LAXintl From United States, joined May 2000, 8867 posts, RR: 12 Posted (3 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3121 times:
Quote: Final Shuttle Flight Set May 31, 2010
Jul 8, 2008
The planned last launch of a U.S. space shuttle is a little less than two years away - on May 31, 2010 - when the shuttle Endeavour is scheduled to lift off with a final load of supplies for the International Space Station (ISS).
Under a new flight manifest issued July 7, NASA plans 10 more shuttle flights starting with the Oct. 8 launch of Atlantis on the final mission to service the Hubble Space Telescope.
"The approved target dates are subject to change based on processing and other launch vehicle schedules," NASA stated in releasing the new manifest. "They reflect the agency's commitment to complete assembly of the station and to retire the shuttle fleet as transition continues to the new launch vehicles, including Ares and Orion."
Ken777 From United States, joined Mar 2004, 1919 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (3 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3113 times:
I'm sad to see this as I doubt that our national budget will allow for new ventures in space.
I can remember John Glenn's flight. I was in the Navy when we went to the moon and was able to watch the landing on TV in Japan, where people filled a movie theater to watch it.
Now I'm afraid that the "one small step" has been taken and the giant leap is the costs of the Iraq war. Popular support for significant funding will probably be as popular as the Iraq war.
Maybe it's a situation that if all you have is a DC-3 you keep flying it.
Thorny From United States, joined Jul 2005, 1395 posts, RR: 10 Reply 3, posted (3 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3100 times:
Quoting Asturias (Reply 1): Finally! That hunk-o-junk is permanently parked. As much as I'd like to go to space, I'd pass on going with the shuttle.
Statistically speaking, you are no safer flying on those "rockets". The Space Shuttle has flown 123 times and had two failures. This makes it statistically identical to Russia's Soyuz spacecraft, the only other manned system with enough flights (89) to draw a meaningful conclusion about reliability. The reliability record of the Space Shuttle is better than most "rockets", including Europe's Ariane V, Japan's H-II family, Russia's Proton, The Ukraine's SeaLaunch Zenit 3, and America's Titan IV.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 2): Now I'm afraid that the "one small step" has been taken and the giant leap is the costs of the Iraq war. Popular support for significant funding will probably be as popular as the Iraq war.
The population at large wildly overestimates how much federal spending goes to NASA. It is presently about .5% of the budget, or $18 billion annually. The peak was 4% in 1966 during the massive buildup for Apollo.
WESTERN737800 From United States, joined Feb 2008, 268 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (3 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3064 times:
Too bad to see the Shuttle retired. I remember watching the launches on TV as a kid with fasination. I wonder how long it'll be before we send people in to space again.
Galaxy5007 From United States, joined Sep 2005, 235 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (3 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3001 times:
Quoting WESTERN737800 (Reply 5): I wonder how long it'll be before we send people in to space again.
It'll be 2017 or later before people get in space again through NASA. Knowing delays that have occurred just on planes, such as the A380 and 787 will obviously flow into the Ares/Orion programs, and then even after all that, the testing will take years. I was hoping they would keep the shuttle flying one more rotation through overhauls...but oh well.
The C-5 may be a FRED, but once you learn the ins and outs of it, the C-5 Galaxy is a awesome plane!
Moose135 From United States, joined Oct 2004, 578 posts, RR: 7 Reply 7, posted (3 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2983 times:
Quoting KPDX (Reply 4): Hey maybe a civillian will purchase one of the space shuttles for private use, restore it a little, and fly it from their own personal launch pad!
"Paging Sir Richard Branson...call for you on line one"
Asturias From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 1110 posts, RR: 5 Reply 8, posted (3 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2896 times:
Quoting Thorny (Reply 3): Statistically speaking, you are no safer flying on those "rockets". The Space Shuttle has flown 123 times and had two failures. This makes it statistically identical to Russia's Soyuz spacecraft, the only other manned system with enough flights (89) to draw a meaningful conclusion about reliability. The reliability record of the Space Shuttle is better than most "rockets", including Europe's Ariane V, Japan's H-II family, Russia's Proton, The Ukraine's SeaLaunch Zenit 3, and America's Titan IV.
