The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: philw on February 23, 2011, 05:49:34 AM
-
http://www.news.com.au/world/discovery-ready-to-fly-last-mission/story-e6frfkyi-1226010477400
Discovery 'ready to fly' last mission
The space shuttle Discovery is "ready to fly" on its final mission to the International Space Station. Discovery, which first flew in 1984, will be the first shuttle to enter retirement when it concludes this mission / AFP, Getty
NASA said today that the space shuttle Discovery is "ready to fly" on its final mission to the International Space Station and weather looks good for launch on February 24.
"Over the last few months the team has been very busy effecting repairs to the external tank and making it stronger than ever," said NASA test director Steve Payne.
"We have also resolved a problem with a hydrogen vent system leak and are now ready to fly again," he said.
Mr Payne said there was one small interior leak on a reaction control system regulator but described the issue as "minor" and one that NASA has seen before, so it was not expected to impact the launch planned for 4:50 pm (8.50am Friday AEST) on Thursday local time.
"Our launch countdown is proceeding smoothly and is on schedule," said Mr Payne.
Shuttle launch weather officer Kathy Winters expected Thursday to be mainly sunny and breezy, with only a 20 per cent likelihood of unfavourable weather for the launch at Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
"Overall, the weather looks good," she said.
Discovery was initially scheduled to fly in November 2010 but cracks emerged on the external fuel tank just ahead of the launch, postponing the mission until now.
Discovery, which first flew in 1984, will be the first shuttle to enter retirement when it concludes this mission. The other two remaining in the fleet, Atlantis and Endeavour, are slated for their final flights later this year.
Tanking is set to begin on Thursday morning at 7.25am (11.25pm AEDT) and that should take about three hours to complete, Mr Payne said. The six-member crew is to arrive at the launch pad at around 1.30pm(5.30am AEDT) .
The 11-day mission aims to deliver spare parts and install a new module to the International Space Station.
The Permanent Multipurpose Module will provide room for extra storage and space for experiments.
Discovery will also bring Robonaut 2, which NASA has described as "the first dexterous humanoid robot in space."
Astronauts will first test how it works in microgravity before figuring out how upgrades could graduate the robot to a full-fledged space assistant.
Discovery returns to Earth on March 7, and when it is retired the shuttle will have flown more missions than any other spacecraft, NASA said.
"I can tell you it has generated a lot of interest," Payne said.
"People are starting to realise that they either see one now or they don't get to see one at all, so we have had some pretty good crowds come the last couple of times we expect an equally large crowd for this one," he said.
"It is always impressive to watch so I am sure we will have a full house."
can not wait to see what they end up replacing them with
-
http://www.news.com.au/world/discovery-ready-to-fly-last-mission/story-e6frfkyi-1226010477400
can not wait to see what they end up replacing them with
Nothing. >:( The new mission for NASA is to tell the Muslims what wonderful contributions they have made to science.
http://thehuntsvillepatriot.com/2010/07/the-new-goal-of-nasa-appease-muslim-world/
-
I had a pass back in 1980 and got to see the fourth launch of Columbia. Mattingly and Hartsfield were the pilots. The sound was unbelievable. The whole ground shook. This video is pretty good as far as the sound. Watch when the blast from the nozzles hits them after it rolls over at around 35 seconds into the launch. The girl on the right runs off camera, and the one on the left makes the sign of the cross. Bill T.
-
Orion was SUPPOSED to replace the Shuttles but Obummer has all but killed all funding to develop them. Still working on it though.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/Ares-1_launch_02-2008.jpg/170px-Ares-1_launch_02-2008.jpg)(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/File-_Current_2009_Cev_design.jpg/300px-File-_Current_2009_Cev_design.jpg)
-
Orion was SUPPOSED to replace the Shuttles but Obummer has all but killed all funding to develop them.
Yet still another reason to hate the SOB! Bill T.
-
Govt. has gone about as far s they can in space exploration. The next step is to spur the private sector into finding a way to make it worth going.
-
The private sector will never go to Mars, or be able to supply the International Space Station for that matter. That in itself is a pressing need at the moment. It's hard enough to do in itself without trying to attach a profit margin to it. We've been the leader in space for decades, now we have to hitch a hide with the Russians. Less than half of what we spend on these worthless illegals would fund NASA, plus put us well on a course to land a man on Mars in 20 years. Instead that worthless POS wants NASA to kiss muslim ass. He makes me want to puke! Bill T.
