[curiousuburb]

Inside an hour to go for the (much delayed) scheduled launch of Discovery to deliver Robonaut 2 (yes, he's called artoo), an external cargo pallet, and the reconfigured Leonardo PMM module to ISS.

Liftoff is planned for 4:50 p.m. EST (2150 GMT) from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Weather is 80 percent go.

NASA TV has coverage, and YouTube has the prelaunch press conference and countdown status briefing

Might be the 3rd last shuttle mission.

Go Discovery!

[turtle]

Just missed seeing the launch.

[Moogs]

Did anyone see all the flame-like "vapors" (not sure what else to call them) that seemed to be surrounding the shuttle just prior to and after main tank separation? The colors threw me off. At first it looked like a "floating fire" and then as the separation neared there seemed to be other flames at the back of the shuttle and then off of one wing as the tank fell away. Really strange. Never seen that before. When the engines flame out do they have a large "burp" or something like that where the amount of flame coming out would be larger or swirl around the craft at the edge of space?

Also I saw what I thought were a couple tiles fly off the underside of the shuttle maybe a 90 seconds before final separation. Somewhere in there...

...hopefully everything is OK.

[curiousuburb]

Saw those floaters... might have been chunks of insulation rather than tiles. Seemed to be well under the main body of the orbiter and clear of wings, though.

Looked like a solid launch, otherwise. Will see what the post-launch briefing has to report.



As for the expanding bloom of vapours at flame out, don't forget that as you get higher (lower external atmospheric pressure) any exhaust flame will naturally expand. It's a known issue that the 'bell nozzle' becomes less efficient as altitude/pressure move towards space.

After 'flame out' of main engines and ET separation, the OMS engines are often still running... maneuvering vernier thrusters/jets are spitting out puffs of hydrazine (which often appears as whitish vapour). This launch did seem to have a bit more overlap of varied emissions, though...

[Moogs]

Originally Posted by Curiousuburb Saw those floaters... might have been chunks of insulation rather than tiles. Seemed to be well under the main body of the orbiter and clear of wings, though. As for the expanding bloom of vapours at flame out, don't forget that as you get higher (lower external atmospheric pressure) any exhaust flame will naturally expand. It's a known issue that the 'bell nozzle' becomes less efficient as altitude/pressure move towards space. After 'flame out' of main engines and ET separation, the OMS engines are often still running... maneuvering vernier thrusters/jets are spitting out puffs of hydrazine (which often appears as whitish vapour). This launch did seem to have a bit more overlap of varied emissions, though...

You are the man. That last explanation makes sense ... just never saw all that stuff before. Could've been some funky effects / ghosting from the wide angle lens too although didn't look like ghosts per se.

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by Moogs Could've been some funky effects / ghosting from the wide angle lens too although didn't look like ghosts per se.

I didn't see the video, but I did notice Curiousuburb's photo has a string of aperture ghosts coming from the shuttle — mainly I can't figure out why, since they're not coming from the bright exhaust plume!

The shuttle is feeling creaky, with bits of it falling off every flight. Hats off to the brave people who climb into that jalopy time and time again...

[curiousuburb]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray I didn't see the video, but I did notice Curiousuburb's photo has a string of aperture ghosts coming from the shuttle — mainly I can't figure out why, since they're not coming from the bright exhaust plume!

Moogs and I were referring to the post-ET separation funky 'flame out'/thrusters/jets around Mach 25

See the video clip here

I just grabbed the launch pic from NASA's shuttle page. Unrelated to our discussion.

---

The post-launch press conference spent quite a bit of time joking about the one second launch window clearance... no biggy.

Gerstenmaier confirmed 4 foam losses, but notes they were all after the aerodynamically sensitive time, so none were a concern... the 3:51 floater Moogs noticed was 'probably an 8x10 chunk of foam, likely due to cryopumping, (a known issue) and not a worry'.

[billybobsky]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray I didn't see the video, but I did notice Curiousuburb's photo has a string of aperture ghosts coming from the shuttle — mainly I can't figure out why, since they're not coming from the bright exhaust plume! .

Dude. The sun.

[jdcfsu]

I finally got to see one up close!

About 7 miles from the pad on NASA property -- I even had a security badge with my picture on it!

Pictures:
Pad
VAB
Launch

Video:
Full Launch, No Zoom

The whole thing was awesome. Met a man who built the cameras that scouted the lunar landing sites in the early Apollo days as well as work on the special lens that fixed Hubble. It was also his first launch.

The only thing that sucked was the five hours it took to drive the 40 miles home... Other than that it was an awesome day.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by jdcfsu I finally got to see one up close! About 7 miles from the pad on NASA property -- I even had a security badge with my picture on it! Pictures: Pad VAB Launch

Aww, I was hoping for a picture of the badge!

