NASA announced that the launch of the Space Shuttle Endeavour has been delayed again due to weather. The next launch attempt will be on Wednesday July 15 at 18:03 Eastern time (22:03 GMT). The weather looks better then, with a predicted 60% chance of favorable launch conditions.
If they have to delay one more day, then the launch will occur on the 40th anniversary of the launch of Apollo 11. Just so’s you know.
If you went to BadAstronomy.com and found yourself here, never fear: the BA Blog has moved to its new home at Discover Blogs. The original BA site (with the Moon Hoax debunking and all that) is still online, too.
Phil Plait, the creator of Bad Astronomy, is an astronomer, lecturer, and author. After ten years working on Hubble Space Telescope and six more working on astronomy education, he struck out on his own as a writer. He has written two books, dozens of magazine articles, and 12 bazillion blog articles. He is a skeptic, and fights misuses of science as well as praising the wonder of real science.
Contact me: The Bad Astronomer "at" gmail "dot" com
|
| Bad Astronomy is a Wikio Top Blog! Clearly, Wikio has excellent taste. | |
 | ||
 | Bad Astronomy was chosen as one of Time.com's Best Blogs of 2009. |
 |
"Reading this book is like getting punched in the face by Carl Sagan. Frightening, but oddly exhilarating."
-- Daniel H. Wilson, author of How to Survive a Robot Uprising
DISCOVERmagazine.com: Latest Articles on Space DISCOVER Blogs: The Loom
July 14th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Here’s hoping 6th time’s the charm… I know I’ll be watching from my desk at work! So conflicted: I love thunderstorms, but when they clash with a shuttle launch… I just don’t know who to root for!
P.S. — Surprised the Media Advisory from NASA about the new & improved video from the Apollo 11 moonwalks hasn’t been mentioned anywhere at BA yet. (See http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2009/jul/HQ_M09-125_Newseum_Apollo_tapes.html)
Could it be — *gasp* — that the Sunday Express was right a couple weeks back? Is this really the “lost tapes,” famed in song & story, or could it be deleted scenes/digitally restored footage we haven’t yet seen?
July 14th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
I had read on another blog that if it does not launch in 2 more attempts, the External Tank has to be scrapped and replaced. Does anyone know if that is true?
July 14th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
We will find out soon.
July 14th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Scrubbed? At least it will be clean!!
J/P=?
July 14th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Hoagland was on Coast 2 Coast a few days ago talking about the newly found tapes… you won’t believe what he thinks! OK, you will…
They were hidden for 40 years, until digital processing technology could allow all “evidence” of artifacts could be erased. Woo, woo, woo…
July 14th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Hopefully the launch will get off soon.
July 14th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
@Michael #5: Ha! That’s awesome… Rotoscoping has come so far, hasn’t it? ;-p
@Michael #2: Nope, not true. IIRC from last night’s press conference, the ET is certified for 13 fill/drain cycles without need for an in-depth inspection. So far, they’ve had maybe 6 or 7 cycles (I think they did a full up fill & drain to test the GUCP fix at least once or twice along the way), so… plenty of more tries before they’d even have to inspect the ET, let alone replace it.
July 14th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Miles O’Brien, former CNN Space guy does the on line broadcast for Spaceflight Now dot com on Shuttle Launches. I love the way Miles does his stuff, and he seems to have a lot more freedom that he did with CNN!
July 14th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Yeah, Miles always seemed like a good bloke. Granted, I haven’t been a big fan of CNN for a lot of years, but Miles was a rare exception. Felt bad about him missing his chance at a shuttle flight after Columbia, but I think it speaks volumes about his creds that NASA was even considering it for awhile. As for me, I still prefer to watch launches au natural on NASA TV — heck, even NASA TV has too much commentary for my tastes some days: just shut up & let me listen to the pros already!
July 14th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
[...] See the rest here: Endeavour scrubbed, go for Wednesday [...]
July 14th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
You mean 40th anniversary of the “supposed” launch of Apollo 11.
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
July 15th, 2009 at 1:34 am
Ah lighning natures’ fireworks!