-
Having grown up with the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions and all the excitement was cool but, I don't see any reason to keep spending money to travel to the moon again, Mars, or any other system for that matter. It has nothing to do with Obummo. I've felt this way for years.
I know, progress, science, technology, blah, blah, blah....
It's my opinion, nothing more. I've felt for at least twenty years that NASA was a welfare state for engineers.
-
It's my opinion, nothing more. I've felt for at least twenty years that NASA was a welfare state for engineers.
I actually find myself agreeing with you here. I have respect for NASA as one of the few government agencies that I would fight tooth and nail to support. Because I feel that we as a species cannot advance toward our potential any further until we leave this planet.
However, it also seems that after we landed on the moon, NASA has had no real vision for the future. They just kind of quit after that. Since then what have they REALLY accomplished that has inspired the world to push the boundaries of what we thought was possible. I guess it's just like every other government agency, do just enough so that your budget doesn't get cut next year.
-
I honestly don't think we can survive as a species, regardless of where we end up. We have 6 billion humans on this planet who don't get along very well. Changing the scenery ain't going to change that...
again, just my .02...
-
However, it also seems that after we landed on the moon, NASA has had no real vision for the future. They just kind of quit after that. Since then what have they REALLY accomplished that has inspired the world to push the boundaries of what we thought was possible. I guess it's just like every other government agency, do just enough so that your budget doesn't get cut next year.
A brief list of what NASA (and DARPA) have brought you since Apollo:
The PC, Internet, cell phone, better weather prediction, better/safer travel air; both air and surface, more efficient refrigerators/microwaves/stoves, medical treatments and diagnostic tools...
Yes they haven't had a lot of big flashy all over the news discoveries but a LOT of little help the everyday stuff that would have never been thought of if somebody hadn't needed it to get to the Moon or beyond. We're still working on the Apollo advancements. Just think what we could build from the advances we'd need to go farther and stay out longer.
-
The Width of a Horse's Ass!
The US standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is 4 feet, 8.5 inches. That's an exceedingly odd number.
Why was that gauge used? Because that's the way they built them in England, and the US railroads were built by English expatriates.
Why did the English build them like that? Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad tramways, and that's the gauge they used.
Why did "they" use that gauge then? Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they used for building wagons, which used that wheel spacing.
Okay! Why did the wagons have that particular odd wheel spacing? Well, if they tried to use any other spacing, the wagon wheels would break on some of the old, long distance roads in England, because that's the spacing of the wheel ruts.
So who built those old rutted roads? The first long distance roads in Europe (including England) were built by Imperial Rome for their legions. The roads have been used ever since.
And the ruts in the roads? The initial ruts, which everyone else had to match for fear of destroying their wagon wheels, were first formed by Roman war chariots. Since the chariots were made for Imperial Rome, they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing.
So the United States standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches derives from the original specification for an Imperial Roman war chariot. Specifications and bureaucracies live forever. So the next time you are handed a specification and wonder what horse's patute came up with it, you may be exactly right, because the Imperial Roman war chariots were made just wide enough to accommodate the back ends of two war horses. Thus, we have the answer to the original question.
Now a twist to the story…
When you see a Space Shuttle sitting on its launch pad, there are two big booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank. These are Solid Rocket Boosters, or SRBs. The SRBs are made by Morton-Thiokol at their factory in Utah. The engineers who designed the SRBs might have preferred to make them a bit fatter, but the SRBs had to be shipped by train from the factory to the launch site. The railroad line from the factory had to run through a tunnel in the mountains. The SRBs, therefore, had to fit through that tunnel. The tunnel is slightly wider than the railroad track, and the railroad track is about as wide as two horses' behinds. So, a major design feature of what is arguably the world's most advanced transportation system was determined over two thousand years ago by the width of two horse's behinds.
;D ;D
-
Just so happens I was looking at SRB rail cars just before I clicked over here. May build models of a couple for something different
(http://navyphotos.togetherweserved.com/2133561.jpg)
-
In the 60's we put Mission Control together. Or better, Gene Kranz did. He took a bunch of coyboys and instilled a spirit into them that took us to the Moon. I remember that day. There was nothing like it. We have been decreasing as a country ever since. What do we have now? Nothing. You talk about a "Welfare state for engineers". What the hell do we have now? We can't "engineer" ourselves out of a rusty, dilapidated old bridge. No money, and less brains.
