For the first time in seven years, two Shuttles are at their launch pads at the same time. Endeavour was rolled out to pad 39B today, and Atlantis stands ready on pad 39A to launch on October 10 to service the Hubble Space Telescope.
… maybe. There were some issues with insulation on one of the payloads on Atlantis, but NASA says it’s all fixed. I still expect some sort of delay of the launch — these things are tricky — but like everyone else I’m hoping they get that bird up soon. Hubble needs its new instruments, new batteries, and new gyros. I want her to keep flying and peering at the Universe for a long, long time.
 |
September 19th, 2008 at 10:33 am
I soooo want to get to the cape for a night launch… Dr Plait, any inside scoops on how a geek could get the best seats? I’ll probably have to wait for the Endeavour launch.
Wonder how many people will critique the Brit spelling?
September 19th, 2008 at 10:42 am
It’s named after a British ship, hence the ‘u’.
Though according to its wikipedia entry, NASA got it wrong on one of their launch banners once
September 19th, 2008 at 10:50 am
UVJ, aye, that is specifically what I was referring to.
September 19th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Larian: the best seat is from the press mound
For everyone else, though, this is a great site: http://www.launchphotography.com/Shuttle_Launch_Viewing.html
September 19th, 2008 at 11:35 am
BTW BA
Sir Patrick Moore reckons that once Hubble finally shuts down, instead of de-orbitting it we should boost it to a higher more stable orbit where we can monitor it and it can wait until funds and/or technology have caught up enough for us to get the telescope back up and working. That way we don’t lose such a valuable resource. The James Webb will be a one shot deal, too far out for any maintenance missions. What do you ( or any commenters ) think?
P.S. @ Michael L
I am decent(ish) now
September 19th, 2008 at 11:36 am
And another thing……
PLEASE can we have the live web chats back?
September 19th, 2008 at 11:48 am
I don’t know Madge, I think Hubble has been really brilliant, but this should be the final service mission. We’re at the point now were we should probably be focusing on new scopes with new technology (and bigger mirrors). I think after this mission the cost/benefit numbers won’t add up anymore. Hopefully we get some kick butt science out of the thing for the next few years, but then we should be moved on to other scopes.
Just my two thoughts.
And yeah, with Webb out that far I think a lot nails are going to be chewed when they hit the button to open up the petals and see what the images look like! But if comes close to doing what they think it should it will be really amazing.
September 19th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Is it usual to leave a shuttle out there that long during hurricane season?
September 19th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Simultaneous launch of both, please.
September 19th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
@ Madge
Interesting Idea, but as Cheyenne said, by the time we could get it back and re-service, the whole telescope and its technology would probably be too far behind for it to be worth it.
That said, I always find it sad our satellites have to be destroyed like this at the end of their lifetimes. Poor MIR
September 19th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
New gyros?!?! That sure beats the Astronaut Ice Cream I used to get at the planetarium.
September 19th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
All I hope is that they’ll get to hubble in time. It’s in pretty bad shape…
September 19th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Two shuttles?! OMG! That means an asteroid is about to destroy the Earth! Haven’t you guys seen Armageddon?!
September 19th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
I’m probably asking a really stupid question here, but how come they don’t ever have two shuttles in orbit at the same time? Is it as simple as the mission timing and they do not have the need, or is there more to it?
September 19th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Tony, I imagine it has to do with support staffing. There are probably only enough people in Mission Control to handle one shuttle mission at a time. Two simultaneous shuttle flights might be like doubling traffic at a major airport while keeping the same number of air traffic controllers.
September 19th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
It’s not a dumb question but each launch is really, really expensive. And they take a long time to prep between launches.
Since most of their work is servicing that big (relatively) useless mass of floating metal called the ISS it makes sense to rotate the flights (to swap out astronauts and haul up water at $10,000 per gallon).
So I think (but I could be wrong) it’s mission timing, they don’t really have a need for it, and there’s a little more to it in terms of resource commitment.
But that leads me to my dumb question – what the heck is the ISS for? Where’s the science? I’m a huge astronomy/science/nerd guy that loves NASA and reads about them all the time- and I have no idea what that Albatross specifically accomplishes for how much money we are spending on it. We should be sending robots and satellites out across the solar system and building awesome new telescopes. But we’re limited b/c of that boondoggle (I need to use that word more often).
September 19th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
@Cheyenne:
They need a larger crew in order to do actual science. As near as I can figure, there’s so much maintenance that needs to be done that with the current crew they only have about 0.1 people to do the science. They REALLY need at least one more person up there.