Ignoring statistics for anything but manned vehicles, the Soyuz have been flying manned missions since 1967. It was designed by Sergey Korolyov..
You are comparing apples to oranges. The Soyuz have gone through at least four generations and improvements since the sixties.
Since 1981, 14 astronauts and 2 shuttles have been lost. There have essentially only been two distinct generations of the shuttle. Both first generation have been lost.
Since 1981 no astronauts and one Soyuz has been lost.
DfwRevolution From United States, joined Mar 2004, 7596 posts, RR: 55 Reply 9, posted (3 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2850 times:
Asturias, if you would like to bash the Shuttle, take it elsewhere. Your comments are not "apples to apples" and Thorny is spot-on.
Quoting Asturias (Reply 8): There have essentially only been two distinct generations of the shuttle. Both first generation have been lost.
This comment is meaningless.
1. There were not two distinct generations of orbiters built. As flight data was collected from Columbia (OV-101), Rockwell made some incremental improvements to the TPS and airframe of Challenger (OV-99) and made a few more when Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavour (OV-103, 104, 105) were built. That's all, they have never been referred to as distinct generations by anyone of authority.
2. The faults that resulted in the loss of Challenger and Columbia did not originate within the orbiter. The fact that the two orbiters lost were the two oldest is purely coincidence.
3. The orbiters have been overhauled several times in which they have essentially been rebuilt from the ground-up with more capable and reliabe systems. The most recent upgrades weren't even finished until 2007. Just because new airframes have not been built doesn't make Shuttle any less advanced than a new generation of Soyuz capsule.
Quoting Asturias (Reply 8): Since 1981 no astronauts and one Soyuz has been lost.
Which is no statsitical assurance that future missions are any safer than Shuttle. Prior to STS-107 in which Columbia was lost, NASA had flown 88 perfectly safe Shuttle missions.
Meanwhile, Soyuz is having guidnace/navigation failures and Soyuz TMA-11 recently failed to seperate from its Service Module prior to re-entry. The result has been three ballistic re-entries since 2002 that have subjected crews to bone-crushing g-force and landings that are hundreds of miles off coures. That's hardly the trademark of a mature, reliable spacecraft.
Asturias From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 1110 posts, RR: 5 Reply 10, posted (3 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2818 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 9): Asturias, if you would like to bash the Shuttle, take it elsewhere. Your comments are not "apples to apples" and Thorny is spot-on.
DfwRevolution if you think truth is bashing then I can't help you. The reason for the shuttle's retirement is in no small part because of it being less safe than desired, even in the extremely dangerous travel that spacetravel already is.
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 9): 1. There were not two distinct generations of orbiters built. As flight data was collected from Columbia (OV-101), Rockwell made some incremental improvements to the TPS and airframe of Challenger (OV-99) and made a few more when Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavour (OV-103, 104, 105) were built. That's all, they have never been referred to as distinct generations by anyone of authority.
Challenger and Columbia were significantly heavier and couldn't reach the same high orbit as the later shuttles. They most certainly were of different capability.
You are no authority on this subject pal.
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 9): 3. The orbiters have been overhauled several times in which they have essentially been rebuilt from the ground-up with more capable and reliabe systems. The most recent upgrades weren't even finished until 2007. Just because new airframes have not been built doesn't make Shuttle any less advanced than a new generation of Soyuz capsule.
The systems never were the issue, but the fundamental design. Indeed that makes the shuttle way less advanced than new designs of Soyuz. Avionics were never an issue and quite up to the task ever since '81.
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 9): Which is no statsitical assurance that future missions are any safer than Shuttle. Prior to STS-107 in which Columbia was lost, NASA had flown 88 perfectly safe Shuttle missions.
There is no assurance in statistics. You're just throwing manure over the argument to hide my very valid point. The shuttle is and was unsafe. That's why it is being retired. Safety cannot be ensured any more. Remember those things were designed to launch more than a dozen times a year each. The airframe is fine. There is no fatigue and indeed it has been maintained admirably.
It's still a deathtrap. Am I bashing the shuttle? Ask the 14 people who are already dead.
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 9): Meanwhile, Soyuz is having guidnace/navigation failures and Soyuz TMA-11 recently failed to seperate from its Service Module prior to re-entry. The result has been three ballistic re-entries since 2002 that have subjected crews to bone-crushing g-force and landings that are hundreds of miles off coures. That's hardly the trademark of a mature, reliable spacecraft.
If you think I'm going to pick up the glove for Soyuz you got another thing coming buddy. The *irony* is that the shuttle is less safe than the Soyus and the Soyuz safety isn't anything to shout about. Having said that, there have been no fatalities - the most important measure - since 1981 with the Soyuz.
That's not to say their operation has been smooth each time, just that when things have gone sour, people survived.
I don't appreciate the mindless nationalistic hot air that *always* seems to blow from people with the American flag when facts against national icons are pointed out.
The fact that you can't accept a critical view of the shuttle, now that it has been decided to decommission it just proves that whatever comes out of your mind on this subject is completely irrelevant! And uninteresting.
Were I to desire such trite, biased and banal opinion of the shuttle I'd just read a NASA press release instead of your post.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 329 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (3 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2810 times:
Quoting KPDX (Reply 4): So sad.... . I sure hope I'm able to see a launch in person before it goes
Well, you still have some time. But you need to be a bit lucky as well. I was fortunate enough to see two launches at the KSC. But since I have to come over from the Netherlands, and due to the lack of a launch guarantee (which is obvious), I was unlucky for another 6 times.
If you have more time though, you could sit out a launch delay in Cocoa Beach or so. Which is a very nice place to await the next Shuttle launch!
Too bad that the Space Shuttles will be a part of history within three years! They always fascinated me and many other enthusiasts around the globe!
Thorny From United States, joined Jul 2005, 1395 posts, RR: 10 Reply 12, posted (3 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2789 times:
Quoting Asturias (Reply 8): Ignoring statistics for anything but manned vehicles, the Soyuz have been flying manned missions since 1967. It was designed by Sergey Korolyov..
Time is irrelevant. Number of flights is vastly more important in determining safety. Here are the statistics. This includes Soyuz TMA-12 still in flight.
Soyuz has flown 88 missions since its last fatal accident (Soyuz 11 in 1971.) The 89th is still in progress.
The Space Shuttle flew 88 missions between the Challenger (Flight 25) and Columbia (Flight 113) accidents.
Quoting Asturias (Reply 8): You are comparing apples to oranges. The Soyuz have gone through at least four generations and improvements since the sixties.
It is still the same basic spacecraft, only the internal equipment has changed. The same is true of the Space Shuttle. The biggest changes were after the Challenger accident, but there were major upgrades at other times. To name only a few... nose-wheel steering in 1986, almost entirely new Main Engines introduced in 1995-97, new computers in 1991, the drag chute in 1992, and all-new digital flight decks circa 1999. There have been myriad other changes in the last 25 years, including three different models of External Tank and two different Solid Rocket Booster designs. Comparing apples to apples, these changes are at least as significant as those Soyuz has undergone.
Quoting Asturias (Reply 8): Since 1981 no astronauts and one Soyuz has been lost.
That's a very convenient point for you to start counting from, considering Shuttle has flown twice as many missions (123) in that period than Soyuz (59).
Thorny From United States, joined Jul 2005, 1395 posts, RR: 10 Reply 13, posted (3 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2781 times:
Quoting Asturias (Reply 10): Challenger and Columbia were significantly heavier and couldn't reach the same high orbit as the later shuttles.
Curiously, the heaviest payload ever flown on the Shuttle was the Chandra X-Ray Observatory with its Inertial Upper Stage booster, at around 53,000 lbs. It flew on Columbia (STS-93) in 1999.
Quoting Asturias (Reply 10): The shuttle is and was unsafe. That's why it is being retired.
Probably not. The Columbia Accident Investigation Board did not say, "The Shuttle is unsafe, retire it." The CAIB said that if NASA wants to continue flying the Shuttle until 2020 (which was the plan at the time of the Columbia accident) it must perform a complete recertification of the vehicle, down to the subsystem level. That would be expensive and time-consuming, and so the President announced that would not be done and instead a new manned system would be developed.
Blackbird From United States, joined Oct 1999, 3333 posts, RR: 5 Reply 14, posted (3 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2782 times:
To be honest,
I don't know why the shuttle even got off the ground. The US already had technology available to make a space-plane work...
From 1957-1963, the US worked on a program called the Aerospaceplace (not to be confused with the National Aerospace Plane which was from 1983 to 1995) which had developed some early technology pertaining to wave-riding designs, and scramjet-research.
McDonnell and later McDonnell Douglas's advanced projects division had some amazing technology available by the mid 1960's.
-Scramjets that could not only produce positive thrust, but could work as such up to at least Mach 22 in wind-tunnel's
-High-Temp lightweight Thermal-Protection Systems (Heat-Shields) that eliminated the need for a hot-design (the plane absorbing the bulk of the heat, and using the fuel as a heat-sink a'la the B-58, XB-70, A-12/YF-12A/SR-71/M-21, Concorde), could maintain room-temperature even during-re-entries, was sturdier (and offered way lower maintenance rates) than ceramic tiles used on the shuttle, and allowed sharp pointy noses which dramatically reduced drag for high-speed-flight.
-Designs that were stable from mach 0-22 (Though not as efficient as some later wave-riders -- although I don't know about how stable some of the later waverider ideas were)
-Allegedly according to Professor Paul Csysz, who worked at Wright Patterson's Flight-Dynamics Lab (FDL), and later at McDonnell (later McDonnell Douglas) some test vehicles which went to at least Mach 12, and at least a mention of a plane that achieved around 14,000 mph and flew halfway around the world.
-Means to provide thrust from takeoff to ramjet-ignition speed (ducted rockets, and somewhere along the way, strut-jets -- which behaved like ducted rockets but were air-breathing and provided efficiency at low-speed comparable to a 1960's era military-turbofan, and using LOx could work as a rocket if necessary to put the vehicle in orbit assuming the scramjets cannot) at which point the vehicle would accelerate, eventually transition into a scramjet and if necessary use rockets to achieve orbit.
I'm honestly not making this one up...
Given the choice of a space-plane or a space-shuttle, I'd have to say a space-plane is a far-better choice.
A space-plane doesn't need a launch-pad, doesn't need rocket-boosters, or a huge fuel-tank. It's got all the fuel it needs inside it, and it takes off of a runway and climbs all the way up into orbit by itself. As long as they payload is sufficient, all is well. The design has retro-thrusters of course, and can de-orbit, and with workable propulsion across the whole-speed range, can perform powered landings unlike the glide-landings performed by the shuttle with the option of a go-around.
McDonnell and after 1967, McDonnell-Douglas for one, developed light weight thermal protection systems which are more rugged, sturdier, and lighter than the Space-Shuttles ceramic tiles -- Dr. Paul Csysz's claim was that most of the designs were not at all like the shuttle which took a long time to repair and refurbish between cycles, and could be flown on a more routine basis.
