-
#560
by
Retired Downrange
on 08 Jul, 2011 16:27
-
Thanks again to all involved.
The hold at 31 sec. was heart stopping.
Anybody know who the person was who had to announce that hold?
He certainly will remember this day even more than others!
Godspeed ATLANTIS.
-
#561
by
STS-134
on 08 Jul, 2011 16:28
-
Just wondering...why is it that they always aim to launch in the middle of the launch window? Given that issues like this can come up (and, for example, the range safety issue that almost caused another scrub of STS-133), why don't they aim to launch toward the beginning of the window, so that should an issue occur, they have more time to correct it before the window expires?
They used to, but now want to target maximum performance. Perhaps you could say that, for ISS missions, it's more important that the launch be spot-on than that it occurs on a particular day.
-Alex
But they'll still allow a launch up to about 5 minutes late, because they'd still have sufficient fuel to carry out the mission. So why not just allow a launch say, 4 minutes early? You either have enough fuel to reach the ISS and get back, or you don't. It's not like you can save the extra LOX/LH2 and OMS fuel for future missions.
-
#562
by
Chris Bergin
on 08 Jul, 2011 16:29
-
-
#563
by
rwesterik
on 08 Jul, 2011 16:30
-
Hats off to Nasaspaceflight, Chris Bergin and all the regulars for continued coverage of the greatest human space flight program in history. I am very, very sad the Shuttle program has come to an end. I hope we soon have something new and similar to look out to.
Thanks and kudos for todays' coverage and the past few years I have been a member to follow the SSP more closely.
-
#564
by
Naito
on 08 Jul, 2011 16:30
-
Just wondering...why is it that they always aim to launch in the middle of the launch window? Given that issues like this can come up (and, for example, the range safety issue that almost caused another scrub of STS-133), why don't they aim to launch toward the beginning of the window, so that should an issue occur, they have more time to correct it before the window expires?
They used to, but now want to target maximum performance. Perhaps you could say that, for ISS missions, it's more important that the launch be spot-on than that it occurs on a particular day.
-Alex
But they'll still allow a launch up to about 5 minutes late, because they'd still have sufficient fuel to carry out the mission. So why not just allow a launch say, 4 minutes early? You either have enough fuel to reach the ISS and get back, or you don't. It's not like you can save the extra LOX/LH2 and OMS fuel for future missions.
I'd guess that it means they'd have more margin for use in aborts by aiming for the middle.
-
#565
by
HelixSpiral
on 08 Jul, 2011 16:31
-
Thanks again to all involved.
The hold at 31 sec. was heart stopping.
Anybody know who the person was who had to announce that hold?
The GLS operator, who was Janine Pape(spelling?) today.
-
#566
by
steveS
on 08 Jul, 2011 16:32
-
Were there any notable foam liberation events during the ascent? Could not see much.
-
#567
by
Antares
on 08 Jul, 2011 16:32
-
I'd guess that it means they'd have more margin for use in aborts by aiming for the middle.
Not just for aborts, but for other underperformance as well. Like STS-93.
-
#568
by
Space Pete
on 08 Jul, 2011 16:34
-
Oh and look at that, this forum has bust its own record for the most people online, which was previously held by STS-133 on 24th February.
Most Online Ever: 3068 (Today at 16:11:49)
-
#569
by
psloss
on 08 Jul, 2011 16:36
-
Saw the head of MOD, Paul Hill going through the flight control room shaking the hands of the front room team.
-
#570
by
FinalFrontier
on 08 Jul, 2011 16:37
-
Any idea on whether they got that external tank entry video or not?
Also once again great work by Chris and the Site mods on coverage of the last liftoff bravo!!!
Also glad to see the site is at record numbers
-
#571
by
DaveS
on 08 Jul, 2011 16:38
-
Saw the head of MOD, Paul Hill going through the flight control room shaking the hands of the front room team.
Yes. Currently he's chatting with the Ascent GCs.
-
#572
by
STS-134
on 08 Jul, 2011 16:39
-
I'd guess that it means they'd have more margin for use in aborts by aiming for the middle.
Not just for aborts, but for other underperformance as well. Like STS-93.
Okay, THAT makes sense. Something like this also happened on STS-51-F, when an SSME cut out.
-
#573
by
psloss
on 08 Jul, 2011 16:44
-
Go for payload bay door opening.
-
#574
by
psloss
on 08 Jul, 2011 16:46
-
Heh -- Fergie asking how long until ESTL...nice explanation of that by Rob Navias.
-
#575
by
FinalFrontier
on 08 Jul, 2011 16:50
-
Exactly 5 minutes to late home from army service :-( and missed the launch... what was this thing flying away from external tank after seperation?
Just some ice from the LOX/LH2 QDs. Its totally normal and harmless.
-
#576
by
psloss
on 08 Jul, 2011 16:52
-
Looking like payload bay door opening would be right about the beginning of the ESTL pass...will be monitoring that here.
Also looks like the map has the orbiter and the Station data separated now.
-
#577
by
psloss
on 08 Jul, 2011 16:55
-
Any idea on whether they got that external tank entry video or not?
It will take a while to find out who was able to pick up / record any signal on the ground from the transmitter.
The re-entry was going to be on the night-side.
-
#578
by
SpaceAndrew25
on 08 Jul, 2011 16:55
-
-
#579
by
saturnapollo
on 08 Jul, 2011 16:56
-
I tell ya, I don't think my heart has gone that fast since Christmas Morning when I was 5 years old.
Yep, doesn't do the ol' heart much good, things like that
. It was nerve wracking!
Very sad though, knowing that this was the last. Forty three years of following the US space programme and it feels worse than after Apollo 17 somehow.
Ustream cut out for a few minutes duiring ascent unfortunately. Probably due to high numbers hitting it.
Keith
