Anybody else watch the last shuttle launch (STS-135)?
Tuned in here at work. Just had to watch. I remember watching the first launch in 1981 and many of them since. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little saddened by the ending of the shuttle program. What a great program that has brought so many things to people around the world. I sure hope the next phase for NASA is as spectacular as Apollo or the shuttle program. Hats off to NASA and all the astronauts. |
|
|
| I can usually see the shuttle in the sky from my backyard....this time too cloudy. I did watch on the TV. The dogs kept running in and out of the house, so knew something was going on. Yes, sad to see the shuttle program closing. |
Quote: I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little saddened by the ending of the shuttle program. Ditto, it is a sad time. Chinese will take our place. |
| I too watched this, but at work on the NASA website -the first time I have done this. By far the best coverage I have ever seen of any shuttle lift-off. Indeed it is sad to see the end of the Shuttle era happening before our eyes, and for a number of reasons. First is the end of a magnificent machine's service life. Even though the shuttle never realized the costs savings that were hoped for (fantasized about) at the end of the Apollo era, the shuttle has in fact served remarkably well and for far longer a calender time than was ever planned or expected. That in itself is a testimony to the vision of those who designed the ship, the companies involved in its build and especially the NASA staff who maintained and operated it! It is also sad because the the next generation of American spacecraft will certainly be a big technological step backwards. The new crew capsule will in fact be nothing more than an "Apollo on steroids" approach and will significantly reduce the crew's capabilities and options to work in space. Yes the shuttle has it's limitations as does every technology platform but NASA should be allowed/encouraged to develop what is at its core a magnificent concept and an ideal platform for upgrading and evolution. But most of all this mission is sad because there is simply no (or certainly very little) vision or support for NASA, it's people and its role. Obama and congress have happily spent trillions proping up decrepit and corrupt banks and other financial/insurance institutions as well as self-serving and inept business (eg GM and Chyrsler) but cannot see the value in providing NASA and it's people with secure funding necessary to continue their work and maintian America's pre-emminence in space, and by extension the high tech/aerospace industrial sector as a whole. (While Obama has to take the bulk of the blame for this, his precessor, G.W. Bush, must also accept a large measure of the blame for this by not properly funding even the limited challenge of return to the moon which he gave to NASA circa 2004.) And in the big scheme of the US Federal budget what NASA needs to return to the moon and then progress to NEOs, Mars and the outer planets is in fact fairly modest. God Speed Atlanits and crew, accomplish all your work to the highest of standards which have been set by your predecessors and then come home safe and sound. There are at least some who appreciate what you are doing and it's meaning for your country, and indeed the entire western world. Thanks and Cheers Carl |
| I watched it too - from the NASA web site as well. One of my sled dog friends got me the link - it was really a good viewing site. It actually showed the live launch faster than the "live" coverage playing on TV! - it was about a minute ahead. |
Gawd Carl, it's not like GM didn't come out with the Chevy Volt.  Yes, it is sad, but we learned quite a bit. I hope the space station doesn't need a large or heavy replacement part. I hope Hubble does well and enjoys its last days. Perhaps we should either keep flying it as a workhorse and safety/rescue system for Hubble and ISS, or we should have discontinued it long ago and not married the ISS to it. But the shuttle itself had some insurmountable design flaws: 1) Complexity 2) Complexity 3) Complexity 4) Location of the Orbiter relative to the mass of the propulsion system 5) Risk aversion of a large governmental agency. Plus I never understood the wisdom (waste?) of bringing up the external tank to orbital velocity then discarding it before the orbital insertion burns. I realize it would take a rather small amount of extra fuel to insert the extra mass into orbit. That extra fuel might even still be inside the tank, there must be some extra fuel in there as padding and as reserve in case optimal launch time is not achieved. But that tank's dry weight is 29,000 pounds and surely some of that insulation, remaining fuel, or other materials of that tank could be used in orbit. Perhaps even using its volume as storage or ideally could have been used as habitat for the space station. The payload of the shuttle is "only" 50,000 pounds so 29,000 pounds into orbit is huge. I know.... more complexity in the design of the tank. See #'s 1,2 and 3 above. We also learned that making a heat shield out of a gazillion ceramic tiles may not have been the most efficient or advisable approach... they attach a device to each and every tile and tug on it between each flight. Maybe a blanket over the large flat area might have been a better approach. Didn't they do something like that on later shuttles? 4) The location of the orbiter below the tank and SRBs was the direct cause of the Columbia accident, and perhaps eliminated survivability of the Challenger accident. The orbiter was certainly not designed with sufficient crew escape/survival abilities at that point -and probably not now- to have survived that explosion. 5) NASA is plagued by both large organization inefficiency leading to safety problems AND risk aversion. The shuttle was envisioned as making space travel as routine and safe as airline. This is still space exploration, and is inherently very dangerous. Risk of catastrophe is still estimated as just under 1%, and I'd guess that is way underestimated. They say a retrospective risk analysis of the first launches was about 11%. Perhaps they shouldn't have 7 astronauts in such a machine, just a test pilot, co-pilot and the triple redundant backup. Who knows. All that said -- I'll miss the shuttle, and right now not having seen a launch in person is very high on my list of lifetime disappointments. Well, that was enough of an inconsistent ramble to keep us discussing it for a few days until they are safely back home...? |
| Nicely said Carl. From today's Wall Street Journal: Quote: NASA pegs the cost of the shuttle program at 115.5 billion over the course of the whole program (40 years). When NASA adjusts for today's inflation rate, that number becomes 211 billion. Roger Pielke Jr., a political scientist at the University of Colorado, Boulder, estimates the shuttle's cost to be 193 billion in today's dollars. From ABC News: Quote: At $196 billion, the amount of money taxpayers spent during the lifetime of the space shuttle program seems astronomical. But the entire federal government spends that much in just three weeks. In big bucks Washington, even $196 billion is relative. The space shuttle is a bargain compared to wars, health care, tax cuts and budget deficits. We put 1.2 trillion dollars into 2 worthless, useless wars that got us NOTHING within a 10 year time span but we can't find the benefit of spending 200 billion over 40 years? What's wrong with this picture? Has there ever been another program that has given SO much to the world for such a small price tag? I bet there isn't. |
| Some of the things the shuttle program has given us: the Hubble telescope, the International Space Station, satellites, communication tools, and unmanned flights to Jupiter and the Sun. Infared cameras, home insulation, video software, computer technology, and biodegradable lubricants are just some of the spin-offs we use in regular life that can be traced back to the shuttle. Take a look at this link: http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2 ... uttle.html And this link: http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/nasacity/index2.htm |
| i live 5 miles from the launch pad so i get a ring side seat so sad i have many friends now going to be out of work and alot of home for sale bummer to see are county loose so many people!!by the way my boys hate the sonic boom when they land in the middle of the nite my house shakes and my boys are on top of me lol |
CamVal1 wrote: Has there ever been another program that has given SO much to the world for such a small price tag? I bet there isn't. penicillin production methodology? |
| I agree,nicely said,Carl. My family and I just so happened to be in the Cape Canaveral area when the last launch took place. What a beautiful sight and a memory that will stay with all of us,forever. Robin |
| I should have flown down to Florida to catch the launch. The problem is that the shuttle rarely goes off when it's supposed to. It's almost always delayed. Ron, I should have been clearer. I meant in the recent past. Like the last 30-40 years. |
| One of the most memorable experience in my life happened year and half ago. It was serendipity that I was working the all nighter flight from Sao Paulo Brazil to Chicago. All the passengers were asleep and half of the crew were on their break. I was up at 1st class chatting with my flying partner when the call came from the cockpit. They said " space shuttle launching in 5 minutes, come watch. It was around 3 or 3:15am and we were 100 miles from Cape Kennedy. The 4 of us counted down and watched the launch at 36,000 feet. It was a sight few people have ever experienced. It was absolutely awe-inspiring! We were traveling at around 750mph but compared to the shuttle, it was like we were standing still. We saw the separation of the rocket so clearly. When we landed in Chicago 2 hours later, pilot told us that the shuttle already orbited the earth twice. So to me it is a sad day today. I hope we will be back in space one day soon. |
| Wow...thank you for sharing! What an awesome experience! Robin |
Ron wrote: Gawd Carl, it's not like GM didn't come out with the Chevy Volt. Well even if you are willing to ignore lousy business models, poor financial practises and their failure to adjust products to the prevailing social and economic circumstances I still wouldn't go singing the praises of GM just because of the Volt. Remember that this is the same company that developed and then withdrew the EV1 for what are at best "suspect corporate motives". 1n 1997/8 the EV1 was introduced as what was effectively a prototype platform for electric cars. Even with batteries of the day (which by todays standards were prehistoric) it gave a range of about 80 miles and could do that at highway speeds. Around the city it could still do about 50-60 miles if you were careful not to accelerate too hard and watched your traffic manners. For those who leased these cars, they were not available for sale, they proved to be ideal for their intended purpose and were much loved. However the programme was cancelled and now as leases expire GM is taking them back and sending them for scrap regardless of their condition and suitability for further use. This year they are introducing the Volt which according to GM's own website has a range of only 35 miles before having to invoke the gasoline engine's assitance. Effective mileage is 93 mpge while on the electric motor - great but there is the 35 mile range limit - and only 37 mpg on the gas engine. There are a lot of regular cars which can beat that gas mileage. Oh and all of this for a mere $41K. I don't see that as progress in any terms let alone over the EV1 and it certainly isn't somethng that I would be pursuing as a primary family car. And that, it's attempt to be a primary family car, is where GM and I think every other major car manufacturer has "missed the boat" about the electric car market. That "backtracking" is particularly troubling after GM almost had the right market product with the EV1. Make an electric car capable of a 50-60 mile range in the city at an average speed of 45 mph with an additional "dash" to 65 mph capability for another 10 miles. Make it 2 seats (the EV1 format) and give an option of a 4 seat model with no more than a 15% range penalty when fully loaded. Market it as a "second" car for the busy family doing "in town errand running and commuting" with a price of $18,000 - $23,000 (prefereably less) and then it becomes a viable consumer product which meets the majority of the driving populations' daily needs. No it won't get you from city to city nor will it have every luxury, bell, whistle and toy that conventional current cars have. But it will get most people through their daily driving requirements and many of today's bells and whistles just aren't required either in town (or on the highway if the truth be told) and only run up the cost anyway. Put out a "green econobox" like that and even I would consider buying one. No, when GM starts to produce cars that are appropriate for the current market and realizes that there are limits to people's pockets instead of trying to ram over priced over featured cars down our throats then I might be willing to say that they have some relevance in today's economy. But the Volt isn't it, at least in my not in any way humble opinion. Thanks and Cheers Carl Carl |
Ron wrote: But the shuttle itself had some insurmountable design flaws: 1) Complexity 2) Complexity 3) Complexity 4) Location of the Orbiter relative to the mass of the propulsion system 5) Risk aversion of a large governmental agency. Well, that was enough of an inconsistent ramble to keep us discussing it for a few days until they are safely back home...? Humm lets consider the operation requirements of this machine. 1. It has to go from a little under 1000 mph before takeoff (circumferential speed of the earth's surface at Florida latitudes) to 17,500 mph (low earth orbital speeds) in about 8 minutes. 2. It has to go from an air environment at 14 7 psi and about 50 - 90 degrees F into to what is essentially a perfect vaccum with "ambient" temperatures barely above absolute zero (-454 degrees F). (Think ballon wanting to pop!) 3. It has to withstand radiant heating effects which cause its external surfaces to vary from -250 deg F to as high as 250 deg F while on orbit. (Talk about thermal expansion/contraction problems!) 4. It has to survive re-entry plasma that can approach 3000 deg F at speeds well beyond the hypersonic range so the heating effects are experienced simultaneous to extreme areodynamic loads. 5. It has to transport large, heavy and often fragile cargos and then deliver/manipulate them into very tight locations meeting extremely demanding fitment clearances. 6. It has to protect very weak and highly fragile humans from the most hostile environmental conditions never heretofore experienced which vary radically during the course of the mission. 7. It has to be entirely independant of life and technical support services and supplies for up to three weeks while on orbit. While every engineer wants to, and almost always does, find the simplest most elegant solution possible. In these sorts of projects that most simple and elegant solution is nevertheless, in absolute terms, very complex. There is "no free lunch" if we want to do these things. Complexity is one of the ways in which we "pay the piper" to explore space and expand our knowledge. Every machine, be it as simple as a hammer or as complex as the shuttle is an amalgam of compromises. The shuttle's "parasitic" clinging onto the fuel tank and srb assembly was the best that could be developed given the knowledge and technology of the day. (The stacking arrangement of Apollo was much simpler and aesthetically elegant but it was developed under a much less demanding objective and could not be made to do the job of the shuttle program.) The TPS was not only the best of it's day it was in fact far ahead of it's day and is still amongst the most advanced and effective systems of it's kind. Even the fuel tank has a demanding thermal objective and hence a complex heat shield assembly. Remember that this whole machine has to meet all of these often contradictory highly demanding objective in a way that is somewhat economical and is a repeatable process/product. Well, even in its beginning NASA had to be very careful in protecting its people and resources (physical and financial). Risk aversion is inherent to any high cost, high profile and discretionay spending programme. All of NASA's programs have and continue to fall into each of those categories. I'd hate to think any organization were to be in any way cavalier with mateials and finances let alone personnel. NASA is an easy target for criticism and some of those are indeed valid. But I don't think this list is among them. NASA needs to improve it's financial governance, it's senior management's style, methodology and political independence, the manner in which it deals with Congress and the Whitehouse and even its contractors. But to in any way criticize the specific exploration (manned or unmanned) programs and technical capablities is unfair to the vast majority of NASA staff who are well intentioned, high dedicated and exceedingly capable people. Thanks and Cheers Carl |
CamVal1 wrote: Ron, Okay...I should have been clearer. I meant in the recent past. Like the last 30-40 years. But that was less than 70 years ago, so not so far out of range, and I think for the 50 bux they spent on it that it had an immeasurable impact..  I would think that Computers/miniaturization really came more from the Apollo project Fiberglas insulation has been used for a lot longer...and unfortunately is still the majority of insulation used, and while foam insulation has a better r-value per inch, when it is used, they use less so the effect is about the same as fiberglas with kraft paper and plastic film..... unfortunately. Seems to me that not much revolutionary science has come from the shuttle, except in the way they got the engines to self cool with the fuel... but I really haven't looked up a lot. There just isn't a lot to be learned by sending a bunch of astronauts into low earth orbit for a couple of weeks in the last 20 or 30 years. A laser wire stripper? Really? On the other hand the cheapo Hubble has done amazing stuff for science. Was Hubble launched by shuttle or just serviced? I don't recall now. Most of what was learned was learned 30 years ago. Much as I ***LOVED*** watching it go and come home, it has just been a hugely wasteful transport to build a useful space station. Sure it lifted big heavy things, but if it didn't exist they would have found another way to build the station, and perhaps that would have brought about some more innovation since I don't think we'll be sending shuttle-size crafts carrying big empty habitats and storage modules to Mars, or even to the moon. |
Carl Lindon wrote: Ron wrote: Gawd Carl, it's not like GM didn't come out with the Chevy Volt. Well even if you are willing to ignore lousy business models, poor financial practises and their failure to adjust products to the prevailing social and economic circumstances I still wouldn't go singing the praises of GM just because of the Volt. Joan and I were waiting on the Volt and actually believed it was going to be an "all electric drive" vehicle with the engine there only to provide electricity. This was promised over and over and over again by Wagner. Finally the old grey car gave up the ghost and based on reports that I wasn't going to fit in the Volt, we gave up and bought an Impala used. Then a few months later when they announced that the Volt had a mechanical connection between the engine and the drive wheels, I couldn't believe it. I was so angry and could only imagine how angry I would have been if we had actually continued to be waiting. LIARS. Just flat out, bald-faced liars. |
| Watched the shuttle launch today and yes I agree--it was a little bittersweet knowing it is the last one. While watching I realized that I had really taken the program for granted the last few year! |
| Well, I think that it is completely impossible for an organization like NASA to become the nimble exploration boundary-pushing machine that it used to be. Just impossible. I've worked for large companies and they do not turn on a dime. You couldn't change the culture unless you fired all of the management past 1st level hiring managers... and then half of them and half the staff. Then you could change a culture to the degree necessary. Maybe. We're not in a race for technological superiority based on fear of national security like we were in the 60's, so that won't help either. Plus out entire country's culture is risk averse; see your post regarding texting for example. Kids don't walk to school because a molester might get'em. Kids and adults being forced to wear bicycle helmets. Playgrounds removing merry-go-rounds, jungle-gyms, slides because someone might get hurt.... special surfaces under the swings. Why not just put kids in a rubber room alone and say "Have Fun!"... and people wonder why they don't play outside anymore. It took 1 year from the day they broke ground on the Empire State Building in 1929 until the first tenants moved in... while the top floors were being finished. 2.8MM square feet It took 2 years and 4 months from groundbreaking in 1968 to initial occupancy for the World Trade Center (Tower 1, Tower 2 very similar, and done in parallell) It took 2 years, 9 months from groundbreaking in 1970 to initial occupancy for the Sears (now Willis) Tower. It took 3 years, 4 months from grounbreaking in 1973 to occupy the CN tower. Trump tower took about 3 1/2 years, depending on who ya wanna believe. After Pearl Harbor, The US re-floated, re-fitted and put into service 19 of the ships bombed. It now takes 10 years to build 1 aircraft carrier. We have 11 of them. Do you imagine they will be replaced at a rate of more than 1 at a time? Does the US have the capacity/ability to build more than one, or even two at a time? Maybe Canada will help. Near my house a bridge was out for 3 years because the town was unable to purchase the piece of steel needed to make the repairs. Near my father's house it took 3 years to build a flyover -- a ramp going over an intersection connecting up to an existing ramp that leads to a highway. For several months, the final delay was getting the power/telephone company to move the telephone poles from the middle of the widened old ramp. It has taken years to widen by one lane in each direction about 10 miles of road on our Route 128. It took my town 2 years to lay about 1/2 mile of water line, and then they gave up and hired a contractor who finished the other 1/2 mile of the job. I think I've posted about this before. The west is doomed unless we change our ways. There are much hungrier, more ambitious people in the world. |
