backtop


Print 26 comment(s) - last by delphinus100.. on Jul 16 at 12:18 PM


Video from Atlantis shows the ISS before docking  (Source: msnbc.msn.com)

  (Source: National Geographic)
With NASA retiring its Space Shuttle fleet, this was an important moment in NASA history, as it may be awhile before another launch takes place

This year has proved to be an important one for NASA, as it has retired two of the three remaining operational orbiters in its Space Shuttle fleet. Space shuttle Discovery made its final mission in February, and Space shuttle Endeavour completed its last jaunt in June. On July 8, the third and final spacecraft, Space shuttle Atlantis, launched into space one last time before its retirement as well. 

Now, NASA is happy to announce that Atlantis made its final docking at the International Space Station (ISS) on Sunday. Two hours after docking, the four-person crew, which consists of Commander Chris Ferguson, Pilot Doug Huley and Mission Specialists Sandy Magnus and Rex Walheim, entered the ISS to hug and take pictures with the six-person crew in the ISS. With NASA retiring its Space Shuttle fleet, this was an important moment in NASA history, as it may be awhile before another launch takes place.

While Atlantis arrived safely to the ISS, the trip up until that point wasn't entirely smooth. Before docking, one of the shuttle's computers failed during a morning power-up. According to Atlantis' Lead Flight Director Kwatsi Alibaruho, the on-off switches need to be flipped on a certain way, otherwise they cause a glitch. The computer was taken offline, allowing the remaining two computers, which work simultaneously for the sake of redundancy, to take over. The shuttle also has two spare computers if needed. 

In addition, Atlantis' mission management Team Leader LeRoy Cain noted that a piece of space junk is expected to come close to the ISS and shuttle on Tuesday, but it is not 100 percent confirmed yet. Cain also was unsure of the size of the piece of space junk, but said that Atlantis could "fire its thrusters to move the station out of the way."

Despite these minor troubles, Atlantis has docked and plans to continue doing what the crew went there to do: resupply the ISS. The 12-day mission (which may now be a 13-day mission due to extra time needed for moving cargo), STS-135, is delivering spare parts, clothes, food and experiments via the Raffaello multipurpose logistics module. The supplies are expected to last through the end of 2012.

Today, the crew is using the station's robotic arm to move the Raffaello multipurpose logistics module out of the shuttle's payload bay and connect it to the ISS to retrieve the cargo. A spacewalk is scheduled for Tuesday, but most of the trip will require the moving of cargo and extra help around the ISS.

While many see the retirement of the Space Shuttle fleet as the end, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden assures that NASA is only retiring the "launching-to-orbit business," but has big plans for the future.

"I would encourage the American public to listen to the president," said Bolden. "The president has set the goals: an asteroid in 2025, Mars in 2030. I can't get any more definitive than that."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

They should have stuck with Apollo design.
By quiksilvr on 7/11/2011 1:14:25 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry but us Aerospace Engineers always cringed at the Space Shuttle design.

In a Physics standpoint, it is woefully inefficient. The entire point of the International Space Station was to have a full lab in space that ships can dock to...so why do we waste all that time and money developing a lab inside the Space Shuttle?

If anything, they could have launched just ONE Shuttle into orbit, leave it there, and let capsules like Apollo and Orion dock to it. Instead, we got an inefficient, unsafe, expensive program that has been riddled with bad PR since the '90s. THATS why they are ending it; two of the shuttles were completely destroyed.




RE: They should have stuck with Apollo design.
By SSDMaster on 7/11/2011 1:24:17 PM , Rating: 3
Space Elevator FTW!


RE: They should have stuck with Apollo design.
By cjohnson2136 on 7/11/2011 1:32:50 PM , Rating: 3
But that will only happen when no one has laughed for 50 years.


RE: They should have stuck with Apollo design.
By Flunk on 7/11/2011 1:48:59 PM , Rating: 4
I dunno, they were heavily featured in Gundam 00. Maybe the Japanese will build one in the next 10 years.


By tng on 7/11/2011 1:57:21 PM , Rating: 2
Probably not. Way to much engineering yet to do and also materials science has to catch up to the job. Right now the only material that would take the stress of the job would be unobtainium.

Arthur Clarke is quoted there with the 50 year mark, but as I found with allot of his earlier work where he is credited as "inventing" the modern communication satellite, he really did not have any idea what it would really take in terms of design. By that standard we can credit Jules Verne with inventing the nuclear submarine and the Saturn V rocket....


RE: They should have stuck with Apollo design.
By wewter on 7/11/2011 6:44:57 PM , Rating: 2
There is definitely not enough carbon nano-tubing in existence for such a venture.

You realize that the top of the elevator would be orbiting the earth a few thousands of miles faster than the bottom of the things -- can you say "physical strain" much?


