Shuttle Discovery Lifts Off from Kennedy Space Center.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



PVS
Shuttle returns to spaceflight


By Thom Patterson
CNN

Tuesday, July 26, 2005; Posted: 11:10 a.m. EDT (15:10 GMT)

Shuttle Discovery lifts off from Kennedy Space Center.

KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, Florida (CNN) -- The space shuttle Discovery roared into the skies over Florida Tuesday morning as NASA returned to manned space flight for the first time since the 2003 Columbia disaster.

The spacecraft lifted off as scheduled at 10:39 a.m. ET, following days of troubleshooting to fix a faulty fuel sensor in its external tank.

Two minutes after liftoff, Discovery's two solid fuel rocket boosters separated from the orbiter as it raced toward Earth orbit.

Before boarding the spacecraft, Discovery crew members, who awoke after midnight, appeared at a traditional photo opportunity wearing matching Hawaiian shirts in the crew dining room as astronaut Steve Robinson strummed a guitar. Later the crew donned space suits for their journey and, by 8:22 a.m. ET, all seven were aboard and strapped in.

Commander Eileen Collins was the first to board, giving a confident wave to NASA cameras before entering the cockpit.

Japanese astronaut Soichi Noguchi held up signs saying: "Get out of quarantine free" and "OUT TO LAUNCH."

At 9 a.m. ET, the hatch was closed.

About 10 miles from launch pad 39B, scores of shuttle-watchers who had camped out overnight along the Banana River were waking up excited about the liftoff.

"We were here when they tried to launch the first time," said Kai Novak, 41, of Hamburg, Germany. "When it didn't go, we were all really depressed. We're looking forward to seeing this today."

Also among the crowd was Thor Hurlen, 46, of Aalesund, Norway. "I think it's going to happen today," he said.

On July 13, NASA scrubbed Discovery's launch just 2 1/2 hours before liftoff when a test showed one of Discovery's four sensors in its hydrogen fuel tank was not working.

On Monday, after 12 days of troubleshooting, officials said they were again ready for liftoff but still weren't sure what caused the problem.

"We don't completely because it looks like a grounding issue," said Discovery vehicle manager Scott Thurston.

An array of cameras was positioned to videotape the launch.

The cameras are among many new safety measures implemented after the Columbia disaster. They include cameras aboard two WB-57 aircraft that took off from nearby Patrick Air Force Base, according to a base spokesman. The planes are equipped with a video recording system that can capture visible and infrared images to look for any damage to Discovery during liftoff.

Columbia disintegrated on re-entry when super-heated gases entered the spacecraft through a hole created during liftoff by a falling piece of insulation foam, according to an investigative panel. All seven crew members died.

Discovery's crew is scheduled to test a battery of tools and techniques that NASA engineers developed after the loss of Columbia to inspect the spacecraft's heat-resistant exterior tiles for any damage that might occur during liftoff.

Discovery's mission also takes it to the international space station to deliver supplies and conduct repairs.

First lady Laura Bush and several members of Congress watched Tuesday's launch from a VIP observation area.

The mission is scheduled to last 12 days.


________________________________________

my first though: is NASA just a collection of idiots?
how many disasters will it take for them to finally retire this piece of shit?
what happened to innovation? now they just seem to be content with fixing up a 20 year old heap riddled with malfunctions and pray for the best. great messed
well, ill have my fingers crossed

Oswald Kenobi
Much of it has to do with money. It's expensive to fund R&D for a new vehicle, and NASA simply cannot take a year off so it can pay the contractor. Maybe if Congress would increase the budget each year, like it does with so many other useless programs, NASA could flourish.

botankus
On a morbidly morbid note: Vegas has full odds on when or if it will explode. You can also place wagers on the time it happens.

whirlysplat
We are a long way from Warp drive sad

Fire
I wouldn't bet your horses on that whirly

Fishy
I don't think it will explode, NASA would not launch a space shuttle when it could be destroyed they can't take the risk.