| Gentlemen I have enjoyed your discussion! Thankfully Ron has seen the light on the Volt! The last line Quote: There are much hungrier, more ambitious people in the world speaks volumes! If you aren't constantly pushing ahead you are falling behind. |
| Just to clear some things up about the Volt. The engine only helps drives the wheels only under 1 scenario: Battery depleted or almost depleted, travelling at highway speeds, going up a steep,long incline. When there is a combination of those 3 criteria, the engine will ASSIST the batteries in driving the vehicle. That's actually pretty smart. What's the alternative? Having the car die on the side of the road? Like the Nissan Leaf does? My cousin took delivery of his Volt back in early April. He's used only 1.5 gallons of gas since then. He let me drive the car. What's remarkable is that it feels & drives just like any other car. Other than it being eerily quiet around town.  Is it expensive? Yes, but it's brand new technology. It will come down with each iteration they do. Technology has to start somewhere. I'm glad we're doing it and not the Japanese or Germans. The Volt is exactly what Americans used to do and what we need to do more often. Dream big and do what seems impossible. Exactly what the Shuttle program was. |
| I'm not sure about there being just "1" scenario, but the Volt's specs were exactly what I wanted, a car that could let Joan and me run all of our little errands around town and to the mall and back (the mall is about 10 miles), but still be able to take a trip of 100-150 miles without stopping more than once to allow for the batts to recover a bit under generator charging. The numbers (KWh rating of the generator vs. energy needed to propel a car) never added up for me to enable a trip of 300 miles (requires about 61 KWh of energy, batts only store 16 and gen only produces 25 (5KWh * 5 hours @30 MPH) That's only 41), so I knew there had to be a catch of some sort (optional larger gen? optional larger batt pack?), or a stopover and some really smart software. What bugs me is the flat out bald-faced lie. He couldn't have been more adamant or clear when Wagoner said it is an all electric drive car over and over and over again. Don't you think that someone should have come clean at some point before the introduction, say one of the two subsequent CEOs appointed by the President? Did the President's men know about this fraud before the country and/or the union accepted shares of the new company as collateral/in settlement? I bet they did and that's material misrepresentation of the financial condition of the company. Ahhh well, after subordinating (read: screwing) the bondholders (like MY retirement mutual funds) in favor of the union pension plan, who cares about small details like continuing to lie to the taxpayers. It's only 1 scenario after all. There we more important details. |
| I'm having a horrendously busy yet curiously unproductive well, let's be honest now: month so I didn't get a chance to read or respond to this thread earlier but wanted to say that yes, I am incredibly sad that the shuttle program has ended, much more so that there is not another program quickly (ok, 5 years out is not quick enough for me) to replace it. Here's a link to an NPR piece about what is next on the horizon for NASA: http://www.npr.org/2011/04/29/135846470 ... le-program One of the things that I think we lose sight of is that scientific discovery and advancement does not just take place in huge leaps, but also in small, incremental steps that may not allow for a completely changed vision of the world, but do allow us to deepen our knowledge and to expand our knowledge base. As for technological advances, again NPR: http://www.npr.org/2011/04/28/135812694 ... technology As a kid, back in the 60's, I can remember my father staying home from work and letting us kids stay home to watch one of the space launches--perhaps it was the one where we circled the earth for the first time. Notice the use of the word: WE. I think this is one of the most important things the space program has done for us (and the US): made us feel part of something grand and much larger than ourselves, let us believe we could really reach for the stars. And of course, I remember when we--that is Neal Armstrong--first walked on the moon. But we were there with him! We really were! I grew up wanting to be an astronaut (amongst many other things) until I realized I really would not enjoy being confined in a small space vehicle for prolonged periods of time. Now space exploration a la Star Trek (my dad was a huge fan as was I) : sign me up! But we are many years from that time and it seems we lack the will and drive and vision necessary to reach that time. I believe this is something we must strive to do again: reach far beyond ourselves, to explore the universe beyond our own personal world. Beyond all of the technological advancements (and they have been quite considerable) I think that this is perhaps the most important part of the space program. Without discounting the very real components of competition and the fears of the cold war, we were reaching towards new goals, new understanding and this united us as a people. |
Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:
Custom Search
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|