STS 133, The Final Flight of Discovery

[onewhippedpuppy]

Epic video. Rockets may be more cost effective, but they will never be this cool.

[deanp]

Discovery and The ISS made a visible pass overhead last night. Still one more chance tonight, but at a low angle and and for less than one minute. This was the view last night from the front yard. The space station is the brighter trail, Discovery is the lower trail.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Thanks for that - I'll be looking to the skies tonight with the big lens...

It's such a shame we live in a world dominated by soulless non-visionaries like lawyers and bean counters - I swear sometimes they live to suck all joy and awe out of the world...

Godspeed Discovery - you've been a great ship.

[deanp]

Jeff - look to the SW tonight, max elevation about 20degress above the horizon, supposed to be about 7:25 at my coordinates. You can check here:

Human Space Flight (HSF) - Orbital Tracking

That shot was with an 80mm lens, about a 20sec exposure. I am going to go with less lens tonight to try and capture a longer path.

[IROC]

Having worked on a shuttle programs for about 12 years, I think there is just something special about manned space flight. Sure, you get more scientific bang-for-the-buck with unmanned missions, but there is just something noble and majestic about sending humans into space.

[Steve Carlton]

I can't believe they would retire the shuttle before the replacement is ready. What if a giant asteroid was heading straight for the earth?

[Normy]

I've never understood why they built the space shuttle to begin with.

They needed a re-useable space plane to take astronauts to orbit. OK, that's a good idea- a craft that can be shot into space, deliver its occupants, re-enter the atmosphere.....and then land on a runway like any other aircraft. Good idea!

-So why, when they needed the equivalent to a Lear-Jet....did they build a DC-9?

The cargo capacity of this vehicle is large, but no where near as large as what a Titan IV rocket can put into orbit. And this 200,000 pound vehicle to put upwards of 9 people in space? A true space plane would be 25% that weight, tops. And if you have cargo only, then the shuttle won't work- it has to have people on board, and suddenly you run the risk of killing them, which as we've seen causes years of delay while the problems that led to their deaths are solved. It looks to me like you want to keep human bodies off of space flights as much as possible, and that means keeping them completely away from cargo flights.

Folks, something doesn't add up; I suspect that there was another reason to produce the space shuttle, one that has since gone away, and that is the reason that NASA and the US Government haven't built replacement shuttles.

That other reason? You decide, but personally...I think there was some sort of secret military use to the shuttle that the fall of the Soviet Union made a moot point of. There was some reason that they needed a big truck to get to space instead of the equivalent of a Ford Crown Victoria-

N!

[onewhippedpuppy]

Maybe we were a country with balls 30 years ago that did things not because they were the most fiscally responsible, but to prove that we could? Not only has the shuttle program been scientifically significant, but it inspired millions of Americans and showed the world that we could do anything. Today we'd rather just sit on our fat asses and watch reality TV. Space? What do we need to waste money on that for? Forget the dreamers, let's let the finance guys figure it out. No need for amazing when mediocre will do.....

[masraum]

Originally Posted by Normy

I suspect that there was another reason to produce the space shuttle

N!

OK, just a thought, and numbers out of thin air.

option 1

Cost to engineer the shuttle -- 5 bn
Cost to build shuttle (need 3 at any one time) -- 2 bn each
cost to launch shuttle -- .5 bn

Cost to take up 3 payloads and run lots of experiments using people (3 launches) including building and engineering.

$12.5 bn

option 2

cost to engineer passenger only space plane -- 5 bn
cost to engineer primarily cargo space plane (still gotta have dudes to deploy) -- 5 bn

cost to build each kind (need 3 of each ,6 total, of each kind) -- 2 bn each

cost to launch each -- .5 bn

Cost to launch 3 sets of payload and have lots of folks in the (thin) air for experiments including engineering, building and launch costs

$25 bn

I'm not an accountant or anything, but I think we've found your reason, and it doesn't require a foil hat.