Ken Kenobi
Originally posted by botankus
On a morbidly morbid note: Vegas has full odds on when or if it will explode. You can also place wagers on the time it happens.

Where the hell did you hear that bullshit?

Oswald Kenobi
I read on digg that debris fell from the shuttle during launch. NASA is investigating.

PVS
isnt it great? no budget for nasa, yet the entire civilised world has become dependant on satellite technology. there is no reason what so ever that nasa shouldnt be innovative and creat a next generation spacecraft. but noooooooooooooooooo, they just get the duck tape and super glue and fix up the old piece of shit. waste not want not.

finti
heard that some parts fell of the Shuttle during take off, don't know how much hold it is in this cause there haven't been much development of this news bulletin though

Fire
Well we still have the russians to launch satellites stick out tongue

botankus
Originally posted by Ken Kenobi
Where the hell did you hear that bullshit?

On the radio. Sorry, I don't have a link and just heard it on a talk show so I guess you can keep calling it bullshit if you want.

jaden101
first off there have been 112 shuttle missions and only 2 disasters...one of which was caused by a malfunction that had nothing to do with the shuttle but the main rocket

secondly...the shuttles are already scheduled to be taken out of service anyway...

thirdly...you are right in saying that its way past its technological usefullness but there is currently nothing to replace it and when it comes to being decommisioned there will still be nothing to replace it

so just like when concorde was taken out of service...the human race is once again about to take a step back in travel technologies which i think is a sad thing

PVS
but thats what i question. they had 20 years to innovate and advance.
20 years off giving the old CGI razzle dazzle routine, showing us animated spacecraft and making promises while putting little or no research into actually solving the problem. oh but its not so simple, right? then how come private companies are picking up the task and creating next generation spacecraft, putting nasa to shame?

the problem with nasa is that they changed their philosophy from "dare to dream" to "if it aint broke, dont fix it"

The Omega
I don't care!
I danced around the office when Discovery lifted off.
I LOVE space-tech and space-ships, be they real or scifi-made.

I suppose if the West wasn't busy using billions on war, we'd have some more money to use on space-research.
For now - we need two things.
1) The true understanding of gravity, so we may start to work with wormholes, and
2) ITER must work. If we get fusion-tech we'll have an endless supply of clean energy.

(Nods and checks latest Discovery news)

PVS
Originally posted by jaden101
first off there have been 112 shuttle missions and only 2 disasters

and you are comfortable with this figure? thats 1 out of 56.

Fishy
Well shit happens, I wouldn't start getting worried until the last few flights all blew up.. Or they follow each other by only a few flights in between.

Ken Kenobi
Originally posted by botankus
On the radio. Sorry, I don't have a link and just heard it on a talk show so I guess you can keep calling it bullshit if you want.

It was obviously meant as a joke. I live in Vegas, there are no bets like that as far as I know.

Tptmanno1
I think the problem is a lack of entusiasm about the space program now, back during the cold war and such everyone was gung-ho and wanted to beat the russians into space, and this carried over in some extent through the shuttle years, but now, its kinda fizzled out, I mean the next big thing is Mars, but nobody cares too much about that.
If we can recapture peoples enthusiasm, then all the other things come.

jaden101
Originally posted by PVS
and you are comfortable with this figure? thats 1 out of 56.

yeah i am given the principle of the way the shuttle returns to earth...basically drops like a stone with no engine power and reduces from over 12000 mph to under 200 in order to land..it glides which is an amazing feat given that its wing area to body size ratio makes it seem like that would be impossible

its also meant that far less money has needed to be spent on the space programme and has a better success to failure ration than the old rocket and bell module return method did

its really kind of a miracle that every shuttle mission doesn't end up in flaming wreckage

amity75
I just saw on the news that a piece fell off during take off. I feel sorry for the astronauts. Just how much diahorrea can those little toilet bags hold?

botankus
Originally posted by Ken Kenobi
It was obviously meant as a joke. I live in Vegas, there are no bets like that as far as I know.