A better question might be: What the heck are they going to do with the ISS when they decide it’s no longer cost effective go keep using it? Disassemble it in chunks and de-orbit the pieces? Bring it back down in chunks? They can’t possibly boost it high enough that it won’t come back down.
September 19th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
According to NASASpaceFlight.com, “the last time two shuttles were visible together was back in August 1994, when STS-64 and STS-68 sat on Pads 39B and 39A respectively.”
I simply can’t remember there being two shuttles on the pad at the same time, but if there’s a half decent photo of them both released tomorrow, I think my desktop wallpaper will be sorted for the foreseeable future!
@Larian:
I’m British – no complaints from me regarding the spelling!
September 19th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
According to a local news site, Endeavour is on the launch pad ready to go in case of trouble with Atlantis.
Hopefully they won’t need it, but clearly they are ready to have two ships in orbit simultaneously, if need be.
And some science is being done on the ISS, just not as much as originally planned. Its my understanding that we don’t have more than 3 people on the station at one time right now because unless the shuttle is docked to it, the only escape route is a 3-person Soyuz. Budget cuts years ago halted the nearly-completed 7-person escape craft.
In my opinion, the ISS is still better than nothing.
September 19th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
This is Atlantis’ final mission. She will be retired upon landing.
@Madge: I’m not… decentish LOL What Phil doesn’t see, doesn’t hurt him!
September 19th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Actually, Michael, I believe that it has already been decided that Atlantis will fly at least once more. But don’t quote me on that.
One reason they don’t fly two at once is that only pad 39A is operational. They’re storing Endeavour at 39B in launch configuration, but it can’t actually go from there. So as soon as Atlantis is up, they move Endeavour over to 39A so it’s ready to launch on need.
Also, they are still assessing the situation at Johnson Space Center as a result of Hurricane Ike. The center itself is in good shape, but the training plan took a several-day hit while the Neutral Buoyancy Lab was closed. And more importantly, a lot of people who work there had their homes damaged or destroyed. So that’s also likely (in my unofficial view) to be a hit to launch. But you never know. So far it’s still scheduled for October 10, shortly after midnight.
BTW, the best view of a shuttle is from inside the Orbiter Processing Facility. Now let’s hope my site doesn’t get Phil-dotted.
September 19th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
The BA Says: “I want her to keep flying and peering at the Universe for a long, long time.”
“Long” is relative. I suppose five years is a long, long time if you’re trying to hold your breath, but that’s all we’ve got until we have to de-orbit this one. You’d better already be in line for ’scope time.
- Jack
September 19th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Larian LeQuella Says: “Wonder how many people will critique the Brit spelling?”
As others have mentioned, the Endeavour was named after a British oceanographic research ship. In fact, all of the shuttles were named after exploratory vessels:
Columbia – first US flag vessel to circumnavigate the globe.
Challenger – the British survey vessel that performed the first extensive survey of the Pacific Ocean (and discovered the “Challenger Deep”).
Discovery – after Henry Hudson’s ship that explored for the northwest passage (and found Hudson’s Bay in the process).
Atlantis – The Woods Hole Institutes’s research ship.
Fans of “2001″ claim that Discovery was named for the ship from that film, which has some validity only in that NASA made a big show of inviting Gene Roddenberry and the TOS cast to the Enterprise roll-out.
- Jack
September 19th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
@ Johnny Vector,
Pad 39B isn’t an operational pad? That stinks.
It ought to be.
September 19th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Maybe that sign should read (Don’t) Go Endeavour! After all, if she has to launch, that is not good news
September 19th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
39B is being reworked to support Ares. They haven’t done much yet; the real work starts after STS-125 (the SM-4 mission). As is often the case, there’s as much work to be done on the support equipment as there is to be done on the flight hardware.
And at this point I’ve reached the sharp dangerous edge of my knowledge; I’m not as up on shuttle info as I pretend to be.
And yeah, we want Endeavour to wait until it becomes STS-126, for sure!
September 19th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
39B is definitely operational. Once this mission is wheels down, the dismantling of 39B in preparation for Ares will begin in earnest. Some things, such as the bases of the new lightning masts, have already been put in place.
September 20th, 2008 at 12:26 am
Hi JohnnyVector,
I’m wondering how long it will yake to be prepped for flight if there is a problem with Atlantis? I’m assuming it will take several days or longer once it gets to 39A?
