion, a joke?
By Ringold on 6/2/2008 2:13:40 PM , Rating: 2
The command module is partly reusable; NASA propaganda claims up to 10 uses. They also made wild claims about the space shuttle that never came close to reality, and the CBO and other government agencies have looked at Orion and have little confidence in NASA claims. If they reused them 2 or 3 times I wouldn't be surprised.

As for the Ares VI, I assume you mean the Ares V, but you're right. It is almost the size of Saturn V, but far less thrust. It won't be quite as .. breath taking, since there wont be anyone aboard, but it'll definitely be a huge hulk of metal going off skyward. The Ares I by contrast deserves its nickname.

I think people consider it a step back though because we've returned to the day when a huge amount of hardware leaves the pad, a tiny little pod comes back, and then after a few uses even the little pod gets tossed. The Shuttle, by contrast, was complex, came back in one piece, got some maintenance, and was completely reused, just like a aircraft or a boat. It's Apollo Mk II; Orion incorporates what looks like avionic and material science advances, but beyond that, no difference. Even the wiki entry on it admits as much, though it tries to hide the fact.


Birds > Human life
By Reclaimer77 on 6/1/2008 10:43:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A small piece of protective foam on the shuttle's external fuel tank broke off during launch, but NASA officials initially do not expect it to cause problems when the shuttle attempts to re-enter the Earth's atmosphere.


Since environmentalists have forced NASA to this new foam, we have lost one shuttle with all crew aboard. One shuttle was severely damaged and had to be repaired in orbit. Now, AGAIN, the foam has damaged the Shuttle.

Look I like birds as much as the next guy, but how many people and shuttles are we going to lose before we switch back to the old foam ??

I was a kid in school when Challenger went down. That was one of the most profound moments of my life. Watching it explode over and over again on the TV they wheeled into my classroom. It was just so... sad. And while the Challenger disaster could not have been prevented, we KNOW this new foam is not as safe and we're still using it. Even AFTER we have lost the Columbia we're still putting possible animal life concerns over human lives ??




"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki