| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/11/2009 08:35:20 PM · #1 |
Shuttle mission STS-125 lifted off at 2:01 PM EDT today. So why did I post this under Hardware & Software? Well, STS-125 is en route to Hubble to install new cameras and instruments, replace failed components, and perform updates to enable Man's Window on the Universe to function for another 5 years or more. Once again, the Hubble Telescope will do ground-breaking science as it has since 1994.
The crew of STS-125 has a difficult task ahead, let's all wish them success and a safe return! |
|
|
|
05/11/2009 08:46:17 PM · #2 |
Thanks for posting, I just saw the recap on the Hubble live show I had recorded from earlier. People take these shuttle liftoffs for granted, they will soon be ancient history once they are retired. I wonder how tough it must be to install all that stuff while floating! They are calling it the final mission are they? The ISS looks finished, or is it? What also saddens me is how NASA will soon hand off the baton to ESA for major space missions of the near future. We should all remember NASA for road it paved for future space missions. ENGAGE !
Message edited by author 2009-05-12 00:29:43. |
|
|
|
05/12/2009 08:05:06 AM · #3 |
| Morning bump, because it is of interest to all of us who are interested in imaging our universe. |
|
|
|
05/12/2009 08:25:12 AM · #4 |
| So... Hubble tweets... Ya'll saw that? =] |
|
|
|
05/12/2009 08:28:10 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Once again, the Hubble Telescope will do ground-breaking science as it has since 1994. |
Lets hope the ground-breaking is figurative rather than literal...
=)
|
|
|
|
05/12/2009 09:42:16 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
They are calling it the final mission are they? |
It's the final mission to the Hubble, not the final shuttle mission. Here is a NASA article on the liftoff/mission, with a link to ongoing TV coverage. |
|
|
|
05/12/2009 06:40:30 PM · #7 |
| I know of course, the final mission to the Hubble. The ISS isn't done yet, but it's almost there and what perplexes me is that NASA isn't prepping for a successor for the shuttles. The CEV project is just something on paper, they aren't constructing anything as of now and the Hubble is being maintained right now so it could run for another 5 years. What will happen after then? Will 'nauts rely on Soyuz only? |
|
|
|
05/12/2009 08:27:31 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
The ISS isn't done yet, but it's almost there and what perplexes me is that NASA isn't prepping for a successor for the shuttles. |
I've thought about that, too. It seems rather odd that they keep panicking about the looming retirement of the shuttle program. I mean, what's the big rush to retire the shuttles, especially when the new vehicle isn't sitting on the launch pad yet, ready to roll? Is the warranty for the shuttles about to expire, or what? |
|
|
|
05/12/2009 10:33:44 PM · #9 |
The Space Shuttles are to be retired as a result of the American Public and their reaction to the Columbia Break-up, with the public accusing NASA of a variety of things, which lead to questions as to whether NASA would last at all. NASA needed to produce a plan to help survive while still achieving the ISS goals, so the planned retirement of the shuttle accurred. As yet, significant amounts of money to build a replacement system have not been provided.
Similar happened after the Challenger Explosion, which almost ended NASA.
The public have forgotten that Space Travel is dangerous, and there are always risks involved. People forget that the shuttle was designed for a 3% failure (originally), yet we currently sit at about 1.5%. The Shuttle was meant to make space travel routine, but it will never be so. The Shuttle was meant to reduce the cost of launches, yet it is more expensive. NASA was meant to be able to launch a Shuttle every other week, (24 launchs a year) yet that has never been obtainable. It was meant to be replaced decades ago, yet never reached the lauch life so has not happened. Lets also remember that a number of critical design elements of the Shuttle were deceided not by engineers, but by Polititians demanding work in their districts from NASA on the high profile project.
There have been many plans that have got well into the detail design stage for a replacement shuttle, both Single Use and Re-Usage systems. All were canned for various reasons, including a lack of need. I am sure there is something on the drawing board as we speak.
For the Short term, Soyuz will be the only Manned platform available (I don't consider the Chinese system as valid, or safe). Unmanned missions to resupply the ISS will be carried out using ARIANE V - ATV system. The US still have a significant unmanned capability as well.