September 20th, 2008 at 7:56 am
madge said on Sept 19th, 2008 at 11:35 am :
“BTW BA Sir Patrick Moore reckons that once Hubble finally shuts down, instead of de-orbitting it we should boost it to a higher more stable orbit where we can monitor it and it can wait until funds and/or technology have caught up enough for us to get the telescope back up and working. That way we don’t lose such a valuable resource. The James Webb will be a one shot deal, too far out for any maintenance missions. What do you ( or any commenters ) think?”
Since you asked, I couldn’t AGREE MORE – great idea!
It’d even be worth extending the shuttle’s lifetime & keep it flying to continue Hubble IMHO.
Actually, I think NASA should keep the shuttle flying until they’ve something better and sell them to somebody else to use rather tyan mothball and junk them anyway. I’d love to see Australia (my home land) buy one – Endeavour would be apt seeing as it was that ship that discovered our east coast!
THX BA for keeping us up to date on all this inyour usual great style – I’m wishing both space shuttles all the best & wishing theHubble SpaceTelescope even better!
PS. On using ‘Endeavour’ as the English spelling versus Amercian – there is NO “American english” – just correct English * English * as it is spoken in England & wrong English!
P.S. @ Michael L
I am decent(ish) now
September 20th, 2008 at 8:05 am
D’oh Italics!! Why oh why can’t we [Expletives!!!] EDIT here!!! *SIGH *
———–
madge said on Sept 19th, 2008 at 11:35 am :
“BTW BA Sir Patrick Moore reckons that once Hubble finally shuts down, instead of de-orbitting it we should boost it to a higher more stable orbit where we can monitor it and it can wait until funds and/or technology have caught up enough for us to get the telescope back up and working. That way we don’t lose such a valuable resource. The James Webb will be a one shot deal, too far out for any maintenance missions. What do you ( or any commenters ) think?”
Since you asked, I couldn’t AGREE MORE – great idea!
It’d even be worth extending the shuttle’s lifetime & keep it flying to continue Hubble IMHO.
Actually, I think NASA should keep the shuttle flying until they’ve something better and sell them to somebody else to use rather tyan mothball and junk them anyway. I’d love to see Australia (my home land) buy & fly one – ‘Endeavour’ would be apt seeing as it was that ship under Captain Cook’s command that first discovered our eastern coast!
(Ironic fact that’ll make sense for my fellow Aussies here – Cook named us New South Wales from Queensland!
)
THX BA for keeping us up to date on all this in your usual great style – I’m wishing both space shuttles all the best & wishing the Hubble Space Telescope even better!
PS. On using ‘Endeavour’ as the English spelling versus Amercian – there is NO “American english” – just correct English * English * as it is spoken in England & wrong English!
Oh & the last line :
“P.S. @ Michael L I am decent(ish) now.”
was Madges quote cut’n'pasted – I’m *not* decent!! Well Isometimes try to be but ..!
September 20th, 2008 at 8:22 am
Greg in Austin said on Sept 19th, 2008 at 2:44 pm:
” … SNIP … some science is being done on the ISS, just not as much as originally planned. Its my understanding that we don’t have more than 3 people on the station at one time right now because unless the shuttle is docked to it, the only escape route is a 3-person Soyuz. Budget cuts years ago halted the nearly-completed 7-person escape craft.”
Any sign of either Presidential candidate suggesting reinstating that 7-man craft? That’s something that we should urge Barack Obama (hopefully your – and effectively the Western world’s – next President if sanity prevails!) to do.
“In my opinion, the ISS is still better than nothing.”
I second that. It may not be a lunar colony or a flight to Mars (both
marvellous propositions that have been “20 years away” for the last 50 years) but let’s make the best of it while still hoping & working for more.
Personally I’d like to see them make the ISS a proper space station as envisaged in O’Neil’s colony sized stations and DeepSpace-9. I’d like to see us add a serious means of propulsion and turn the ISS into a proper spacecraft rather than boldly drifting above our heads and never really
travelling anyway.
Also I’d really love to see ourt International Space Station given a proper name, plain ISS doesn’t really cut it. I’d even prefer the original “Freedom” label for it to the current dull acronym. If we keep going on the naval exploration theme, may I suggest ‘Fram’ for the ISS after Nansen’s hardy ship that was deliberately frozen into the arctic ice cap to drift towards the North pole … ? Of course the problem is that
it will have to pass the committee internationale but, hey, that’s a nice honourable non-offensive name surely?
September 20th, 2008 at 8:59 am
monorailpilot (doesn’t that make you a type of LOLcat?), would STS-400 launch from 39B then? I heard it was just temp storage until STS-125 launches, and then they roll it to 39A to be ready for launch as STS-400. But perhaps I was misled, and it will only move to 39A for launch as STS-126.
