STS-135: The Last Launch of the Shuttle

[Oberon]

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/

Godspeed. :salute:

[frau kaleun]

According to the news I just heard, it may be delayed due to weather conditions. I think if it doesn't go off today the next possible launch date is the 16th. :hmmm:

[Oberon]

Looking at about T-55 at the moment, so far so good. :hmmm:

[TarJak]

Live countdown clock here: http://countdown.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/countdown/cdt/

EDIT: The REMOVE BEFORE FLIGHT tag has been removed. T-25. Looks good to go so far.

[Herr-Berbunch]

T-9 and off hold
:up:

Edit T-2

Noooo, hold again at -31 seconds

It's off

[Subnuts]

It's off

Or not...
http://i53.tinypic.com/2886ttj.jpg

[Oberon]

Yeah, I think the circuit indicating the Fuel tank cap (Gaseous Vent Arm) had swung clear of the shuttle didn't fire properly so it had to be checked visually through a camera.

Either way, a good launch, good work to all those involved. :salute:

[Oberon]

Or not...
http://i53.tinypic.com/2886ttj.jpg

I think he meant "It's off" as in "It's taken off"

[Skybird]

Recently, the Shuttle turned into a two-edged sword, in my perception. I grew up with its announcement and then first missions launched, when I was a schoolboy. It was exciting, fascinating, it had magic. But this article:

http://www.welt.de/wissenschaft/weltraum/article13461797/Das-Ende-des-amerikanischen-Shuttle-Traums.html

taught me that it was anything but magioc, but was a royal economic disaster that did not held the promises for cost reduction that it's defenders promised, also it was not as trend-forming as claimed, it was a pürogram poorly managed and technical maintencnes was overly complictaed due to it having allowed to turn into an overly complicated machine.

My heart is pro shuttle, but my mind, if this article points out correct facts, necessarily must be asking qhy it has not been buried many years earlier. They quote a US poll on the most appreciated acchievements of American space program in that article, and to my surprise the Shuttle just made fourth place (I expected it on two, behind the moon landing).

It was terribly expensive, it hgelped to turn NASA fiancnes into what they are now, and it did not deliver to all the promsies that were made. Also, it consumed too many of NASA's resources for too long - resources whose lacking investement into non-Shuttle issues NASA is feeling now. Let'S face it - it is high time that the shuttle gets buried.It seems it already stayed far too long.

But the heart is bleeding, yes, I admit that. But more important are the questions: What now, Nasa? and How to pay for it?

I'm currently reading "Limit", the latest blockbuster thriller by German author Frank Schätzing, the guy behind "Der Schwarm" (a book I have read four times in three years). There they have build the spacelift into geostationary orbit, and private companies have left states and nations (and especially NASA) behind with their ambitious space programs, running much , more efficient because they bypass the bureaucratic hurdles and political inefficiency. Like often with Schätzing, whose later books are a mixture of fact-oriented science report, science fiction and thrill, I think that he probably forsees things correctly in this regard.

Nice to read, btw, it is pulling you through those 1300 pages of "Limit" like nothing. Recommended for German readers if you seek for some entertaining reading. Schätzing really knows how to do it. But if it will become as thrilling as "Der Schwarm", remains to be seen...

[Herr-Berbunch]

I did mean it's lifted off. But it also separated lovely.

http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/9946/image2zjn.jpg

That was fantastic images from that camera, the curvature of Earth appearing, the blue and white swirls getting faster and faster, the plasma appearing just before separation... :yep:

[AVGWarhawk]

Sad to see the last launch.

[AVGWarhawk]

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/N5iQdjcPx3oNjq_jASsS0Q--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD02MTI7cT04NTt3PTM3MQ--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/8f056ca338a95f0ff20e6a706700d56e.jpg

[emymc]

Good night and good luck.

[Onkel Neal]

Sad to see the last launch.

That's the end of America as the #1 space power.

[AVGWarhawk]

That's the end of America as the #1 space power.

:down:

I understand we now will use Russian rockets to get materials into space.

[AVGWarhawk]

As I heard...


Mark Uhran: So we’re at a major point in transition with the International Space Station Program.