Pity they interfered with Endeavour’s launch tho’ .. it would be kind of apt to celebrate the 40th anniversary by launching the shuttle … even if it is only able to make Low Earth orbit and not travel further like we used to … 40 years on & Apollo looks like a better achivement than ever whilst our current failure to return and go further looks ever worse. Sigh.
@ 8. Michael L :
Miles O’Brien, former CNN Space guy
What isn’t he the guy from ‘Star Trek’ -’Next Gen’ & ‘Ds9′?
Thinking Apollo aniversaries, I just watched the Apollo 13 movie (again) today .. Did the BA ever review that one? If so, is there a link to it somewhere here ?
If not, why not? (Guess it might’ve been a bit old already ..?)
July 15th, 2009 at 2:06 am
Flying Sardines @ #12,
Take a look at this (if you haven’t already). From Phil’s old BA site:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/movies/index.html#list
Unfortunately, no Apollo 13.
July 15th, 2009 at 2:13 am
SyFy (or SciFiWire) has a link to http://wechoosethemoon.org/ where it, according to SciFiWire: “offers you a real-time recreation of Apollo 11, the mission to land the first men on the moon, which observes its 40th anniversary this month.
When you log into the site, you can take part in the entire mission in real time, starting from prelaunch, which is currently counting down, to the launch on Thursday, leading up to the moon landing on July 20.
The site features images, video and even sound effects and communications from the mission.”
J/P=?
July 15th, 2009 at 2:38 am
In regards to the Endeavour delay – I saw the picture in the following story and got a little worried:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25768418-2,00.html
My first impression when I saw that picture was “holy &*#!, lightning struck the launchpad?” Say it ain’t so! I would’ve thought that NASA would err on the side of caution and make sure all the electrics on board are ship-shape before launch. Just a thought.
July 15th, 2009 at 11:10 am
#15 TB: That mast is, in fact, a lightning rod. The pic is the mast doing what was intended. In addition, the shuttle (and booster and tank) electronics are designed to shrug off lightning strikes while on the pad.
However lightning is a wiley phenomenon, and the shuttle electronics are very very complex. It’s simple prudence after seeing a strike like that to do as much of an inspection and test as you can afford. There’s always the possibility that some wiring got inductively coupled to the grounding wire from the tower (a nearby strike generates a *big* magnetic field) and was routed somewhere that was missed in the EMI analysis. Better to spend a day or so now checking things out, than to later on be wishing you had.
Really cool pic though.
July 15th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
I’ve listened to my Dad grumble about the technical aspects of the 13 mission, he said that the film version of Marty Caidin’s “Marooned” was more accurate. I tell him that’s because he’s in the movie and he tells me that makes it more accurate, right? Old family joke. You have to be a space baby to get it, I guess.
Dad likes to point out that 13 was rolled out to the pad a long time before it was implied that it was put there for launch, that Ken Mattingly would have been deafened had he watched the launch from where the film says he did, and that North American Rockwell didn’t even exist in 1970, etc.
Anyway, here are a few via http://www.nitcentral.com/oddsends/apollo13.htm. For more, come over to breakfast tomorrow, we’re having a 40th anniversary celebration of the launch of 11 complete with a gathering of old NASA and contractor guys who will drink coffee and tell stories all day. Fascinating stuff.
1. Watch the Paint
The paint pattern for the Saturn V in the film is not accurate. On the lower half of the first stage, the original test model (which never flew) had black-and-white vertical stripes topped with a ring of black paint. All the launched Saturn V’s had the vertical stripes topped with a wider ring of white paint. The movie version omits the ring of paint, and continues to use the stripes.
2. Early Worm
The distinctive NASA “worm” letter logo is seen on a glass window when the astronauts are climbing into their spacesuits. The logo was not developed until 1976. The men of Apollo 13 would have dressed to the old emblem.
3. False Start
The engines of the Saturn V were started a “T minus nine” seconds, not at “T minus zero” as the movie had it. (The hold-down bolts are released at “T minus zero.”) This change was made in the film, apparently, to add drama.