I did hear that after 125 is back is when the real rework of 39B starts, so at least that seems to be correct.
Hey, it’s all just a big flying delivery truck to me…
September 20th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Michael L Says:
On the space shuttle ‘Atlantis’ matter -wqhether her final or penultimate or whatever flight :
What will happen to her? Anyone know?
Quite seriously I think NASA should try and sell the Shuttles to some other
nation to keep them flying and keep advamncing humans – preferably Western civilisation or allied – in space.
Potential buyers I’d suggest could include the Europeans or perhaps even the Indians, both Western or Western-allied. I’d really love to see Australia have itsown shuttle &get Woomera going again but I don’t like my chances ..
We could try selling them to Russia or China too but both nations are dictatorships (Russia de facto, China de jure One-Party totaliatiarianist if now “Communist” in name only..) ,/i> with little regard for human life and rights plus military expanison prominent in their present cultures which makes me wary of wanting them too powerful.
As long shots we could try selling shuttles to the South Koreans or even the Malaysians or Saudis both modearte Muslim states which have had astronauts and would set an example of how co-operation could work to salve the Western-Islamic world rifts a tad ..
It seems really sad to me if we just lose the shuttles altogether and just see them grounded – mothballed and museum pieces.
I’d even prefer Stephen Baxter’s idea for the end of the Shuttles as featured in his very gloomy but pretty good novel ‘Titan’ – adapting them into another spacecraft that ends up flying to the eponymous Saturnian moon!
What do folks think of that idea?
This is Atlantis’ final mission. She will be retired upon landing.
@Madge: I’m not… decentish LOL What Phil doesn’t see, doesn’t hurt him!
Johnny Vector Says:
September 19th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Actually, Michael, I believe that it has already been decided that Atlantis will fly at least once more. But don’t quote me on that.
September 20th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Once again for theumpteeth time … Geez Phil Plait can’t we get some wayof editing, or previewing or somethimg here!!!??
*Sigh*
I guess its clear from context. Hope y’all get the gist .. Going to bed now.
—-
This post has a 7/8ths nearly-asleepness rating
September 20th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
@JohnnyVector:
I just went to the NASA website, and it doesn not make it clear where STS 400 will launch from if needed. It only says it will be moved to 39A after it has been determined that there are no serious issues with Atlantis. It makes me think it will be launched from 39B, but That’s just speculation.
September 20th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
@StevoR:
I can’t see NASA selling the Shuttles off to another nation. No one else has the infrastructure needed to keep them maintained and flying. It takes more than just a Shuttle capable launch facility, but also tens of thousands of contractors, engineers, maintenance workers and astronauts. It’s also my understanding that some technology is still classified, even though they are going on 30 years old.
Remember, the Russians did have their own Shuttle program that made one flight in 1988. Their Shuttle was probably more advanced in some ways that the American Shuttle in that it had a better heat shield, and was capable of flying without a crew. I doubt they would be interested in buying the American Shuttles. Personally I think it’s a bad idea anyway.
September 20th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
To answer a couple of questions:
Atlantis will fly at least two more missions as it stands.
Pad B is operational for launching, but Endeavour will be moved to pad A after it is not needed for rescue. As they transition it to Ares, they would prefer not use B if they don’t have to, and, I have also heard but cannot confirm that the payload changeout room on B has not been kept up since B was last used in 2006.
STS-400 would launch from B.
Two shuttles have been on the pad 17 previous times, 1985 the first (51L 61C) and 2001 the most recent (104 105). However, there are only two known times when both had the RSS’ pulled back and both orbiters visible, and those were in 1990 and 1994. So today’s sight was quite rare.
http://www.launchphotography.com/STS-126_rollout.html
September 22nd, 2008 at 1:31 am
Hmmm .. The latest issue of ‘Australian Sky & Telescope’ (Oct.2008) has an article on NASA’s future and notes on page 32 the 10 remaining shuttle flights scheduled :
1. ‘08 Oct. 8th Atlantis ie. this one!
2. 08 Nov. 10th Endeavour
3. 09 Feb 12th Discovery
4. 09 May 15th Endeavour
5. 09 Jul 30th Atlantis – penultimate flight
6. 09 Oct. 15th Discovery – penultimate flight
7. 09 Dec. 10th Endeavour -penultimate flight
8. 2010 Feb 11th Atlantis – final flight scheduled.
9. ‘10 April 8th Final flight of the ‘Discovery’
10. ‘10 Final flight of the ‘Endeavour’
That’s assuming NASA sticks to the current plan – personally I hope they don’t & instead keep flying them until the new vehicle is ready and operational. It’ll be sad to lose the space shuttle -our first everreusable spaceplanes and the vehicle on which more people have entered space than any
other craft.