With the ramping down of the space shuttle, we are changing our approach to transportation. Fortunately, we have, through this international partnership, very reliable vehicles, the Russian Soyuz and the Russian Progress, we’ve also recently demonstrated in Europe and in Japan, cargo vehicles that can rendezvous with the space station. And then finally, in the United States have contracted with private organizations to demonstrate new cargo transportation vehicle over the next 12 to 24 months.

We’re confident that those demonstrations will occur roughly on schedule and that we will be able to transition from the shuttle era where we were basically using the equipment an 18-wheeler truck to move large pieces of the space station, large elements like laboratories and solar arrays up to orbit, but for the next 10 years, we’re not going to need the equivalent of an 18-wheeler, we’re going to need the equivalent of a pick-up truck. And that’s what these international vehicles are and what these commercial vehicles are that we expect to demonstrate here in the next several months.

These last two flights are essentially propositioning the final spares that we need to make sure that the vehicle will operate safely until commercial transportation systems become available.

We have an extremely capable platform and our view is that we can turn that to productive uses over the next decade.

[CCIP]

Mind you, the Russians aren't exactly in hot shape either (the whole program is still built around a rocket design that's almost 60 years old) and replacements for the Soyuz keep stalling. Other players still need time to catch up. So it's not too late for the US to get its act together, but it'll really need a swift kick in the butt to get re-started on the right track.

But I don't think anyone interested in serious exploration gives much credence to private space enterprises that the US seems to be erroneously counting on to save it now. NASA was always the envy of other space agencies, and it is indeed a shame to see it come to this.

Good launch though, hoping for safe rest-of-journey here!

[Stealhead]

I understand that do to the high cost the Russians charge us that there is a private company that is using some of the old launch pads(they are using a different launch method so they are just using the pads) around the cape if they get the contract they will be launching most of our material up while or people go up from Baikonur.

NASA got kind of screwed over budget wise here lately hopefully this will only be a short term problem.

I do not fully agree with CCIP feelings though a private company does not have to deal with governmental restraints that NASA does by contracting out over the next several years they can do much more than they can with current budgets therefore I don't see private companies getting involved as such a bad thing private industry can advance technology as effectively as any government can sometimes more so.

[razark]

The problem with a private company operating a space program is return on investment. If the profits are not large enough and soon enough, it's not worth doing it.

What NASA needs is a space exploration program. Not a space exploitation program like they've been doing. Let private companies handle launching satellites and supply ISS. Let private companies take over running ISS if they can handle it. Put NASA back on track for going places we haven't been, and doing things that haven't been done.

[Platapus]

What NASA needs is a space exploration program. Not a space exploitation program like they've been doing.

A very good distinction to make. :yeah:

[CCIP]

The problem with a private company operating a space program is return on investment. If the profits are not large enough and soon enough, it's not worth doing it.

What NASA needs is a space exploration program. Not a space exploitation program like they've been doing. Let private companies handle launching satellites and supply ISS. Let private companies take over running ISS if they can handle it. Put NASA back on track for going places we haven't been, and doing things that haven't been done.

Yeah, this is very much what I'm saying about private exploration too. It's a great way to maintain operations now and honestly it could provide the kick and the talent that NASA needs for actual exploration. But the privatized space sector has little commercial incentive for real exploration in the short term, and while it can come up with more innovative ideas for venturing out of LEO I don't think it will ever have the economic justification to run with them. So private space is by all means a great way to sustain our operations in LEO and in that sense I don't disagree with the shuttle being retired - it was about time for it. But going beyond will really need a massive long-term investment that I can't see any private interests putting up. I have no problem with the shuttle being replaced by private craft - but after Constellation was cancelled, there's really nothing that NASA has on the horizon that looks promising for making real progress in space. The shuttle's retirement is just another sign of the times for NASA, but far from the root of the problem. In fact some might argue that if NASA got rid of it earlier or even never had it, it would've been a good thing for exploration as such.

[Onkel Neal]

The problem with a private company operating a space program is return on investment. If the profits are not large enough and soon enough, it's not worth doing it.



Oh, I don't know. Let's apply the "sub simulation theory"; if the private companies will build quality rockets without DRM, everyone will buy one.



What NASA needs is a space exploration program. Not a space exploitation program like they've been doing. Let private companies handle launching satellites and supply ISS. Let private companies take over running ISS if they can handle it. Put NASA back on track for going places we haven't been, and doing things that haven't been done.

