STS-124 Discovery

cIclops · 2008-05-04 03:40:37

Crew portrait - imaged 25 Sep 2007

From the left are astronauts Gregory E. Chamitoff, Michael E. Fossum, both STS-124 mission specialists; Kenneth T. Ham, pilot; Mark E. Kelly, commander; Karen L. Nyberg, Ronald J. Garan and Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency's (JAXA) Akihiko Hoshide, all mission specialists. Chamitoff is scheduled to join Expedition 17 as flight engineer after launching to the International Space Station

Mission homepage

SpaceNut · 2008-05-04 08:12:38

I am always surprised by how early Nasa wheels the shuttle out for launch as compared to when it goes up. Is there a huge amount of work to getting it ready that can not be preformed inside?

cIclops · 2008-05-04 09:59:43

Just a guess: because the VAB only has two bays that can hold Shuttles. As soon as a Shuttle is ready, it's moved to the pad to make space for the next one in the flow. Weeks of checkout and payload installation work are done on the pad.

cIclops · 2008-05-07 03:45:37

Preparing the Kibo pressurized module inside the Space Station Processing Facility at KSC - Apr 2008

Mission summary (PDF)

Mission overview briefing - videos 51 + 26 mins - 1 May 2008

Crew news conference - video 36 mins - 1 May 2008

SpaceNut · 2008-05-07 06:05:30

That is a great looking crew and KIBO module that will soon visit the station.

It is the future that some are concerned about, particularly the shuttle and Glenn wants shuttles' lives extended as you can call it plan B if the COT's program does not succeed.

Plus speaking of plan B for all the KSC plus other locations that service the shuttle.
Critical Features of Plan B

nw.shuttle.c.jpg

Shuttle C
There have been many variations of Shuttle Cargo (C) designs over the years so a clarification is necessary. The lowest cost, fastest schedule system for a Shuttle C is the version shown in the image here of the version that basically is a Shuttle with the wings and crew compartment removed. A Shuttle C with this capability could loft about 45 metric tons to ISS and as much as 52 metric tons to a 28.5 degree orbit.

How much work would it take to make use of the RS-68 upgraded engine plus the Capsule to make this variant with no long straw on the pole in the J-2 ....

cIclops · 2008-05-07 06:49:05

Now we are getting OT

Keeping the Shuttle flying past 2010 will cost billions a year and add to the significant risk of losing another crew. That money would be far better spent accelerating Ares/Orion and if there's a some left over starting more COTS projects.

A 50 MT Shuttle C is too small and too expensive for Lunar or Mars cargo missions, and a human rated version will be too risky and wasteful. Changing the main engine to a RS-68 makes it closer to Ares V, so why not just build Ares V and get all the advantages of synergy with Ares I and the enormous extra capability? This has all been looked at for years and years, it would be nuts to start over yet again. Ares is a good solution, let's get it fully funded and press on!

Imaged 3 May 2008

At NASA's Kennedy Space Center, access arms from the fixed service structure at Launch Pad 39A are extended toward space shuttle Discovery, secured atop the mobile launch platform below, as final prelaunch processing for the STS-124 mission gets under way at the pad.

Back on topic

RedStreak · 2008-05-07 14:10:25

That money would be far better spent accelerating Ares/Orion and if there's a some left over starting more COTS projects.
A 50 MT Shuttle C is too small and too expensive for Lunar or Mars cargo missions, and a human rated version will be too risky and wasteful. Changing the main engine to a RS-68 makes it closer to Ares V, so why not just build Ares V and get all the advantages of synergy with Ares I and the enormous extra capability?

I have to agree there.

Shuttle C was a good idea...about 15 years ago. It was ok when we were considering making better use of the system but alone it can barely manage doing a lunar mission.

Ares is the better route, otherwise shuttle C is a bittersweet compromise at best. We may as well maximize what we got if we're going to abandon the orbiter element.

SpaceNut · 2008-05-07 20:19:45

Ya I was a bit off track for what the mission will achieve for the purpose of finishing the station.

So what will the mission accomplish besides eating up a huge amount of the yearly budget for the launch?