It will be a shame that the Shuttle is retired, but the US, nor the workd, is abandoning space. It is an amazing vehicle, but for a number of reasons, mostly political, its time has come............ |
|
|
|
05/13/2009 01:31:40 AM · #10 |
I remember it was pretty heated, the media had articles about it everyday. I recall it was said shuttles were supposed to be a 20 year program initially. But accidents are going to happen since its such an impressive engineering feat. getting such a big orbiter carrying all that cargo, and going so fast. The soyuz are smaller, not sure about China and Japan's vehicles. I was reading about Dr. Zubrin's blueprint called Mars Direct that is supposedly going to be presented to Pres. Obama soon. He created it years ago, I think it was rejected by NASA, funding issues I guess.
Message edited by author 2009-05-13 01:39:45. |
|
|
|
05/13/2009 02:01:02 AM · #11 |
Dr Zubrin, ahhh yes. The impossible and unrealistic dream........I know Mars Direct well, and the claims of how much he says it will cost. Shame that you will end up with dead astronauts under his plan. He says you can get man to mars, doesn't promise they will live long enough to get back..........Rejected by NASA due to the high risk, assumed technologies and vast unknowns that he failed to properly consider. Radiation cancer would doom all those travelling.......Also, once you left the Earths environment, you were committed to landing on Mars (no Free Return.....).
The Shuttles were meant to be 20 year vehicles. If I recall, it was 50 launches each (I think.....). But they never acheived that launch rate......A lot of political things happened to get the shuttle project off the ground, and promises made by many just to make it happen that were unrealistic........
Soyuz are a manned system. China do not rate.....Japan can launch Satellites. ESA (our European Friends) run ARIANE V which has an impressive launch payload, but has no manned capability. NASA are currently working on a Mission to Mars as long range work, including identifying technologies required, and the launch vehicle required to complete the mission.
Unfortunately, nonwe of these have the capability to service Hubble, so in 5 years (actually, a few longer), unless the capability is developed, Hubble will re-enter the earths atmosphere and burn up........Depends on when they run out of fuel, they might be able to rescue it before it burns (but after it stops taking pictures) to again service it..........No matter what, it has allowed us to look further back in time than any other project before.......
|
|
|
|
05/13/2009 02:54:17 AM · #12 |
| So observing won't be necessary since Hubble has seen as far back as it can, and it's scope capability could only be enhanced as much as what these upcoming upgrades will allow. It basically has outlived it's usefulness I guess. Well, back to the Shuttles, after the ISS construction is complete, (Which is soon) what is next? I really can't see any of the Space agencies putting more satellites up there with all the clutter in orbit, why wouldn't they want to go back to the moon since it's fairly safe to go there? And there is so much real estate to not necessarily colonize but to mine; especially it's valuable resource, Helium3. |
|
|
|
05/13/2009 08:30:19 AM · #13 |
Let me correct a couple misconceptions:
- In 5 years, when Hubble needs servicing again, it will not reenter the atmosphere if it isn't serviced. It's in a rather high orbit, and will continue to orbit there for a *very* long time.
- It may well be that Hubble will function longer than the predicted 5 years... or something could fail early and it might function for a shorter time; let's hope not.
- In any case, there is a *tremendous* amount of science that Hubble is still very capable of. You can bet with confidence that if the value wasn't there, we wouldn't have spent what we are spending for this service mission, which at one time was not slated to happen at all. |
|
|
|
05/13/2009 09:03:26 AM · #14 |
The shuttle was a great concept, and the initial hype was that they would be launching every 2 weeks when they finished building the fleet. It's too bad that it didn't work out that way. It's an amazingly complicated vehicle, and they take a beating on launch and reentry, so safety, with them getting old, is a big concern. Too bad they have been dragging feet about having a replacement for it. I don't think that unless launch technology changes a lot, that there will ever be any vehicle capable of the physical size payload capacity of the shuttle.
I feel that the Hubble is the crown jewel of the pure science contribution of the shuttle fleet, and the ISS, close behind with the amount of practical science that will be done with it.