The article didn’t say what was planned for the shuttles after their final flights and that’s a question I’d love to hear answered.
September 22nd, 2008 at 1:41 am
@Ben – Thanks!
@ Michael L :
“@StevoR: I can’t see NASA selling the Shuttles off to another nation. No one else has the infrastructure needed to keep them maintained and flying. It takes more than just a Shuttle capable launch facility, but also tens of thousands of contractors, engineers, maintenance workers and astronauts. It’s also my understanding that some technology is still classified, even though they are going on 30 years old.”
Well that’s easy enough solved – we sell or teach them all the necesary technology, know-how and infrastructure too. I find it hard to accept that anything as old as the shuttle could still be classified ..
“Remember, the Russians did have their own Shuttle program that made one flight in 1988. Their Shuttle was probably more advanced in some ways that the American Shuttle in that it had a better heat shield, and was capable of flying without a crew. I doubt they would be interested in buying the American Shuttles.”
Yeah, I remember the ‘Buran’ as tehRussian shuttle was known. It only flew once didn’t it and was nothing too special from what I recall although I guess their money woes were far worse at that stage.
“Personally I think it’s a bad idea anyway.”
Can you explain why you think that?
Selling the shuttles and keeping them in use thereby giving other nations some space legs too – esp. rewarding friendly ones that can co-operate with & help us – seems like a good idea and a good way for NASA to raise funds to me!
September 23rd, 2008 at 11:57 pm
The 1st 6-person station crew is the one after next. They don’t yet have all the equipment aboard to support 6 people. It takes about 2.5 to 2.75 people just to operate the ISS, so they don’t have much time for science yet. (Though just staying alive up there for 6 months at a time gathers valuable information about living in space.)
Each crew stays up for about 6 months. Then they launch a new crew in a new Soyuz and the old crew
lands in their old Soyuz a couple of weeks later. The next crew is scheduled to launch on October 12, two days after Endeavour. (There will be 13 people in orbit at the same time. If the next Chinese I’m sure will be a new record.)
When the next crew comes down in April, they’ll be replaced by the 1st six-person crew. The 1st 3 will launch in a Soyuz in April and the 2nd group of 3 will launch about a month later in a second Soyuz. After that, about every six months, they’ll launch a new pair of Soyuz’s, each with 3 people aboard. I’m pretty sure they’ll exchange 1/2 the crew and then the other 1/2 about a month later. They won’t have 4 Soyuz’s and 12 people up there all at the same time. This whole scheme is complicated by the fact that they generally but not always swap out one crew member on each shuttle flight, and sell the extra Soyuz seat to a tourist or another country (e.g. Malaysia.)
Once the shuttle retires, all the crew swaps will be done by Soyuz’s (and I think this means no more space tourists for a while, so if you have $30M burning a hole in your pocket, NOW is the time to sign up!) , until the Orion starts flying in 2014 or 2015. (I think the 1st couple of Orion flights will be test flights and will just stay for a couple of weeks as visitors, not part of the regular crew.)
Also, I read somewhere that the payload changeout room at pad 39B is broken, and they decided not to fix it as it wouldn’t be needed if they launch everything from 39A, but the rescue flight (STS-400 is the official designation) doesn’t need it (or everything they need was already installed in the cargo bay before the rollout), so it can launch from 39B. However, if everything goes okay with Atlantis, they’ll move Endeavour to 39A and install its ISS cargo there and then launch from there.
The next flight from 39B would then be the 1st Ares 1 test, next April 15 or so. (4-segment booster, dummy 2nd stage and Orion, not sure if it will have live parachutes and launch escape system.) Then there’s a long delay (several years) before the 2nd Ares I test (5-segment booster, dummy 2nd stage, live but unoccupied Orion with live escape system, parachutes, etc. I think they plan to do a high-altitude escape system test on that flight.) Then they plan to do a 2-3 more unmanned (unpeopled?) tests with a live 2nd stage followed by a couple of crewed test flights, which will attempt to dock with the ISS and stay for a short time in 2014.
September 24th, 2008 at 12:04 am
(There will be 13 people in orbit at the same time. If the next Chinese I’m sure will be a new record.)
Oook! Preview please
… If the next Chinese flight, currently scheduled for tomorrow, gets delayed a couple of weeks, there will be 16 people in orbit, which I’m sure will be a new record.)
And I’m also sure I typed that part of it. Maybe some psychic zapped it telekinetically because he wanted to embarrass me in public?