Although I suppose one bright side of this all was that had a space plane been built and flown in lieu of the shuttle, the amount of spy satellites in orbit would probably be way higher than now and the temptation to use them to spy on Americans along with everybody else would be very great (Although truthfully speaking, for every shuttle launch there's probably a hundred other rocket launches putting god knows what into orbit)
Andrea Kent BTW: Should I disappear or die mysteriously or suspiciously, contract some incurable disease or cancer, have a heart-attack, "commit suicide", or end up arrested on bogus charges, you know who to blame for it.
Thorny From United States, joined Jul 2005, 1395 posts, RR: 10 Reply 15, posted (3 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2765 times:
Quoting Blackbird (Reply 14): Given the choice of a space-plane or a space-shuttle, I'd have to say a space-plane is a far-better choice.
Space-Planes generally operate the opposite of what you want to do to get into space. If you want to get into space, it is best to get out of the thick, drag-inducing, high-temperature-creating atmosphere as soon as possible. That's why traditional rockets gain altitude early and then tilt over at high altitude to begin accelerating to orbital velocity.
But a space-plane needs to breathe the air, and that means it has to deliberately stay down in the thick of it and do its accellerating down here where it is hardest of all. You get much bigger thermal control problems as a result. In the 1960s, we were pushing state of the art just to keep the X-15 from melting itself into oblivion at Mach 6, nevermind Mach 25.
A space-plane is also a much more complex machine (yes, even more complex than Shuttle...) that has to be able to convert atmospheric oxygen into liquid oxydizer for its engines on the fly, and you need more engines for the different realms of flight, or a much more complex engine that can operate in different realms. And jet engines have horrible thrust-to-weight ratios compared to rockets, so the space-plane is very likely to be much heavier than a rocket for any given job. Most of those grandiose late '50s / early '60s space-plane concepts vanished into the ether once that reality started to show itself with the major X-planes. Sadly, we failed to learn that lesson and went down that road again starting in 1986 with the National Aerospace Plane (X-30) which also collapsed under the weight of real-world physics.
Blackbird From United States, joined Oct 1999, 3333 posts, RR: 5 Reply 16, posted (3 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2753 times:
Thorny,
Rockets suck down gas at an unbelievable rate, which is why you shoot them straight up, (Granted their is a benefit of getting them outside the thickest of the atmosphere really fast regardless) an air-breathing vehicle has far greater effieciency, and a strut-jet (if you don't know what a strut-jet is, I'll explain -- just ask) design has a thrust to weight ratio of at least 1:1 on most designs allowing rapid acceleration and steep climb taking the plane pretty quickly out of the thicker sections of the atmosphere. While not as quick as a rocket, it is not horribly efficient (and allows a takeoff off of an ordinary runway which makes operation easier). By the time you're operating purely in a ramjet (forget about scramjet) you're already very high-up.
As for the X-15, it was not the state-of-the-art -- the design was advanced no doubt, but it was not state of the art.
The Aerospaceplane program (1957 to 1963) of which most of it is still classified to this day (as a result I really know very little) and much work done at the Flight-Dynamics Laboratory persued far more advanced designs (They managed to make a pointed nose work, not just up to Mach 6, but to at least Mach 22 and possibly to Mach 25, and they developed light weight thermal protection systems -- McDonnell especially did a lot of work here)
You don't need to create liquid oxidizer for use in space... you carry a little bit of LOX onboard if you're going to use rockets at all. If you can do Mach 25 on scramjet, you can just coast right on up into orbit on air-breathing propulsion.
LACE engines which worked on the principle of creating LOx by cooling air into LOx (dunno what you do with the LN2 though) were horrendous in terms of fuel consumption from what I remember, although still better than rockets.
The X-30 program collapsed because of mis-management, NASA preferences, and the fact that the X-30 program was probably a cover for some black-project (ever heard the term, hiding in plain sight?) and was largely for show.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined May 2000, 8867 posts, 
From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 1110 posts, 
. I sure hope I'm able to see a launch in person before it goes.
From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 329 posts, 