It's cool to be able to see the ISS come over at night, and know that there is a crew of people camped out up there doing their thing for the future.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2009 12:46:35 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:
The shuttle was a great concept, and the initial hype was that they would be launching every 2 weeks when they finished building the fleet. |
What killed the shuttle was a change from it's initial design. It was never supposed to launch from a pad on the ground with those solid rocket engines. It was supposed to ride a powerful mother-airplane to about 100 to 125 thousand feet. Then it would fire it's own engines and bump into orbit without a massive expenditure of fuel. The Nixon administration killed the last 3 moon shots and lowered the budget on the shuttle. Designing the mothership was going to cost a few billion and would need at least one or two new, very long airstrips, to accommodate it. While the modified 747 can ferry the shuttle around, it could never lift it to the altitude needed with a payload and fuel. It takes a mother ship with about 3 times the power and lifting capability of the 747. So....... when the problem arose we still had our special German friends working for us. They said; "Vee simply strapz zee solid boosters to der shuttle and blast the sucker into orbit." That one decision set us up for both shuttle failures 25 years before they happened.
And now we're insisting on keeping the damn solid fuel rocket as part of the system.
I've read stories already about how rough the ride will be with these rockets. NASA isn't sure it can solve the vibration problem. We'll find out in June or July, when the first mock up capsule and escape tower will ride on one of the boosters for a sub-orbital hop. I hope it goes well. I suspect that a much smaller rocket attached to the new Orion capsule, launched off a modified 747 might work well, but still might not be able to reach a suitable altitude. Designing a 5 of a kind custom aircraft to carry the rocket up to 100,000 feet is probably still out of the question monetarily.
If we'd spent the money back in the seventies to build the mother airplanes, how might our history been different today. Other countries might have been tempted to form a consortium and build their own version. It would have cost less than the Concord. Space travel might even be commonplace now. The space station might be a crowded place. Oh well. Coulda Woulda Shoulda
Message edited by author 2009-05-13 15:44:02. |
|
|
|
05/13/2009 09:00:38 PM · #16 |
I hope that the rest of the Orion program goes better than this:
Orion Capsule Test Landing Vid.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2009 10:53:03 PM · #17 |
Hubble is in a hihg orbit, but without this mission, which will also boost Hubble back to correct orbit, it would have re-entered within the next 20 years, most likely sooner. This is due to orbital decay, and is a function of many facotrs, including the orientation of the telescope (which affects Drag), the Hubbles gyros, and certain affects from the Sun. Hubble has been boosted a number of times in the past.........
Solid Rocket Boosters are a safe means of propelling things into space. The fault of the Challenger explosion was a leakage from the field joints, which are a result of POLITICAL decisions to build these boosters, in segments, in Utah, instead of in Florida. Furthermore, after that decision, the decision to send a Civilian into space ultimately caused the addident, as the political pressure on NASA to launch, and not delay the launch due to the extreme weather conditions, where the design engineers advised against launch. The Second failure was seperation of ice ladden foam from the main tank.
Attempting to launch, from the air, a space vehicle, off the back of a large aircraft, is not viable. The risks are significantly greater. You are condeming the crew to launch prior to the engines going up to full thrust. Boost from ground is still the best way to launch large amounts of payload into space. Multi-stage boost, with Solid Rocket Boosters and detactable liquid tanks are the correct solution.
Lets remember, Virgin galactic are only taking a very light payload, and are only reaching the technical limit of space, and are not entering orbit, hence why they can apply a different system. |
|
|
|
05/14/2009 05:36:05 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by FireBird:
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:
The shuttle was a great concept, and the initial hype was that they would be launching every 2 weeks when they finished building the fleet. |
What killed the shuttle was a change from it's initial design. It was never supposed to launch from a pad on the ground with those solid rocket engines. It was supposed to ride a powerful mother-airplane to about 100 to 125 thousand feet. Then it would fire it's own engines and bump into orbit without a massive expenditure of fuel. The Nixon administration killed the last 3 moon shots and lowered the budget on the shuttle. Designing the mothership was going to cost a few billion and would need at least one or two new, very long airstrips, to accommodate it. While the modified 747 can ferry the shuttle around, it could never lift it to the altitude needed with a payload and fuel. It takes a mother ship with about 3 times the power and lifting capability of the 747. So....... when the problem arose we still had our special German friends working for us. They said; "Vee simply strapz zee solid boosters to der shuttle and blast the sucker into orbit." That one decision set us up for both shuttle failures 25 years before they happened.