I am on dialup so pulling in the document does take some time and the videos are close to impossible as most times my speed is not the max for the modems capability of a lossy 56kbps.

Will post later once I can read the Mission summary.

SpaceNut · 2008-05-07 20:39:50

Broad strokes for this mission that Discovery's 13-day flight which is carrying the Kibo payload to the station and will
include three spacewalks of each lasting approximately 6.5 hours.

The experiments once Kibo is functional will focus on space medicine, biology, Earth observations, material production, biotechnology and communications research.

cIclops · 2008-05-08 02:01:27

Yep. Kibo is the main mission. Greg Chamitoff is also being taken to ISS to replace Garrett Reisman. During the space walks a NTA will be replaced and tests will be done on SARJ cleaning techniques.

EVA Overview - 1 May 2008 - video 39 mins - detailed description of each spacewalk with great animations.

cIclops · 2008-05-12 11:20:16

(05/10/2008) --- CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. -- Workers in the payload changeout room on Launch Pad 39A at NASA's Kennedy Space Center check space shuttle Discovery's payload bay doors as they close around the Japanese Experiment Module—Pressurized Module

cIclops · 2008-05-19 15:16:03

'Go' for Space Shuttle Launch on May 31 - 19 May 2008

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. -- NASA senior managers completed a review Monday of space shuttle Discovery's readiness for flight and selected May 31 as the official launch date for the STS-124 mission. Commander Mark Kelly and his six crewmates are scheduled to lift off to the International Space Station at 5:02 p.m. EDT.

STS-124 Post-Flight Readiness Review News Conference - 19 May 2008 - video - 29 mins

... and questions about Soyuz investigation, STS-125, Ares I-X

Commodore · 2008-05-22 13:23:59

With all the wild fires going on down there, what are the odd of the smoke disrupting the launch?

cIclops · 2008-05-23 15:36:48

Crew on Track for May 31 Liftoff - 22 May 2008

With less than a week remaining until the start of the STS-124 launch countdown, space shuttle Discovery is in place at NASA Kennedy Space Center's Launch Pad 39A. Final preparations are on schedule for liftoff May 31 at 5:02 p.m. EDT. The countdown begins May 28 at 3 p.m., counting from the T-43 hour mark.
"Preparations are going really well," Shuttle Launch Director Mike Leinbach said at a May 19 news conference. He pointed out that Discovery's remarkably smooth processing flow will allow shuttle work crews to take off the Memorial Day holiday. "Right now we're in great shape, and we really expect to have a good three or four days off this weekend and come back and launch."
Discovery's 14-day flight will carry the largest payload so far to the station and includes three spacewalks. It is the second of three missions that will launch components to complete the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency's Kibo laboratory. The crew will install Kibo's large Japanese Pressurized Module and Kibo's robotic arm system. Discovery also will deliver new station crew member Greg Chamitoff and bring back Flight Engineer Garrett Reisman, who will end a three-month stay aboard the outpost.

Press Kit (PDF 7MB) - all the details

cIclops · 2008-05-28 09:50:44

Hope takes flight - 28 May 2008 - video 10 mins

Smooth documentary style production about the mission.

L-3 Countdown Status Briefing - 28 May 2008 - video 19 mins

In depth questions about the the broken ISS toilet, the media really liked getting into this subject. Replacement parts are being hand carried in a diplomatic pouch from Russia for launch as last minute cargo.

"Having a working toilet is a priority for us"

