Live data from Hacker News

Live coverage of the last Shuttle launch (STS-135, Atlantis)

nasa.gov

61–70 of 94 posts

Re: Live coverage of the last Shuttle launch (STS-135, Atlantis)

#61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no betting going on at all. We're using the Russians (Soyuz) for now, and for the foreseeable future. Private firms like SpaceX or another NASA vehicle are a possibility, but neither of those options has been proven out at all, and certainly will not be ready for at least several years.

SpaceX has the Dragon. http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php

Yes, but the earliest estimate for a manned Dragon launch is 2014. Don't get me wrong -- I'm really pulling for SpaceX and sincerely hoping they are successful. In hindsight, my "proven out" comment sounds more pessimistic than was meant.

Re: Live coverage of the last Shuttle launch (STS-135, Atlantis)

#62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not exactly correct. Spacex hopes to do the first resupply mission to the station before the end of the year. http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php

You're absolutely right. I probably should have qualified my statement as referring to manned exploration. (Sung1's comment did say "get us back into space"... I assumed the "us" referred to humans).

Ah! In that case I do agree with you.

Re: Live coverage of the last Shuttle launch (STS-135, Atlantis)

#63
post #30

What will happen to the International Space Station?

The supply situation of the ISS is quite interesting.

Soyuz[1], the Russian spacecraft, will continue bringing and returning people to and from the ISS (three each – seven is a typical Space Shuttle crew). Two Soyuz will continue to be permanently docked to the ISS (they will, of course, be regularly switched out whenever a new Soyuz flies to the ISS) and serve as lifeboats for the ISS’s crew of six. They are actually the limiting factor for the crew size – an evacuation of everyone on the ISS has to be possible at all times.

Soyuz will be the only spacecraft that can return something to Earth after the Shuttle retires. Since it’s designed to fly people and not cargo it’s certainly easy to imagine that Soyuz is far from ideal for this job – forget bringing back any big experiments.

Progress[2] is the unmanned cargo version of Soyuz. It will continue bringing cargo to the ISS. (Two to three tons per flight. The shuttle could bring about 25 tons to low earth orbit.) It’s, just like Soyuz, a very capable and reliable work horse. (It was the only spacecraft bringing cargo to the ISS when the Shuttles were grounded between 2003 and 2005.)

There are two other and newer cargo spacecraft: The European Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV[3]) and the Japanese H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV[4]). The ATV automatically (like its name indicates) docks to the Russian part of the ISS and can bring up more than seven tons of cargo. It can also boost the station into a higher orbit (as is regularly necessary). The second ATV Johannes Kepler only recently successfully finished its mission, was filled with trash, undocked and burned up in the atmosphere.

The HTV can bring about six tons of cargo to the ISS. It has a pressurized and an unpressurized cargo section (meaning anything that’s supposed to be attached somewhere outside the ISS doesn’t have to go through and fit through the airlock, it can be brought to the ISS in the unpressurized cargo section). It has no complicated automated approach system like the ATV, it is simply grappled by the Canadian “robot” arm (well, it’s more a crane than a robot, really[5]) and attached to the American part of the ISS. Since it’s docking to the American part of the station, the docking hatch is large enough to accommodate International Standard Payload Racks[6] which are used everywhere in the non-Russian part of the ISS. The ATV can’t bring those racks to the ISS since it docks to the Russian part of the station (and their hatches are too small). The HTV also only recently successfully finished its second mission and burned up in the atmosphere.

That’s the current situation, I will leave it to someone else to explain what the future might hold (SpaceX’s Dragon spacecraft, for example). Bringing cargo back from the ISS is the only real problem, there will only be Soyuz after the Shuttle retires.

The ISS can currently also not be extended, well, at least not the non-Russion part. Bringing up all the modules was a job the Shuttle was perfectly suited for. That’s no problem since the ISS is done. They actually managed to pretty much complete it, even looking at the original plans. Heck, even the Cupola[7] made it.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_(spacecraft)

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_spacecraft

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_Transfer_Vehicle

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-II_Transfer_Vehicle

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadarm2

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Payload_...

[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cupola_(ISS_module)

Re: Live coverage of the last Shuttle launch (STS-135, Atlantis)

#64
post #51
post #16

It's strange to think that in fifty years of manned spaceflight, NASA has only ever built four types of spaceship: Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and Shuttle. The Shuttle had a good run. It was both technically awesome and in many ways ridiculous and pointless. Anyway, time for the future now.

It was a horrible failure. It was projected for 75 launches a year at about 25M$ (thats million dollars, not a software company in Seattle) per lauch from 1977 until the late eighties when it was scheduled to be replaced by something better. Instead it was 135 launches in 30 years at 1.6G$ per lauch, and it totally crippled NASA's capabilities to develop a replacement.