And now we're insisting on keeping the damn solid fuel rocket as part of the system.
I've read stories already about how rough the ride will be with these rockets. NASA isn't sure it can solve the vibration problem. We'll find out in June or July, when the first mock up capsule and escape tower will ride on one of the boosters for a sub-orbital hop. I hope it goes well. I suspect that a much smaller rocket attached to the new Orion capsule, launched off a modified 747 might work well, but still might not be able to reach a suitable altitude. Designing a 5 of a kind custom aircraft to carry the rocket up to 100,000 feet is probably still out of the question monetarily.
If we'd spent the money back in the seventies to build the mother airplanes, how might our history been different today. Other countries might have been tempted to form a consortium and build their own version. It would have cost less than the Concord. Space travel might even be commonplace now. The space station might be a crowded place. Oh well. Coulda Woulda Shoulda |
Interesting information and very detailed. You sound like Richard Hoagland! I don't doubt it, there's always a tower of babel somewhere in any frontier. We are lucky we even have a civilian space agency.
Message edited by author 2009-05-14 06:44:56. |
|
|
|
05/14/2009 12:48:19 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by kaiser_chief:
Solid Rocket Boosters are a safe means of propelling things into space.
|
Yes. A safe means of propelling things into space. Not people. The
Shuttle after all its years of use is still considered EXPERIMENTAL.
Originally posted by kaiser_chief:
The fault of the Challenger explosion was a leakage from the field joints,
|
Leakage around the O-Rings at the grain joints would never have happened
if solid rockets were not added to the design.
Originally posted by kaiser_chief:
The Second failure was seperation of ice ladden foam from the main tank.
|
Which would never have happened
if solid rockets were not added to the design.
Originally posted by kaiser_chief:
Attempting to launch, from the air, a space vehicle, off the back of a large aircraft, is not viable. The risks are significantly greater. You are condeming the crew to launch prior to the engines going up to full thrust.
|
The break-away maneuver was perfected during early aerodynamic testing with an unpowered shuttle test frame on a modified 747. Lack of ignition of the shuttles engines during an air launch condemns the crew only to a glider landing. Also chances of escaping the shuttle safely are far greater at altitude than during the currently used high energy boost phase.
Originally posted by kaiser_chief:
Boost from ground is still the best way to launch large amounts of payload into space.
|
Once again we agree. And NASA also agrees. Heavy, NON-HUMAN payloads will be launched from the ground in the foreseeable future.
|
|
|
|
05/14/2009 01:17:54 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by FireBird:
...Heavy, NON-HUMAN payloads will be launched from the ground in the foreseeable future. |
We should keep in mind that although the shuttle is a manned spacecraft, it is designed primarily to deliver large payloads to orbit. As such, it made pretty good sense to go with ground launch.
Solid boosters are an additional risk, no doubt about it. But let's keep in mind that manned space flight is a high-risk endeavor.
It's a very good thing that we can now launch many payloads to precise destinations, e.g. docking to ISS, using unmanned vehicles. this significantly reduces risk to human life, and also reduces cost per kilogram delivered to orbit. |
|
|
|
05/14/2009 04:28:57 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
We should keep in mind that although the shuttle is a manned spacecraft, it is designed primarily to deliver large payloads to orbit. As such, it made pretty good sense to go with ground launch.
|
But this only occurred because of the deviation of requirements from the initial shuttle design. It was not initially designed for heavy-lift use. That was added on as a possible way to commercialize the spacecraft to a space-truck. In other words do all the DoD satellite work, plus become the worlds space delivery vehicle. It even became a failure in this because of the Challenger disaster. DoD work and most other commercial satellites depend on more standard rocketry now. Even these still fail but you just insure them and bump the budget some percentage. Then when one fails you just re-rig and launch again. No costly, long term hiatus of operations due to investigation of a loss of human life disaster.