4. Synchronized Swing
The gantry arms for the Saturn V–the support arms that fall away just before liftoff–are released in unison, not one at a time as shown in the film.
5. No Air Bags
The sudden jolt at the separation of the first-stage rocket was completely unexpected, not a routine occurrence as portrayed in the movie. During the actual mission, small retro-rockets on the top of the first stage fired one second too early. This is what threw the astronauts forward as shown in the movie. Truth be told, the real Jim Lovell had several marks on his helmet from banging into the switch guards.
6. Phase Out
The film shows the moon changing phases several times during Apollo 13’s four day journey. There was only one phase, and it was a waning half moon. How come? Apollo 13 was scheduled to land on the left side of the moon and landing was always planned for sunrise, so that long shadows could aid navigation. (Sunrise on the moon, of course, occurs only every 28 days.
7. Night Shift
Upon passing behind the moon, the movie astronauts lose communication with the earth and enter darkness simultaneously. But the far side of the moon and the dark side of the moon are the same only every 28 days. This wasn’t that day.
8. Try An Abacus
If you study what’s written on Tom Hanks’s worksheet, he is doing addition and subtraction to calculate the spacecraft’s orientation angles. The engineers are asked to check his arithmetic, and one uses a slide rule. Anyone handy with a slide rule will tell you it is not used for addition and subtraction.
9. Theory of Relativity
As the film astronauts near the moon, there is a shot (done with models) that shows the sun, the moon and the Apollo spacecraft. Proportionally, the spacecraft appears to be the size of Australia, and traveling at roughly 25 million miles an hour–about a thousand times faster than an actual Apollo craft.
10. Stars Gazing
The astronauts point out the Sea of Tranquillity as they pass over it. The image in the movie is actually Hadley’s Rille (it looks like a river), the landing site of Apollo 15.
11. Fully Impossible
A full moon appears out one window of the lunar module on the way back to earth. Out of a window on the other side, there is a view of the full earth. Full moon, full earth–that would be possible only if the sun were between the moon and the earth (it’s not), or if the module were somewhere near Venus (it wasn’t).
12. Protractors Ready?
At one point, the ship is said to be rotating at 2.5 degrees per second. The view out the window shows the earth moving past at about five times that rate. For comparison, the second hand on a clock rotates at 6 degrees per second.
13. A Silent Vacuum
Outside the capsule, the propulsion jets are roaring. In the vacuum of space, however, propulsion jets do not make any noise whatsoever–unless you are very, very close to them, in which case you would be a cinder. (Note from Phil: No sound in a vacuum, eh? That sounds familiar! Wink, wink.)
July 15th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Looking good!
July 15th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Looked good!
July 15th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
[...] Endeavour scrubbed, go for Wednesday | Bad Astronomy | Discover … [...]
July 17th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Charles, on point 6 about the moon’s phase… If it was a waning 1/2 moon (3rd quarter), then it would be afternoon everywhere on the daylight near side, and evening to midnight on the dark half of the near side. In other words the terminator is the sunset terminator. To land in the morning, the moon would have to be waxing. I guess the movie got it wrong, too, if it
didn’t show the moon’s phase slowly changing, and by less than 1 quarter, since the whole trip took about 6 days…
Just checked (some psychic blather web site) but 1st quarter was on April 13, 1970 (two days after launch), and they got back to Earth on April 17, when the Moon was 3 days short of full. So the the movie should have shown the Moon slowly growing from a wide crescent to gibbous.
Of course as they got close to the Moon and swung around it, it would have actually gotten slimmer until completely dark (some time before losing comms) and then dawn would have come while they were still on the far side. They would have seen a fully illuminated Moon below them for a while (maybe an hour or two) as they swung back towards Earth, which would have then quickly narrowed to the same phase as seen from Earth. This is because for most of the trip, they were very close to the Earth-Moon line and would have seen pretty much the same phase as seen from Earth. The conventional diagrams show their trajectory as a figure 8 with the Earth in the bigger loop and the Moon in the smaller loop, but both are actually much smaller than the distance between them so it is really an extremely drawn-out and flattened figure 8.