Well, as long as we have socialist politicians who won't rest until every crack ho has an upscale condo, we won't see the space program grow.

Ah, to be old enough to remember when America was a great country (http://history.nasa.gov/moondec.html)... with real leaders with guts and people who believed in the American Way... move over France and Britian, make some room on the bench for us.

[Jimbuna]

Ah, to be old enough to remember when America was a great country (http://history.nasa.gov/moondec.html)... with real leaders with guts and people who believed in the American Way... move over France and Britian, make some room on the bench for us.

You can certainly have the seat of France :DL

[Gotland]

Read a very interesting article which summed up my view of human space exploration nicely. In summary, when talking if scientific exploration of space, unmanned space flights do the job alot better.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-future-of-space-exploration

[TarJak]

Until someone stumps up the cash for a space elevator, the economics of space travel are not looking too hot. Therein lies the problem.

[Platapus]

Well, as long as we have socialist politicians who won't rest until every crack ho has an upscale condo, we won't see the space program grow.



I really expected better of you Neal. This surprises me.

[Onkel Neal]

That's a common mistake, where people assume someone thinks just the same as they do and when they learn otherwise, they feel their opinion has more merit. Don't worry, you're ok.

[AVGWarhawk]

Ah, to be old enough to remember when America was a great country (http://history.nasa.gov/moondec.html)... with real leaders with guts and people who believed in the American Way... move over France and Britian, make some room on the bench for us.

Amen brother! :rock:

[razark]

Oh, I don't know. Let's apply the "sub simulation theory"; if the private companies will build quality rockets without DRM, everyone will buy one.
If a company has to spend hundreds of millions/billions of dollars now, to start seeing a 10% profit 20 years down the road, I don't see them doing it.

[Stealhead]

You do realize that there are already companies in this field correct? The people backing these companies clearly can have long term goals beyond their own life span a company starting of now has the potential to be massive in the future a space exploration company might cost alot for little return to start with but has much long term potential.Any very large corporation took lifetimes to build up look at the DuPonts for example now think of a company starting in space relating things today in 50 or 100 years think of where it will be.

[razark]

You do realize that there are already companies in this field correct? The people backing these companies clearly can have long term goals beyond their own life span a company starting of now has the potential to be massive in the future a space exploration company might cost alot for little return to start with but has much long term potential.Any very large corporation took lifetimes to build up look at the DuPonts for example now think of a company starting in space relating things today in 50 or 100 years think of where it will be.
There are a decent number of companies out there. Most of them are either toys for the extremely wealthy, or live on government contracts.

A company starting now could indeed grow very big, and show a large profit in the future. In 50 or 100 years, it could very well be a viable industry. But if it's a money sink for a few decades before it ever shows a return, who would keep it running? How long did the DuPonts run at a loss before showing a profit? If a company is not making a profit, it's not going to grow unless someone keeps pumping more and more money into it. (And right now, the only customer capable or willing to do that is the government. Instead of NASA hiring contractors to design and build things and provides services, NASA would be contracting companies do design and build things and provide services.)

[Torplexed]

It's funny. Who besides their customers and Aviation Week subscribers wept when the Concorde was decommissioned? For thirty years there were these machines that could fly from New York to London in two hours that few people paid attention to (except to complain about the noise), yet imagine what Charles Lindbergh would've thought if he'd seen one right after his bone-chilling, 33-hour flight in a wicker chair with a periscope. It's all relative; regular flights to the Moon and Mars will seem just as boring to the hypothetical residents of 2100 as Shuttle flights do now. Boredom isn't the enemy, but inactivity is.

The Shuttle had many flaws, but it was something, which is more than can be said for the perpetual motion machines we're going to be hearing about for an indefinite number of future election cycles. I also think it is a completely false dichotomy to say as some do, that if it wasn't for the shuttle, we would have extended the Apollo missions or gone to Mars. In Gene Kranz's book, he talks a lot about the end of Apollo, and it supports my memories that the shuttle had nothing to do with the end of Apollo. All of that has much more to do with the lack of interest from the American public, the lack of general political support, and the lack of a specific leader (a President like Kennedy) who pushed the space program.

[Onkel Neal]

If a company has to spend hundreds of millions/billions of dollars now, to start seeing a 10% profit 20 years down the road, I don't see them doing it.


Yeah, same here.