RobertDyck · 2008-05-28 15:36:47

Actually, I think Orion is a very bad vehicle. It can't reach Mars, can't be modified or updated to reach Mars, and isn't reusable for LEO. There are claims the capsule can be reused, but I'm highly sceptical. At best it's reuse would be similar to SRBs; recovery, cleaning, and refuelling cost 90% the price of new ones.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, we expected NASA to have 2 space vehicles: a reusable space shuttle, and an expendable spacecraft for planetary exploration. The shuttle was supposed to augment Apollo, not replace it. Furthermore, both Saturn V and Saturn 1B were needed for heavy lift. The space station was going to be 2 new Skylab modules, each launched on a Saturn 1B. Yup, a Saturn 1. The Skylab workshop was designed as a self-launching space station, the upper stage is the space station. Living space was the LH2 tank, garbage dumpster and septic tank was the LOX tank. In the self-launch configuration, the Saturn 1B did not have enough lift capacity for the multiple docking adapter, Apollo telescope mount, or even the airlock. Each was to be carried on a separate launch with an Apollo CSM, the airlock would launch instead of a lunar module. This would have meant 4 launches of Saturn 1B rockets to fully complete the US contribution to the international space station: 2 unmanned launches, each with an Apollo workshop, and 2 manned, each with an Apollo CSM and one smaller module. Total construction time: 6 months. The shuttle was supposed to be a fully reusable Two Stage To Orbit; lift capacity 11 tonnes to the station in its current orbit, instead of the current shuttle that can lift 16 tonnes. The shuttle orbiter would be a lifting body, so it's glide path wouldn't be long enough to safely fly polar orbits, but plenty for any mission that the shuttle has flown in its lift. Lifting body is smaller and lighter than a fuselage and delta wing. The booster was to be a pilotted flyback booster; no heat shield but with a cockpit. That one was to have a fuselage and delta wing.

I still think NASA would be better off with the original design. If done today, I would recommend a smaller shuttle, 4 astronauts and no cargo bay at all, but one or more of the seats could be replaced with a duffle bag for some cargo. Or at most, a small orbiter with just a 2-seat cockpit and small cargo bay, say 8 tonne capacity like the Russian MAKS. I don't like the MAKS because it still has an expendable external tank. A truely cost effective vehicle is fully reusable.

Of course any replacement would mean the Michoud facility would shut down. And the Stennis space center. All the centres for Shuttle will be used for Ares V. I would argue Ares V looks like a good launch vehicle, but realize that means we wouldn't save any money. The vast majority of costs from the shuttle are fixed overhead, the space centers. To cut costs you have to cut jobs. If you retain the jobs, you retain the expense; those expenses are salaries.

Of course it means we should be able to retain shuttle operations AND develop Ares V at the same time. Really, how much more engineering does the ET need to continue to operate the shuttle? Why can't those engineers redesign the ET to become an Ares V core stage while technicians build ETs with the current design for the shuttle? Michoud was designed to build 50 ETs per year, for a sustained shuttle launch rate of 50 per year, not 6. So why can't we build 4 ETs for the shuttle per year plus prototype core stages for Ares V at the same time? That still would be fewer than 50 per year, below the capacity of the facility. ATK Thiokol had casting pits to refuel 100 SRBs per year, again for 50 launches per year. They should have no trouble refurbishing and refuelling SRBs for the shuttle while at the same time manufacturing Ares I rockets.

Although I would prefer to have Ares V launch vehicle AND a Mars Direct spacecraft AND a tiny TSTO shuttle for the station all at the same time, operating the current shuttle while developing Ares launch vehicles is both feasible and practical.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2008-05-04 03:40:37

Re: STS-124 Discovery

#2 2008-05-04 08:12:38

Re: STS-124 Discovery

#3 2008-05-04 09:59:43

Re: STS-124 Discovery

#4 2008-05-07 03:45:37

Re: STS-124 Discovery

#5 2008-05-07 06:05:30

Re: STS-124 Discovery

#6 2008-05-07 06:49:05

Re: STS-124 Discovery

#7 2008-05-07 14:10:25

Re: STS-124 Discovery

#8 2008-05-07 20:19:45

Re: STS-124 Discovery

#9 2008-05-07 20:39:50

Re: STS-124 Discovery

#10 2008-05-08 02:01:27

Re: STS-124 Discovery

#11 2008-05-12 11:20:16

Re: STS-124 Discovery

#12 2008-05-19 15:16:03

Re: STS-124 Discovery

#13 2008-05-22 13:23:59

Re: STS-124 Discovery

#14 2008-05-23 15:36:48

Re: STS-124 Discovery

#15 2008-05-28 09:50:44

Re: STS-124 Discovery

#16 2008-05-28 15:36:47

Re: STS-124 Discovery

Board footer