Oh, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were!

PVS
Originally posted by jaden101
programme and has a better success to failure ration than the old rocket and bell module return method did

primative yes, but i dont recall a single disaster with the bell modules.
so simple and safe that a chimpanzee can and did pilot it.
not that there was a factor of payload, but my point is that nasa
should be aiming for a 100% success rate, not just praying that a 20+ year old piece of shit doesnt lose too many nuts, bolts, and tiles, so it can make reentry. that was their aim long ago, apparently now they're happy with a craps shoot erm

jaden101
Originally posted by PVS
primative yes, but i dont recall a single disaster with the bell modules.
so simple and safe that a chimpanzee can and did pilot it.
not that there was a factor of payload, but my point is that nasa
should be aiming for a 100% success rate, not just praying that a 20+ year old piece of shit doesnt lose too many nuts, bolts, and tiles, so it can make reentry. that was their aim long ago, apparently now they're happy with a craps shoot erm

apollo programme...january 27th 1967...3 astronauts killed

good point about the 100% success rate...but i'm pretty sure that its what they try to accomplish

i suppose they could increase NASA's budget by a considerable amount but i'm pretty sure there would be the usual "waste of money" cries

PVS
and im sure many of the same people crying are the ones supporting the war machine wink

penny wise and dollar stupid

jaden101
i would say its the other way round myself...the people who say the money spent of the war would be best spent of welfare and blah blah whatever other idealistic nonsense...i have no doubt they would be the people who think that space exploration is money that could go to homeless people and whatever else...depending on whats the fashion of the day...africa...renewable energy...etc etc

i say if we're not going to spend money on saving the planet...then we might as well spend it on trying to get off the planet before we fvck it up too much stick out tongue

PVS
i agree. instead the majority of americas tax dollars for the past 50+ years has been spent finding new and efficient ways to kill off the human race

jaden101
Originally posted by PVS
i agree. instead the majority of americas tax dollars for the past 50+ years has been spent finding new and efficient ways to kill off the human race


true...cant be denied...but its not something thats been unique to the US...probably every country in the world follows the same stupid pattern of spending...some to far more extreme ratios than America

hotsauce6548
I can't possibly believe that NASA hasn't been trying to come up with a new space-ship model, or whatever you want to call it.

The private companies that have made new designs... well, have they ever worked?

PVS
Originally posted by hotsauce6548
The private companies that have made new designs... well, have they ever worked?

yes.

hotsauce6548
Originally posted by PVS
yes.

Are you sure? Which ones?

I remember reading about one that was to be propelled by light, and it was possible because of the material used being so very thin, but I know that one did not work.

PVS
no, it wasnt a concept. a private spacecraft was built, launched, orbited the earth, and landed safely. ill look for the article

edit--- here you go:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/06/21/suborbital.test/

hotsauce6548
Originally posted by PVS
no, it wasnt a concept. a private spacecraft was built, launched, orbited the earth, and landed safely. ill look for the article

edit--- here you go:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/06/21/suborbital.test/

Oh, yeah! I remember that one. They had a whole article, video, and pictures and stuff about it on MSNBC.com.

That's true.

NASA must just think there machine is better, for now, anyway. I mean, there has only been one launch of that private spaceship. Who's to say that in 56 launches, more than 1 won't explode?

PVS
http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/

here is the company site
cool pics

PVS
Originally posted by hotsauce6548
Oh, yeah! I remember that one. They had a whole article, video, and pictures and stuff about it on MSNBC.com.

That's true.

NASA must just think there machine is better, for now, anyway. I mean, there has only been one launch of that private spaceship. Who's to say that in 56 launches, more than 1 won't explode?

i guess there really is no telling.
but risk is the price of progress isnt it?
and since their success rate seems to sucky anyway,
why not innovate?

btw, keep in mind that this craft needed no external booster rockets

hotsauce6548
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5261571/

And here is the article from MSNBC. There is a video, as well.

PVS
check the last site i posted. the video footage is awesome smile

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.