In 1972 John Arron saved an entire multi million dollar Moon mission with one, single sentence, "Flight, tell em' to take the SCE to AUX!" Now we can't get the Space Shuttle back from low Earth orbit. Look at what came from the space program of the 60's. Microwave Ovens, pocket calculators, the microchip, and dozens of other inventions that didn't exist before we flew into space.
It was the greatest time in the history of this nation. Now we dismiss it as "too much money". Look at NASA's budget. It took only $25.7 Billion dollars in the 60's to go to the Moon. What do we now piss away on illegals and the UN? Not to mention foreign aid. NASA was a bargain in comparison. This nation is in a downward spiral. Talking about what we do best this way proves it. What else should we do? Advance some piss pot nation? Educate idiots who cannot be educated?
Gene Kranz said when he talked to his controllers just before the Lunar landing attempt when they were off camera:
"Lock the doors. From this point on no one enters or leaves this room until we either land on the Moon, abort, or crash. Whatever decision any or all of you make from this point on, I will back you all of the way no matter what. How ever this turns out you will all have my total support. Now let's go to work!"
20 minutes later we were on the Moon. Today we can't repair our highways, or win a war. We as a nation are pathetic. We fight over wages for bus drivers. We can't plow our streets after a blizzard. Our teachers whine they can't pay their bills without a salary increase. We elect an incompetent idiot as President, then make excuses for him as he travels the world apologising for all of us. And we sit here and think NASA gets too much money. The one good thing the government does, and we want to chop it off at the knees. And do what with it? Educate mexicans? We're done. God this sickens me. Bill T.
-
I too remember that day (actually it was night) like it was yesterday. laying on the living room floor, watching that black & white console TV. I was young at the time, but still proud and excited. I agree with Billt on this. I just wish we could pull off something like that again. Maybe it would bring this country back and give people something to believe in again. Probably not, but at least we would be accomplishing something for the money and not just giving it away.
-
I agree entirely with your last statement Bill! However, I still question the necessity of trying to go to Mars or any other planet for that matter. If NASA wants to further the development of more useful projects in telecommunication, aircraft, or any number of things that would make more sense, I'm all for it!
Personally, I don't care nor do I want to know if there are "aliens" out there. We may find that they ain't that friendly and that we humans are the three toed sloths of the known universe. Remember the airport locker community praying to a Casio watch in Men in Black?
::) ::)
-
The technology that would come from a manned Mars mission would be immense. This would serve all fields like medicine, engineering, not to mention the electronic and computer advancements it would require. Just like going to the Moon, people don't realize just how much it effects things we use every day. If you look at a pie chart showing NASA'a budget, even during the manned Apollo Lunar Missions, the cost was minuscule compared to the money we totally waste on social programs in this country that do nothing but make people stupid, lazy, and dependant. Bill T.
-
I'm pressed for time but I want to make a quick comment on Bill's posts.
First, I'm not disagreeing that there are benefits to the exploration of Space, I'm with Cookie on Watching the Moon landing.
Heck, Allan Shepherd grew up not THAT far from where I lived, (It's a small state, nothing is THAT far away ;D )
I just don't think that Govt, especially with the current economic situation, is going to be the right group to run it. I think this is similar to the aviation industry, in the teen's and 20's Govt spurred airplane research with WWI and civilian prizes for different stuff, by the 30's (the Depression ) Industry was taking over, finding ways such as airmail, cargo and passenger services, to make it pay.
I think that we re now at, or at least approaching that point in space exploration.
There are at least 3 technologies we need to advance before Mars is truly practical, Less expensive launch technology,better propulsion for higher speed of transit, and light speed or better communication.
I got to go now, but I'll be looking for this thread. It was people kicking idas around that took us from watching birds to walking on the Moon.
-
Just a thought, I know very scary :-\ but we don't exactly blast large piles of money into orbit, than again if we did our money would be worth more. :P
Seriously, money spent at NASA is money spent at the American industial core. NASA orders huge amounts of materials from the very factories that are shutting down as we speak. You want to save the industrial side of the US? Pump money into infastructure and NASA.
-
Playing libertarian devils advocate - did NASA do anything that private industry couldn't do cheaper?
We got a ton of great tech stuff from the space program, but letting private industry instead of the gubmint do it might have saved us taxpayers a ton of money.