...because I'm curious what those sort of things would look like, not because I'm a terrorist. Honest!

[jdcfsu]

Haha. Fair enough. I'm sure it's against some sort of rule and regulation. My friend that works out there can't have it pictured nor is it allowed to be anywhere he's not (can't leave it in a car, etc).

[Moogs]

Cool!

[kscherer]

Sounds like there are some pretty excited folks in here when it comes to the shuttle. So, and I'm not baiting—just curious as to your thoughts—did NASA/etc. screw this whole heavy-lifting thing up? If the shuttle isn't going to fly anymore, how in the hell are we going to get big stuff up there? or back?

Just curious.

[jdcfsu]

NASA didn't screw anything up, our current and former Presidents did. See another thread somewhere around these parts for full discussion.

[Quagmire]

Originally Posted by jdcfsu NASA didn't screw anything up, our current and former Presidents did. See another thread somewhere around these parts for full discussion.

NASA has been screwed up since Nixon axing the Saturn V. I supported Bush in his return to the moon. The Ares V was supposed to be more powerful than the Saturn V.

Although I disagree with the Constellation Program plan for two rockets to be launched in order to go to the moon with the Ares V taking up the lunar module and Ares I taking the Orion capsule. Why did they need two launches when the Saturn V system worked so well? I say just revive the Saturn V rocket make the 1st stage reusable( could the 2nd staged be reusable as well?). It was the most reliable launch vehicle in US manned space flight. Unless some regulation blocks it, I don't see why the Saturn V can't go back into production with some tweaks and updating. It will have to be cheaper then launching two rockets, etc.

[jdcfsu]

Originally Posted by Quagmire I don't see why the Saturn V can't go back into production with some tweaks and updating. It will have to be cheaper then launching two rockets, etc.

Not really, it'd probably even cost more. The Saturn V was designed using technology that doesn't exist any more as it's since been throughly outdated. Even if NASA could find a firm to manufacture fifty year old parts -- or upgrade them to modern ones -- they would still have to completely retro-fit the launch complex and the VAB to accommodate the size of the Saturn V as it was all converted for Shuttle orbiter use in the late 70's.

[Quagmire]

Originally Posted by jdcfsu Not really, it'd probably even cost more. The Saturn V was designed using technology that doesn't exist any more as it's since been throughly outdated. Even if NASA could find a firm to manufacture fifty year old parts -- or upgrade them to modern ones -- they would still have to completely retro-fit the launch complex and the VAB to accommodate the size of the Saturn V as it was all converted for Shuttle orbiter use in the late 70's.

Wouldn't they have to do that anyway since the Ares V would be bigger than the Saturn V and was also a multi-stage rocket? The Ares family was pretty much a modern Saturn family of rockets . I just don't agree with the new method of launching two rockets in order to get the command module and lunar module into space where the Saturn V did that with one launch.

[kieran]

The shuttles are amazing to see, especially considering that they're so old. I wish I would have gotten the chance to see them in person.

What I think is crazy is that NASA is going to be dependent on other space agencies for upkeep/transfer to the ISS for a long time. Anything that NASA has in development doesn't seem as if it will be ready any time soon.

It's going to be a sad day when that last shuttle mission returns.

[curiousuburb]

For an unusual perspective, check out this video of the launch from a commercial airliner out of Orlando.

See also this page with highlight reel clips and deleted footage

As for Constellation, while Bush may have proposed it, he never funded it, (and that was before the financial crisis).

Heavy lift needs to be done from a 'what's best for technology' rather than the Apollo era 'what's best to keep jobs in every district' mindset.

While the Soviets never got their nine-strap-on Moon rocket working, the principle is sound (and a pile of solid booster to overcome the hardest atmospheric part of the lifting job is still doable).

[JohnnyTheA]

Originally Posted by Curiousuburb As for Constellation, while Bush may have proposed it, he never funded it, (and that was before the financial crisis).

Congress funds, the president executes, vetoes, and offers his own "suggestions" to congress. Bush isn't to blame on this one.

Having said that, NASA has grown to be a large bureaucratic behemoth. The original space race was really just a public front to help develop technology for ICBMs which the public wasn't as excited about. Now that the cold war is over and we have way more nukes than we really need, there isn't a strategic reason for sending people into space. NASA exists, like any other government agency, to keep itself in business first and foremost. So they have morphed into an agency that generates PR more than anything else sadly.

I am more in favor of the unmanned programs. You can learn a lot more real science and technology with less money if you go unmanned. But you don't get the "teacher talking to her students from space" PR BS.

I also think that the real advances in space technology will probably be done by the military and will probably kept secret (as they should). Think about how reliant countries are on satellites...

