The last of the Shuttle Launches.....

[TurboJake]

Thought I'd bump this one up
The irony kills me.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2391789,00.asp

[matias88e30]

I missed it. :( It'll be on youtube... I have seen one in person from about 75 miles north. Got some great shots of it too.

Beautifull pics man! thanks for sharing it.

[4bangerfury]

I figure I'll attempt to contribute something. It's the closest I've ever gotten for a launch, thanks to a friend with an internship at SpaceX. I wish I had an actual camera with an actual zoom and tripod, but the cell phone was better than nothing.

[E-Thirty]

Disconcerting.


Anyone see the picture taken from the space station of the landing?


[ATTACH]44564[/ATTACH]

Disconcerting truth. :p

[MC Hammered]

Thanks for the pics George and after seeing them I feel sad that I never got a chance to go see a shuttle launch in person.

I guess after growing up with the NASA space program going on and a kid I just took it for granted that it would be there for a long, long time. I still remember being awestruck by some of the cool things that they do over there.

Maybe I will hit a small jackpot sometime in the future and buy a ticket on one of the Virgin shuttles to get a glimpse of what those astronauts saw with my own eyes.

[blefevre]

^^^That's a good point. I wonder where all that now unused stuff is going?

Also, is there a replacement for the current shuttle, or do they no longer have funding?

Edit:

http://jalopnik.com/5805152/this-is-...-space-shuttle

The program is "on hold" would be the best way to describe it. The Orion program was taken out of the budget this year. So technically it doesn't have direct funding so it is slowly being scrapped. However, the main issue is with the rocket technology. In short, NASA decided to try to build their own rocket instead of using current, proven, designs. They went way over budget and didn't get very far. Recently, ULA and NASA agreed to share engineering details on the ULA Atlas V rocket, which can be adapted to use a capsule already. Orion is designed to replace the shuttle, go to the moon, and mars. It is still being worked on even though the funding is "gone". The future of the program is unknown right now.

[frankenbeemer]

1. Never stated that. :p
2. The in-flight abort modes for the previous spacecrafts were a joke.
3. Since when has government program budgeting ever gone under?
4. We're already bored of that damn thing(ISS) and capsules are simply unimpressive chore material... We want deep space travel!

Disconcerting.


Anyone see the picture taken from the space station of the landing?

[E-Thirty]

1.The shuttle was never designed for deep space.
2. No viable abort mode for the shuttle, unlike Mercury, Gemini, Apollo.
3. Originally envisioned costs of $118 per pound of payload in 1972 dollars ($1,400/kg, adjusting for inflation to 2011, actual cost about $60,000/kg. Expendable launcher cost about $5000/kg
4. As the Russians demonstrated, capsules and unmanned supply rockets are sufficient to supply a space station.

I'll agree with the overused relic part. The shuttle technology is impressive, just not the right tool for the job it was given, which was not exactly the job it was designed for. It reminds me of this technology:

[ATTACH]44547[/ATTACH]

1. Never stated that. :p
2. The in-flight abort modes for the previous spacecrafts were a joke.
3. Since when has government program budgeting ever gone under?
4. We're already bored of that damn thing(ISS) and capsules are simply unimpressive chore material... We want deep space travel!

[z31maniac]

Thanks for the great post GG, some mind-blowing pics.

[george graves]

^I'm glad there is so many space enthusiasts on this forum.

I'm watching the landing now.

Anyone else a Space Camp alumni?

[frankenbeemer]

^ Too risky? Never approached its cost and reliability goals? I think it did more than just that... In fact, it was an over-used relic and it did much more than we could ask for.

Expendable launchers are never going to be as impressive and will always be looked at as a half assed/trial approach in the long run... Come on, we want something like the shuttle with the ability to travel through deep space and back as if it were a chore...

1.The shuttle was never designed for deep space.
2. No viable abort mode for the shuttle, unlike Mercury, Gemini, Apollo.
3. Originally envisioned costs of $118 per pound of payload in 1972 dollars ($1,400/kg, adjusting for inflation to 2011, actual cost about $60,000/kg. Expendable launcher cost about $5000/kg
4. As the Russians demonstrated, capsules and unmanned supply rockets are sufficient to supply a space station.

I'll agree with the overused relic part. The shuttle technology is impressive, just not the right tool for the job it was given, which was not exactly the job it was designed for. It reminds me of this technology:

[E-Thirty]

^ Too risky? Never approached its cost and reliability goals? I think it did more than just that... In fact, it was an over-used relic and it did much more than we could ask for.

Expendable launchers are never going to be as impressive and will always be looked at as a half assed/trial approach in the long run... Come on, we want something like the shuttle with the ability to travel through deep space and back as if it were a chore...

[frankenbeemer]

Great pictures! I saw one launch when I was competing in the Florida Invitational Pistol Tournament in 1996. It was an inspiring sight.

Unfortunately, the shuttle was too expensive and too risky. As much as I admired the idea, it never approached its cost and reliability goals. Perhaps you could look at it as "nothing ventured, nothing gained", but I wonder how much more could have been achieved at less cost using expendable launchers?

[tjts1]

Meanwhile, in Soviet Russia...

[cale]

I picked up that exact same technic's model when I was at Lego Land in denmark! I remember pretending to be sick just so I could stay home and build it as soon as I had the chance.