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 .
STS-132 Space Shuttle Atlantis
- Thread starter long_time_DNC
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 47
- Views 4K
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 ...
A bit late to the party, but I'd like to make a few comments.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
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 .
Last edited by a moderator:
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
Last edited:
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.
But it was a damn good project, just never carried to completion.
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...
Last edited:
...And so, with only two more shuttle launches left, the U.S. manned space program comes to an end... 
It will be interesting to see if they decide Atlantis needs another mission... Anyone have a spare 1.2 billion lying around?
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.
Last edited:
Similar threads