We have satellites for the "spook" stuff, and it's not like the shuttle actually flies. It's not going to circle the Soviet Union taking pictures or shoot down soviet satellites. Again, we've got satellites for that. The wings are more about a controlled descent. It still pretty much drops like a rock. It's just not as big a conspiracy as you're hoping for.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

There were a number of "classified" shuttle launches using AF crews back in the 1980s/1990s. As with the entire space program it was quasi-military and definitely was used to psychologically intimidate the opposition. The USSR was genuinely concerned about "star wars" anti-ICBM technology even as a research-level concept because even if only of limited effectiveness, it would have changed the dynamic of MAD pretty significantly. Also one of the reasons Russia is so vehemently anti-missile defense on the part of the US. The shutte certainly could be used to deploy space-based "star wars" equipment - yea it was fledgeling at best and it would have been far more effective to use Deltas but if you know your enemy is nervous about something you want to make it as high-profile and in-your-face as possible, overstating your commitment to it as best you can. I have no doubt this was done with he shuttle to maximize anxiety on the part of the USSR.

There were plans to launch shuttles out of the western US for polar orbital flights (clearly for military applications) - bummer it never happened but again I think just the thought it was undr serious consideration helped stoke anxiety in the Soviet Bloc.

[IROC]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

There were a number of "classified" shuttle launches using AF crews back in the 1980s/1990s. As with the entire space program it was quasi-military and definitely was used to psychologically intimidate the opposition.

This is true. Typical shuttle payload integration occurred in the horizontal orientation in the Orbiter Processing Facility (OPF). Classified military payloads were integrated vertically. The payloads were assembled in the Vertical Processing Facility (VPF) and then transported to the pad vertically (in the canister) and installed into the Orbiter there. The VPF had much tighter access restrictions than the OPF. That way, very few eyes could see what was going on and the payload wasn't even installed until the Orbiter was at the pad.

The USSR was genuinely concerned about "star wars" anti-ICBM technology even as a research-level concept because even if only of limited effectiveness, it would have changed the dynamic of MAD pretty significantly.

The lead structural analyst in my group used to work for the Soviet aerospace industry (even worked on the Buran shuttle). He has some good stories about Soviet-era fighters. I need to talk to him some more...

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Look for the story of the Soviet MIG-25 defection (pilots name was Kelno I think...). Everyone in the west was intimidated by this new fighter they knew little about other than it could fly close to Mach 2.5 and higher than a lot of NATO jets... After the defection it was reverse engineered and a lot of the anxiety went away. Yes it could fly very fast and high - in a straight line and with minimal armament, for a VERY short period of time (minutes) until it ran out of fuel. It had virtually no maneuvering ability and payload capacity.

Ever look at a MIG up close? I used to hang around KMLB quite a bit and a guy I chatted up there was restoring a MIG-17 he'd purchased - primitive avionics, non-flush rivets and big honkin COUNTERWEIGHTS on the control surfaces! It was almost laughable! Pretty cool resto project though...

[KNS]

P-O-P,

Actually the Russian pilot's name was Viktor Belenko. As you had mentioned, they went over the MiG 25 with a fine tooth comb. It was made moslty of steel(!). They couldn't figure out how to work the titianium needed in the critical areas. It was a pretty crude aircraft in many respects, it was the massive engines that gave it all it's speed.

I read the book many years ago (Mig Pilot), great read on his growing up in Russia and the constant propaganda they endured at the time. When he first came to America he was convinced that ordinary supermarkets he visited were actually staged by the US government. He couldn't believe all the abundant food - no lines! He thought that the first convertable car he'd seen was ridiculous, why would you have a car with no roof...

[GH85Carrera]

Originally Posted by KNS

P-O-P,

Actually the Russian pilot's name was Viktor Belenko. As you had mentioned, they went over the MiG 25 with a fine tooth comb. It was made moslty of steel(!). They couldn't figure out how to work the titianium needed in the critical areas. It was a pretty crude aircraft in many respects, it was the massive engines that gave it all it's speed.

I read the book many years ago (Mig Pilot), great read on his growing up in Russia and the constant propaganda they endured at the time. When he first came to America he was convinced that ordinary supermarkets he visited were actually staged by the US government. He couldn't believe all the abundant food - no lines! He thought that the first convertable car he'd seen was ridiculous, why would you have a car with no roof...

I remember he drove by a mall and was convinced it was just a prop. So they took him in and he was blown away with all the shoe stores. After a while they drove on and went by another mall and he did not believe it was real. Once again they let him in to buy some shoes. He could not grasp that there were hundreds of malls across the country.