By JediJeb on 7/12/2011 2:03:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You realize that the top of the elevator would be orbiting the earth a few thousands of miles faster than the bottom of the things -- can you say "physical strain" much?


I thought that was the idea of the design, to put it at a point where gravity and centripetal forces cancel each other out so that that strain on the tether is minimal. You need just enough strain there to maintain tension on the tether. Also the linear velocity may differ between the base station and the top platform but their rotational velocity would be equal, therefore there would not be a strain on the tether because of differing velocities. Think of the spokes of a bicycle wheel, the center moves at a lower linear velocity than the rim, yet the spokes are not sheared off since they move at the same rotational velocity, only when accelerating and decelerating do the spokes experience strain.


RE: They should have stuck with Apollo design.
By 3minence on 7/11/2011 1:56:14 PM , Rating: 3
Perhaps you should go back and refresh yourself on the history of the shuttle. It was designed to be a very inexpensive reusable spacecraft that could ferry cargo back and forth from orbit. Design modifications demanded by the Air Force in order to win their funding made it so dangerous.

For instance, it was envisioned to repair satellites in orbit as it did with Hubble. It also could bring broken satellites back home for reuse later, which it did once on a early mission. It also would deliver cargo and crew to the ISS. It succeeded in all these missions except for the inexpensive part.

The Orion capsule cannot carry cargo. It can't be used to repair satellites as it doesn't have a remote manipulator arm and cargo bay for holding the satellite while being worked on, it doesn't have an airlock, or even room to put on a spacesuit and MMU. The Orion can go to the ISS and back, nothing else.

The shuttle was retired, not because it was "dangerous", but because NASA couldn't afford to keep paying for the shuttle while developing its successor. The shuttle was just too expensive.

The shuttle was a miracle of engineering and we should be proud of it. When it goes away we will loose a lot of unique capability.


RE: They should have stuck with Apollo design.
By quiksilvr on 7/11/2011 2:45:39 PM , Rating: 2
As a repairship and laboratory, it was a great idea. As a means to send people to and from space, it was an utter mistake. Leave the shuttle in space and send capsules back and forth.

If you need cargo, send it up in modules. You don't need to send a space shuttle to send cargo.

And why bring a broken satellite back home for reuse? Leave it in orbit and build what you need up there. Shooting parts (modules) into space and constructing it up there is much more efficient, has less room for failure and (as odd as this sounds) safer. Instead of molding the satellite to the shape of the ship you are sending it on, send it in modular pieces

Trust me, we have done hours of calculations based on power usage, fuel, mass, energy, etc. The Shuttle should never have been a means to send crew and cargo to and from space.

It was perfect for a repair station and laboratory. Even though ISS replaced the laboratory and SOME aspects of repair, it was a brilliant means to send a ship to different orbits for repairs. It's failure was as a launcher/reentry ship.


By 3minence on 7/11/2011 4:17:20 PM , Rating: 2
Hindsight is 20/20. These decisions were made in the 70's when the shuttle was being designed.


By Solandri on 7/11/2011 9:00:33 PM , Rating: 2
Repair and retrieval of a broken satellite in space is mostly a futile endeavor. The bulk of the satellite's expense is in launch costs. A typical LEO communications satellite costs less than $100 million to construct, but about $150-$200 million or more to launch. The shuttle is about $450 million in launch costs, with the total mission (i.e. combined with everything else needed to maintain and operate it) generally topping $1 billion.* Because of orbital differences and fuel requirements, the shuttle can only repair one satellite per mission.

Hence it's almost always cheaper just to launch a second satellite to replace the broken one, rather than launch a manned repair mission. They should have repaired/retrieved a few satellites as proof of concept and for practical experience with the mission, then shelved the concept until we could develop cheaper launch vehicles. Not build an entire launch platform based on the concept.

The primary military mission of the shuttle (retrieval and restocking of film in spy satellites - remember, it was designed in the 1970s) was rendered moot by the digital revolution. From that point on, it pretty much became a white elephant, with people using the sunk costs to justify continuing funding for the program. They are beautiful machines and a triumph of engineering and human ingenuity, but they are an anathema to cost effectiveness.

* Most of the excess cost of the shuttle is due to overoptimistic estimates of how it would perform. The original costs were estimated assuming shuttle flights would become so routine we'd be sending up one a week, with two and sometimes three orbiters in space simultaneously. The idea was that by sharing vehicle prep facilities and personnel and getting turnaround time down to about 1 month per vehicle, we could save money by reusing most of the spacecraft instead of rebuilding it from scratch every launch.

Instead, the shuttles averaged only 4.5 launches per year - fewer than 1/10th the design goal. The prep and personnel costs had to be amortized over an order of magnitude fewer flights, and the cost per flight ballooned to where it was bleeding NASA dry of money.


"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki