Shuttle Discovery

[n0jaa]

NASA is reporting that Kennedy is marginal for a landing there today, as cloud cover and significant wind is making things difficult for a landing attempt.

NASA is looking at Edwards, which has also been marginal, but the front has moved through there faster than expected. #White Sands was activated last night, but with the fast frontal movement, this might make White Sands unattainable. #Currently, landing forecasts still favor White Sands as the landing site, although Edwards is still in the mix. #Kennedy will probably be a no-go today, with sustained winds out of the southeast around 20 knots and gusts up to 25.

If the shuttle does land at White Sands Space Harbor (Northrup Strip) today, it will be the first landing of a space shuttle there in 24 years. #The only shuttle that has landed there (to date) was Columbia (STS-3) on March 10, 1982.

[WF7A]

As I'm looking out the window it's dead here at the airport, so they're welcome to land here; runway 5 is their best option--a straight-in approach will be fine.

KCOE (http://www.fltplan.com/AirportInformation/COE.htm)

[K1OU]

Maybe it will land on Uranus.





Sorry, I couldn't resist!!!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[K6UEY]

Why would you want it to land on Uranus?
Do you think Uranus is big enough ?? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[WF7A]

Ahhhhhh, a humoroid!

[n0jaa]

The first landing attempt at Kennedy Space Center has been waived off due to high cross winds. #NASA controllers are now looking at a landing at Edwards Air Force Base. #Winds are still significant there, although they have decreased somewhat within the last hour.

If a landing at Edwards is executed, de-orbit burn will commence at 3:19 PM Central, with touchdown at 4:27 PM Central.

[n0jaa]

The landing attempt at Edwards has been waived off due to winds becoming unfavorable. NASA is now looking at the second landing opportunity at Kennedy. White Sands has not yet been ruled out completely and may become the alternate if Kennedy again becomes unattainable.

If the second landing opportunity at Kennedy Space Center is selected, de-orbit burn would occur at 3:26 PM Central, with touchdown at 4:32 PM Central.

[n0jaa]

NASA has given Discovery a "go" for de-orbit burn in preparation for landing at the Kennedy Space Center's runway 15. Weather approaching the area is apparently not a significant concern for landing. De-orbit burn will commence at 3:26 PM Central Standard Time.

[n0jaa]

Discovery has made a successful landing at Kennedy Space Center at 5:32 PM Eastern Time, completing a journey or approximately 5.3 million miles.

[WF7A]

I wonder what their gas mileage was? (I bet they cheated by coasting a lot.)

[W2LYS]

At about 4:20 pm, I heard a low thump... someone popped on a local repeater and said it was a sonic boom from the shuttle.

The shuttle is now home safely.

[WB2WIK]

Crap, I always hope for a landing at Edwards.

When the Shuttle lands at Edwards, we can often see it, and at the very least we can always hear it: Two loud bangs, about half second apart. Not sure why "two."

They landed at Edwards only last year, if I recall correctly, and boy, did we hear it. Edwards is nearly 100 miles from here, doesn't seem to matter much...they must drop down to Mach 1 or so right overhead someplace before touching down.

WB2WIK/6

[ai4ep]

It would be great IF they could take off from the same 757 they use for transport across the USA when they do have to land elsewhere.................just take off, unlatch from the airliner, airliner takes a deep dive or turn to left or right, fire up the shuttle engines and keep on climbing up to orbit.

or is that too simple ? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[W0LPQ]

Try a 747, the 757 would not hold it.

Highly modified 747 at that.

Bill, W0LPQ/9

[KA9VQF]

Quote[/b] (ai4ep @ Dec. 22 2006,20:57)]It would be great IF they could take off from the same 757 they use for transport across the USA when they do have to land elsewhere.................just take off, unlatch from the airliner, airliner takes a deep dive or turn to left or right, fire up the shuttle engines and keep on climbing up to orbit.

or is that too simple ? # # # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Robert,
Our current technology prevents us from building vehicles capable of such takeoffs.

It takes lots of thrust to create the velocity required to be able to break out of the earth gravity well.

You couldn’t carry enough fuel for a burn long enough to create enough energy to reach escape velocity.

The only hope is that one day some different type of propellant will be developed. One that is light enough that a small ship could carry enough to be able to break the inexorable grip of gravity.

[KI4PEQ]

Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ Dec. 22 2006,18:55)]Crap, I always hope for a landing at Edwards.

When the Shuttle lands at Edwards, we can often see it, and at the very least we can always hear it: Two loud bangs, about half second apart. #Not sure why "two."

They landed at Edwards only last year, if I recall correctly, and boy, did we hear it. #Edwards is nearly 100 miles from here, doesn't seem to matter much...they must drop down to Mach 1 or so right overhead someplace before touching down.

WB2WIK/6
Reason for the double sonic boom:

The first is the boom from the shuttle's wings.
The second is the boom from the shuttle's vertical stabilizer.

At least that's how a Kennedy Space Center PAO explained it to me.

[KI4PEQ]

Quote[/b] (W0LPQ @ Dec. 22 2006,21:21)]Try a 747, the 757 would not hold it.

Highly modified 747 at that.

Bill, W0LPQ/9
Here's a picture:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/72/Atlantis_on_Shuttle_Carrier_Aircraft_3.jpg/250px-Atlantis_on_Shuttle_Carrier_Aircraft_3.jpg

[wa4brl]

Quote[/b] (ai4ep @ Dec. 22 2006,21:57)]It would be great IF they could take off from the same 757 they use for transport across the USA when they do have to land elsewhere.................just take off, unlatch from the airliner, airliner takes a deep dive or turn to left or right, fire up the shuttle engines and keep on climbing up to orbit.

or is that too simple ? # # # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
That general scenario was the original concept for the shuttle, until Nixon administration budget-cuts forced a lower technology answer (solid rocket boosters). #The idea was for the shuttle to take off from a runway piggybacked upon a manned first-stage booster platform. #If I recall correctly, that booster craft would use turbojets from take-off to 60,000 feet and mach 2 or 3, then switch to scramjets (supersonic-combustion-ramjets) for further climb and accelelration to mach 6 or 8. #When the craft reached the limit of air-breathing capability, the two would separate, with the shuttle climbing to orbit on rocket power, and the booster flying back to its base. #Efficiency would be gained through the booster needing to carry only it's fuel supply (no oxidizer) thanks to its air-breathing engines.

Remember, the current shuttle can't fly (or climb, anyway) from the 747 because it requires tremendous quantities of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen to feed its three high-tech main engines. #That's why it stays attached to that huge external tank for much of the ride even after the solid rocket boosters separate. #Short of reaching orbit, the shuttle burns off the last of the fuel from the external tank. #It jettisons the tank to rid itself of that deadweight and completes its climb to orbit using the smaller orbital maneuvering engines and onboard fuel and oxidizer. #The external tank falls back to earth and crashes into the indian ocean.

Still, Nixon unwittingly made the right decision vis-a-vis the shuttle program. #in the 35 years since, NASA still has not been able to fully develop the scramjets or advanced heat-tolerant materials necessary to make that original concept possible.

Sure wish Nixon hadn't cancelled Apollos 18, 19, and 20, though. #That decision really sucked the big one.

[edited for more clarity (I hope)] WA4BRL

[W0LPQ]

PEQ I know what it looks like ... been on it.

Bill, W0LPQ

[KC9ECI]

Quote[/b] (W0LPQ @ Dec. 23 2006,08:36)]PEQ I know what it looks like ... been on it.

Bill, W0LPQ
I haven't.

I have been on SST-001 though.

On the ground.

At a museum.

[N5BO]

Shuttle woke me from my nap with it's loud booms http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (KC9ECI @ Dec. 23 2006,08:40)]Quote[/b] (W0LPQ @ Dec. 23 2006,08:36)]PEQ I know what it looks like ... been on it.

Bill, W0LPQ
I haven't.

I have been on SST-001 though.

On the ground.

At a museum.
Wow, I've only been on the concorde. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[W0LPQ]

ECI probably has to do with my 30+ years at Rockwell Collins, working Avionics Field Service and working on a glitch with the HF.

MH been under the wing of the Concorde, but not inside. Smaller cabin than most commercial airlines.

Bill, W0LPQ/9

[KC9ECI]

That is the Concorde. It's at the Imperial War Museum, Duxford, Cambridgeshire

[ka5piu]

Hello.

The reason for scrapping some apollo missions has to do with safety and internal reviews.
China is working on a skipjet that will launch a shuttle.
So far, China has had sucess in launching a large ball shaped object into space from a rocket sleigh that goes over a mountain.
The cold war was not all that bad, we got the space program in part due to this.

[KC9ECI]

BTW, that should have been SST-101, not 001. Senior moment.

[n0jaa]

If NASA could perfect some sort of "maglev" launching system, I think that would go a long way to solving the problem of launching a vehicle.

[VE1IDX]

Doesn't the shuttle have a pair of chase jets on runway approach? I heard one time the double sonic boom was caused by the shuttle making one and the chase jets making the second.Since the two fighter jets were equal distance away they appeared to make just one boom between the two of them. I dunno. Maybe I was misinformed. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[KA9VQF]

I remember reading an article about using a U shaped tunnel cut in a mountain where the space vehicle was positioned near the top of the mountain then accelerated by magnetic rings inside the tunnel.

It sounded feasible at the time just to expensive to cut the tunnel and impractical since the magnetic ring technology didn’t exist.

They use the same sort of thing to accelerate partials in liner accelerators. Liner accelerators are huge and only work with rather small things like single atoms from what I understand about them.

I’ve always wondered how you get a single atom going in there though.