JTA

[kscherer]

Here's a proposition:

How about if we just roll NASA off as a private company. Figure out the value of all assets, divide that by the number of US citizens, and call that number the value of a share of stock. Give one share to every citizen and let NASA function in the private sector.

They could then sell their wares to private companies looking to put satellites in space or put tourists on the moon. If they go bust, then they go bust. But if they succeed, then the citizens get their money back in the form of valuable stock, which they can then turn around and sell to whoever.

Just a thought.

By the way, that video of the launch from an airline perspective is pretty cool. Amazing how fast it blew through 30,000 feet.

[billybobsky]

Originally Posted by JohnnyTheA NASA exists, like any other government agency, to keep itself in business first and foremost.

I;m sorry you feel this way. As the NIH, NCI, NASA and other government agencies have funded and performed the principle research for much of what we depend upon today in terms of health and technology, corporations have been closing their R&D for decades. Notably big pharma are shuttering their labs as we speak, the NIH and other agencies are maintaining a level of scientific funding unrivaled in the world, and we benefit from this. So no, the principle reason for a large number of governmental agencies is not to keep themselves in business.

There isn't immediate profit in basic science. There never has been. But without the understanding derived from research, whether performed by NASA or scientists at a small liberal arts college and funded by the NIH, we go nowhere.

[JohnnyTheA]

Originally Posted by billybobsky I;m sorry you feel this way. As the NIH, NCI, NAS and other government agencies have funded and performed the principle research for much of what we depend upon today in terms of health and technology, corporations have been closing their R&D for decades. Notably big pharma are shuttering their labs as we speak, the NIH and other agencies are maintaining a level of scientific funding unrivaled in the world, and we benefit from this. So no, the principle reason for a large number of governmental agencies is not to keep themselves in business. There isn't immediate profit in basic science. There never has been. But without the understanding derived from research, whether performed by NASA or scientists at a small liberal arts college and funded by the NIH, we go nowhere.

I am not disagreeing if we are talking about the actual work these agencies do. But I would imagine that the manager / "real worker" ratio of the agencies you talk about is vastly higher than when they were first created. NASA has 19,000 employees and that doesn't count the myriad of contractors. What research is really getting done? I think you and I actually agree in that I think NASA should be focused more on REAL science instead of Public Relations.

Here is another interesting wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Bu...t.2C_1958-2010

It shows that NASA's budget is still HALF of it's 1965 peak (in inflation adjusted dollars). Most people are of the impression that it is MUCH smaller than that because NASA hasn't really done much. It took them 8 years to get to the moon before so "worst-case" they should be able to do the same kind of thing in 16 years. Instead they have been spinning there wheels doing the same old crazy shuttle missions and sending "role models" out to elementary schools to try to convince people that they are relevant.

THAT is the problem. NASA produces PR not real science anymore.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by JohnnyTheA It shows that NASA's budget is still HALF of it's 1965 peak (in inflation adjusted dollars). Most people are of the impression that it is MUCH smaller than that because NASA hasn't really done much. It took them 8 years to get to the moon before so "worst-case" they should be able to do the same kind of thing in 16 years.

I'm...not sure that's the way budgets work.

[curiousuburb]

Those school visits are also to promote studies in engineering, math & science... where US students rank atrociously compared to the rest of the world.

Inspiration and motivation for future rocket scientists aren't easy to measure in dollars and cents.

Meanwhile... Spacewalk prep in progress on NASA TV. Drew and Bowen finishing leak tests, almost ready for EVA.

I tend to focus more on the "Man -vs- Nature" awesomeness of a personal spacecraft* protecting you against hazards of space while providing the greatest view on or above Earth.

*The fact the 'spacecraft' is a suit costing $5 Million is a tiny footnote... and worth the investment, IMO.

[curiousuburb]

ISS and Discovery silhouetted against the Sun... March 1, 2011



^-- Click for source

[Moogs]

Whoa.

[thegelding]

well every time I get a bit down about the human race, well I think about the things we can do when we think and try and work...we can touch the stars, we can float in space...all marvels...



we can be good, we can be better...now the question, as always, is will we?

g

[Quagmire]

There we have it guys. Discovery's new mission is to have people discover how stupid we are to practically abandon man-space flight in a museum.

[Moogs]

Well I think either way all of the orbiters are getting close to the end of their life structural integrity and design-wise. The sad part is the lack of commitment to continue on with a new program. Be it hypersonic flight or whatever the case. As it is, two more flights to go. CNN was suggesting half a million will be at the next launch in April, and a million in June for the last flight. Not sure what kind of capacity NASA's public viewing lands have but that seems a bit much. Forget which was Atlantis and which was Endeavor and too lazy to look it up currently.