Fifteen minutes until launch. We’re heading over to the beach to watch. It will be the last Shuttle mission ever to launch due east.
[Update a while later]
Well, that was the first time we ever tried to watch from Spanish River Park. The problem is that down here, the beach runs north and south, but the Cape is north-northeast of us, so the launch actually starts inland from our vantage point, and there was an apartment building blocking the lower portions of the ascent. From here (about a hundred fifty miles away) we saw the first-stage burn once it cleared the building, but once the SRBs went out, there was nothing left to see. Too far away and the sun was too bright (another cursed day of no clouds and no rain here, with us almost a foot below normal rainfal for the year). If it had been dark, we would have no doubt seen it much longer.
[Tuesday morning update]
In comments, I speculate on how they’ll inspect the Shuttle tiles (the first priority, so they know ASAP whether or not they’ll have to launch a rescue mission). Here’s a description of the process.
[Afternoon update]
So they found a few dings, but it doesn’t look like anything serious.
[Bumped again]
Another successful Jupiter 130 prototype launch.
Now, they just need to get rid of that wacky winged thing on the side.
If the Endeavour is in fact needed to go get the Atlantis crew, and Endeavour is also damaged, what next? Is the payload bay of Endeavour empty, and could they load extra fuel on it as a result so that they could rescue Atlantis’ crew and then make it to the ISS?
As far as I can tell, if Endeavour is also seriously damaged, then everybody dies. (I assume they’d all pile into the less-damaged of the two vehicles and try to land anyhow. Better to burn up than to asphyxiate.)
Is the payload bay of Endeavour empty, and could they load extra fuel on it as a result so that they could rescue Atlantis’ crew and then make it to the ISS?
No, you couldn’t carry enough propellan in the cargo bay to change the orbital plane enough to reach the ISS from the HST. It simply doesn’t have the capacity even if you did have the time to build the special tanks to carry the hypergolic propellants for the OMS. Don’t even think about carrying H2/O2 for the SSMEs. Back in the 1980s, the astronauts strongly objected to a shuttle version of the Centaur upper stage because they considered it too dangerous to carry cyrogenic propellants inside the orbiters.
Don’t even think about carrying H2/O2 for the SSMEs. Back in the 1980s, the astronauts strongly objected to a shuttle version of the Centaur upper stage because they considered it too dangerous to carry cyrogenic propellants inside the orbiters.
Not to mention the fact that there would be no way to hook up the propellant lines to them, and no way to start them without the GSE at the Cape. They’re not even qualified for air start, let alone vacuum.
The scenario described would be the end of the Shuttle program, but it’s unlikely in the extreme. I assume that one of the things they’ll do during repair EVAs is take a look at the underside of the orbiter? Though I’m not sure how. It would be risky, but they could hold on to the Hubble, ungrapple, and have the vehicle do a slow roll, then reattach to retrieve the astronauts.
They probably have the SAFER systems which would give them the ability to maneuver to the underside of the orbiter. Though I’m not certain how proficient a astronaut would be without something more rigid to stabilize himself with — equal and opposite reactions and all that.
It was my first launch viewing (and I’ve been working with Hubble for 19 years). Got to watch from the banana river causeway – fantastic viewing experience. Took the wife and two daughters and they all loved it.
Hope all goes well and the mission is a success – then we push for SM5 (;-)!!!
There’s an extension boom that can be attached to the arm to allow views of all portions of the orbiter. The backflip next to ISS is just an easier and faster way to do that inspection, but they’ll use the boom on this mission.
NASA PAO types don’t seem to believe in permalinks, but look at http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/main/index.html and scroll as needed.
Late inspection of the critical areas will take place on flight day 9.
If you download the media pdf file, there’s a wealth of information on all aspects of the mission.
Late inspection of the critical areas will take place on flight day 9.
That makes sense — they’d want to be sure they hadn’t gotten dinged by debris during the mission before they enter.
I hope the following is not off topic. If it is, please delete.
The mission to Hubble, for me, brings two things to mind; the wondrous past exploits in space-servicing using the shuttle (such as the initial hubble repair) and several other missions. The second thing is that this is the LAST of those missions. Therein lies my concern.
What are the chances that the Orion/Constellation program vehicles can perform the same tasks, let alone improve upon them? I’m not knowledgeable in this area, but though I’ve searched, I can find little to nothing regarding the Orion/MEV having this ability. (and right off the top of my head, it utterly lacks any analog to the RMS system).
This brings me to a question I keep coming up against, as I contemplate the close of the shuttle era; why?
The Orion/Constellation program can supposedly (if they ever got it flying) go to the moon. Via “The Stick” alone it can provide transportation to the Space Station. The rationale I’ve seen used is that for station launches the Shuttle is expensive. That’s certainly so. However, what will the cost of “the Stick” be, when one counts development costs? Also, “the Stick” has no cargo bay, so it cannot be used for orbital assembly in the way the Shuttle is.
To me, this new program looks like a giant leap… backwards.
If the Moon is the goal, Shuttle-C would have sufficed. So too might shuttle cargo bays for a more modular design.
The problem, I was told, was that the Shuttle Fleet is aging and unsafe, as well as expensive.
Couldn’t this issue be better addressed via new Shuttle Orbiters? Surely, with today’s technology and materials, we could do as well or better than the original, perhaps saving a couple of thousand pounds, enough to allow a real fix for the foam problem (perhaps mesh-reenforcement in critical regions, or a different form of insulation in those areas). I would also hope that, given the lessons learned from the original program, we could reduce the very costly between-flight servicing needs. At least, design the airframe access points to allow easier access, thus reducing costly manhours.
I look up, at the Shuttle on its final mission to Hubble, and I can only wonder; why is it the last of its kind, and what has befallen us, that the best we can do in the future is so manifestly inferior to what we now have?
CJ
I saw the launch from Banana Creek. It was wicked hot but the launch was beautiful. Now, it’s off to Goddard Space Flight Center for shift work as the EVAs occur. Yaay to the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph, going in on Saturday!
“What are the chances that the Orion/Constellation program vehicles can perform the same tasks, let alone improve upon them?”
The phrase “Servicing MIssion 5” is already being bandied about at Goddard. The docking ring being installed on HST during this mission will mate with Orion.
“The docking ring being installed on HST during this mission will mate with Orion.”
Interesting.
My guess would be that, no, servicing Hubble with Orion wouldn’t be possible. Aren’t the margins already so tight that even just adding the manipulator arm is questionable? Oh well, I guess there are a few more redundant safety systems to eliminate somewhere.
The vehicle was inspected with the OBSS boom (take my word for it). This is not normally done, because it is a very lengthy process compared to the r-bar maneuver. There will also be a late inspection as mentioned earlier.
Building and launching a series of non-serviceable space telescopes will be only a small fraction of the cost of Ares-1. And by giving up servicing, you can put the telescope in high orbit where it can see without obstruction and where the operating environment is (in many ways) more benign (thermal stability, easier thermal shielding for cooled telescopes, constant solar power, negligible tidal torque and atomic oxygen exposure.) Communication is easier too. You don’t have to prematurely deorbit the thing if there’s a risk it will become uncontrollable.
Space telescopes these days are mostly being placed far above LEO. Herschel, for example, is about to be launched out to such a position.
A launcher much cheaper than Ares-1 (or the Shuttle) could make LEO servicing more practical.
Very successful EVA day one. The guys had a problem loosening one of the bolts holding in Wide Field #2, but finally got it loose. Wide Field #3 installation worked great.
SIC&DH installation went very smoothly.
Soft Capture Mechanism went every bit as well as we expected it to.
Great first day!!!