I know that private industy doesn't do anything for free, but you would have the choice of spending your $$ on it or not. Even a great agency like NASA is funded with our money without us having any say in it. (along with a bunch of turd agencies that should be cut off at the knees)
-
Playing libertarian devils advocate - did NASA do anything that private industry couldn't do cheaper?
The best private industry could do thus far in space exploration was win the Anzini X Prize. Burt Rutan captured it by flying straight up to 62+ miles, then straight back down. He would not have even been able to achieve that if it weren't for the $10 MILLION dollar prize to help offset some of the insane costs. It's just too expensive to privately fund with no return on your money. Even Virgin Galactic has to charge $250,000.00 per sub orbital ride. Plus it's dangerous as hell. One accident and it will ground the whole project. Especially if the thing is full of wealthy V.I.P.'s.
This stuff is a lot like wind and solar energy development. It costs too much too advance the technology to expect to get any payoff. Planes like the U-2 and SR-71 never would have flown if the customer didn't have unlimited deep pockets, (the government). That type of technology is too expensive to develop at a profit. If it could be it would have been by now. Super high tech aircraft and spacecraft can only be afforded by big governments. At least thus far. Bill T.
-
Playing libertarian devils advocate - did NASA do anything that private industry couldn't do cheaper?
We got a ton of great tech stuff from the space program, but letting private industry instead of the gubmint do it might have saved us taxpayers a ton of money.
I know that private industy doesn't do anything for free, but you would have the choice of spending your $$ on it or not. Even a great agency like NASA is funded with our money without us having any say in it. (along with a bunch of turd agencies that should be cut off at the knees)
It has nothing to do with having the gov't vice private industry do the work, private industry did the work to begin with. NASA is just the conduit. The budget they had never STAYED with NASA, only part of it. The rest went to Lockheed, Boeing, Grumman, Honeywell, and all the other contractors and sub-contractors that actually BUILT the equipment. NASA is the management that directs the private company what they want built and when.
The same thing happens in the DoD. The Navy is given $Xm for a weapons system and asks for business to give them what it costs. Some of the money is for oversight and compliance but the rest goes to whoever wins the contract.
It boils down to direction. Kennedy said "We are going to the Moon." No grey area there. Now we get "I'd like to, maybe, if we can afford it, possibly, replace XX with something better, but not to many, and it can't cost to much or take to long then I'll cancel it. Make it Joint so everybody gets a say in what it does but don't make the requirements to hard or make the Services agree to them."
-
I have to disagree with Kmitch, Without the initial Govt investment in the Space program for national defense purposes, ( it was after all a spin off of the ballistic missile research and the Air Force's never ending desire to go higher and faster ) there never would have been a space program .
Had there not been a European desire for the natural resources of the America's, (including open land to resettle some of their excess population )colonization and settlement of the America's would have taken far longer, possibly centuries.
Since the 40's or 50's Science Fiction writers, (many, such as Asimov, and Benford , being serious scientists in their day jobs ) have been theorizing on the exploitation of space as a future source of many raw materials, particularly metals .
They have also been thinking about ways to lower the per pound cost of launches. Before many of the needed technologies did not exist, some of the technologies we needed to invent the technologies we needed did not exist, (such as computers, man made materials and reliable wireless communications ).
Look at Virgin, or Rutan's Space Ship One. If you can convince industry that they can substantially increase profits, whether through tourism, or mining or whatever. They WILL find a way to do it.
It would not surprise me if the first colony on Mars were financed by Bally's of Lunar.
It seems that none of us are opposed to the idea, we're just debating where the financing should come from.
-
Allan Shepherd grew up not THAT far from where I lived, (It's a small state, nothing is THAT far away ;D )
There are at least 3 technologies we need to advance before Mars is truly practical, Less expensive launch technology,better propulsion for higher speed of transit, and light speed or better communication.
Roger B Chaffee was from Grand Rapids, my home town...the museum is named after him...
I still don't get the Mars thing though. The atmosphere won't support human beings in any way shape or form. Sure, technology will benefit in may ways but at 95% Carbon dioxide, there is no way to populate that planet, nor any other in our solar system.
The cool factor is one thing, the advances in technology and medicine are all viable arguments.
I really don't think I'll see another huge technical advancement in my lifetime. I'd like to, but I don't see it coming out of todays graduates.
-
Trivia...
Why was Allan Shepherd the first man in space?