Originally posted by kirbic:
Solid boosters are an additional risk, no doubt about it. But let's keep in mind that manned space flight is a high-risk endeavor.
It's a very good thing that we can now launch many payloads to precise destinations, e.g. docking to ISS, using unmanned vehicles. this significantly reduces risk to human life, and also reduces cost per kilogram delivered to orbit. |
I agree whole heartily. This is the path NASA should have insisted on when extraneous factors pushed the manned and un-manned programs together in the shuttle program. It's amazing that the engineers back then couldn't realize that making the entire program "man-rated" would cause the cost to sky rocket. But maybe they did. And they got fired! |
|
|
|
05/14/2009 04:31:40 PM · #22 |
| Ok, I have a question that I'm hoping could be answered by anyone of you. WHY does the SRB's emit so much smoke while the Russian Soyuz rockets emit no smoke??????? |
|
|
|
05/14/2009 04:55:04 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
Ok, I have a question that I'm hoping could be answered by anyone of you. WHY does the SRB's emit so much smoke while the Russian Soyuz rockets emit no smoke??????? |
Pick one:
A. The shuttles exhaust combines the output of both solid- and liquid-fueled rocket engines.
B. The Russians Photoshop out the smoke. |
|
|
|
05/14/2009 07:04:25 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
Ok, I have a question that I'm hoping could be answered by anyone of you. WHY does the SRB's emit so much smoke while the Russian Soyuz rockets emit no smoke??????? |
Pick one:
A. The shuttles exhaust combines the output of both solid- and liquid-fueled rocket engines.
B. The Russians Photoshop out the smoke. |
No, pick C
C. The Solid rocket boosters are a completely different compound (being a solid fuel) compared to the liquid fuels burned by the main engines and Soyuz. Hence it produces different byproducts and different quantities. Also remember, on the Pad, a significant amount of the Smoke etc you see is caused by the cooling system, which is water based, and much of what you see on the pad is steam as well.
In regards to the Shuttle Design, compromise is always going to be needed. What is the point of launching man into space if you are launching nothing with him. The shuttle needs a significant payload, and any Manned launch vehicle, in the future, will need to maintain the ability to launch a payload with them.
Whether FireBird likes it or not, solid Rocket boosters will most likely remain a pivotal part of launch vehicles, including manned launch vehicles, for a long time. Most proposals of merit that I have seen include solid rocket boosters in the design. i do not consider crap such as that produced by Robert Zubrin as proposals of merit.
And breakaway testing of Enterprise, which was unfueled, is a completely different situation. Attempting to launch a fully laiden shuttle, with Fuel for a mission such to Hubble, on top of a 747 or similar, is highly dangerous, including, as I said earlier, the unknown regarding whether all engines will achieve max power, and significant control issues if this fails to occur.
After all of the crap that went with Solid Boosters, why did ESA opt, with ARIANE V, to use large Solid Rocket boosters, remembering of course that at the time of design, it was a strong possibility that this Rocket system would then obtain a manned rating in the future (something that is currently on the back burner).
And I find your comment regarding the German Rocket Engineers interesting, for without this team, lead by Wernher von Braun, NASA would never have made the moon.............
|
|
|
|
05/14/2009 08:44:23 PM · #25 |
Kaiser, your information is worth alot, thanks again. However, I doubt we should call Zubrin's Direct project crap even though it is flawed. If anything, other engineers should use his blueprint as a background for improving upon. His formula is just a step, although not the final step towards getting to Mars. I'm sure it will prove to be valuable in some way or form. As artists, we all know a masterpiece is created by taking away instead of adding to it. Maybe Zubrin's project is crude or too complex, or both...but i'm sure NASA will reach the moon before they ever reach Mars which won't be in talks until 2020 at least.
Speaking of the Moon, WHY WOULD THEY CUT FUNDING!? Were those missions in late 60s and 70s a waste of time? Were they serving a purpose to intimidate the world and put a staple on the space race? and thats all? The valuable resources on the Moon as in Helium3 would change civilizaton forever. Why aren't they mining it? |
|