(thats gillion dollars, not g-forces)

Re: Live coverage of the last Shuttle launch (STS-135, Atlantis)

#66
post #7

It's sad to see the Shuttle go without a replacement. And to jog my own memory of the day I saw the shuttle in the UK, here's a set of pictures from the day Enterprise visited Stansted Airport in the UK: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mike_ward/sets/7215760339467228... I was there as a boy standing against the wire fence with my father to see this amazing machine. Bloody marvellous!

The Shuttle program is coming to a hard stop because the program was a failure. The Shuttle is monstrously complex, killed astronauts on routine low orbit missions, and its runaway costs enveloped NASA's budget, crowding out any alternative manned platforms. There is no next-generation Shuttle or iteration of the Shuttle because simply running the current version of the Shuttle consumed NASA. After this last mission,…

> The Shuttle is monstrously complex, killed astronauts on routine low orbit missions.

Can you really call it "routine"? The first 135 plane/car trips were probably pretty dangerous, too.

Re: Live coverage of the last Shuttle launch (STS-135, Atlantis)

#67
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I have to agree with your overall point, I'm not ready to cede that the shuttle hurt manned space exploration more than it helped. Despite its' shortcomings, the Space Shuttle has been a point of national (and I would imagine international) pride, it's an incredible machine that has inspired the dreams of millions. Perhaps it did hurt more than it helped, in that it made the phrase you use, "routine low orbit m…

We've only been sending people to space for fifty years, there's still nothing "routine" about low earth orbit... That is the damaging legacy of STS. It's established the expectation that going to orbit can never be done at a reasonable price, that there will never be anything people can do in space worth the staggering cost of getting them there. Getting to orbit could be routine, but we been marinating in expensive…

Well, that's arguably one of the defining features of capitalism; the engineering doesn't need public support in the US. It just needs some investors with vision and eventual profitability. The way other socioeconomic systems tend to destroy that feature in passing (on their way to some other goal) is one of the major reasons they have been such overwhelming failures in practice.

The last flight of the shuttle is a huge step in the right direction, historically so, not a regression. I respect it for what it did, but the best thing it could do now is retire with honor and dignity.

Re: Live coverage of the last Shuttle launch (STS-135, Atlantis)

#68
post #55

In 1979, I watched the Enterprise+transporter fly in to Kennedy for the first time from the Indian River - that was a long time ago. Hell, it's even been 25 years since I turned on the TV to see Dan Rather using a model to explain the various external tanks and knew something bad had happened. So while it is the passing of an era, with the ISS at the sharp point of manned space flight, I'm not about to let nostalgia…

> it doesn't matter whose hardware gets us off the ground and out toward the stars. On this, I disagree. Flying in an even older device (Soyuz) provided at a ridiculous rate from a "business partner" (calling Russia an ally is not quite accurate) is not the way we should be letting ourselves get into space. I know the shuttle is far from perfect, but we should have had the Dragon or Orion capsule ready before shuttle…

At least Soyuz is more reliable than the Space Shuttle.

Re: Live coverage of the last Shuttle launch (STS-135, Atlantis)

#69
post #51
post #16

It's strange to think that in fifty years of manned spaceflight, NASA has only ever built four types of spaceship: Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and Shuttle. The Shuttle had a good run. It was both technically awesome and in many ways ridiculous and pointless. Anyway, time for the future now.

It was a horrible failure. It was projected for 75 launches a year at about 25M$ (thats million dollars, not a software company in Seattle) per lauch from 1977 until the late eighties when it was scheduled to be replaced by something better. Instead it was 135 launches in 30 years at 1.6G$ per lauch, and it totally crippled NASA's capabilities to develop a replacement.

you may want to change G to B. In the United States, where dollars are used, G is more likely to mean "Grand", or 1k. B would be billion. Or, when all else fails, just type it out.

Re: Live coverage of the last Shuttle launch (STS-135, Atlantis)

#70
post #67
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've only been sending people to space for fifty years, there's still nothing "routine" about low earth orbit... That is the damaging legacy of STS. It's established the expectation that going to orbit can never be done at a reasonable price, that there will never be anything people can do in space worth the staggering cost of getting them there. Getting to orbit could be routine, but we been marinating in expensive…

Well, that's arguably one of the defining features of capitalism; the engineering doesn't need public support in the US. It just needs some investors with vision and eventual profitability. The way other socioeconomic systems tend to destroy that feature in passing (on their way to some other goal) is one of the major reasons they have been such overwhelming failures in practice. The last flight of the shuttle is a h…

...the engineering doesn't need public support in the US. It just needs some investors with vision and eventual profitability.

Where is that profit going to come from? Space tourism? I will be very surprised if there will be a big ongoing demand for spending a few days vomiting in an orbiting can.

Post reply on HN