-
Tim, Mars is a stepping stone. It is the nearest actual "Planet". Getting to Mars will be the modern equivalent of Bleriot Flying across the English channel. The real discoveries are not likely until we can leave our own solar system. At the current level of technology just the travel time would take many generations.
Trivia...
Why was Allan Shepherd the first man in space?
He got along good with the monkey ? ;D
-
Tim, Mars is a stepping stone. It is the nearest actual "Planet". Getting to Mars will be the modern equivalent of Bleriot Flying across the English channel. The real discoveries are not likely until we can leave our own solar system. At the current level of technology just the travel time would take many generations.
He got along good with the monkey ? ;D
Yea, I know the solar system, via the RB Chaffee "Planetarium" in GR... and I get all that.
Point being, I don't think we need to leave this particular rock aka "the third rock from the Sun!"...
There are plenty of things that the aeronautical boys from NASA can do for private industry. They have a product, their minds and experience. What they need is a marketing department.
Trivia....what did Shepherd have in common with the Kennedy? One answer leads to the other...
-
Trivia...
Why was Allan Shepherd the first man in space?
Nobody? Nothing?
Come boys and girls! Free chips and salsa in the corner and use of the remote on the big screen for thirty seconds!
-
Nobody? Nothing?
Come boys and girls! Free chips and salsa in the corner and use of the remote on the big screen for thirty seconds!
Because he was in the front?
-
JFK was a Naval officer as was Allan Shepherd. Kennedy wanted his first in space to be a Navy man and Shepherd would have been the first guy there but had to settle for being the first American in space as the Soviets beat us by a couple of weeks.
Yuri Gurgarin went up on April 12, 1961 and Shepherd on May 5th....
-
But it took the Marine John Glenn to actually ORBIT the earth ;D
Yea, I know the solar system, via the RB Chaffee "Planetarium" in GR... and I get all that.
Point being, I don't think we need to leave this particular rock aka "the third rock from the Sun!"...
There are plenty of things that the aeronautical boys from NASA can do for private industry. They have a product, their minds and experience. What they need is a marketing department.
Trivia....what did Shepherd have in common with the Kennedy? One answer leads to the other...
Can they make more Copper ? Can they create new deposits of Iron ore or silver or ny of the other non renewable resources that we are running out of ?
They can't even create more arable land, or living space for the ever growing population of the planet.
Besides, there is always a portion of the population that is perfectly happy with the status que. But there is also something in the human spirit that needs frontiers to explore.
-
Can they make more Copper ?
They can't even create more arable land, or living space for the ever growing population of the planet.
Stop making pennies!
According to President Bogan, upon his inauguration, there will be at least three billion less people on the planet if he can find enough rope!
We've got no reason to leave...
BTW...stop making sense Tom, it really pisses me off!
;D
-
Pennies aren't made of copper any more, haven't been for a while now. it's just plating, same as on ammo.
The only US coin still made of of solid metal is the Nickle. it's the only one that has not lost its actual intrinsic value.
All the rest have been debased.
-
Pennies cost more than 1 cent each to make. They should stop making them.
-
Pennies cost more than 1 cent each to make. They should stop making them.
Or just give them their actual value. ::)
-
A thought that occurred to me is that while aiming for Mars is a good objective, there are other practical goals to be achieved by further Moon trips.
The establishment of a permanent presence on the Moon would be a good test bed developing technologies for living and working in a hostile environment. The specific ideas I had were, permanent habitat, is it better practically and economically to construct a domed enclosure above ground or tunneling into the ground, either way you need to supply Oxygen since living in suits long term is not doable, underground facilities, depending on seismic conditions would be less likely to develop leaks.
Another technology that could be explored is adapting the soil to agricultural use since shipping food over such distances would also be impractical due to time and expense.
-
I have seen quite a bit about this. Since native soils on the moon or other planets are unlikely to have many (if any) nutrients.
I was first interested in this technology as something to develop as a survival tool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroponics
-
If you have enough plants you don't have to worry about oxygen.
-
If you have enough plants you don't have to worry about oxygen.
The Sci Fi writers call it "terraforming". Basically you plant huge forests by spraying the seeds by air and let them convert the atmosphere into something more usable to us. the theory seems logical enough on a planet that already has some sort of atmosphere. but on some thing small, like the moon, where there isn't enough gravity to hold the atmosphere in it will not work on the surface.
inside a contained area, such as a dome, or underground facility if enough space were available it could be used as an organic air recycling system as well as supplying food.