Almost 32 years ago.

[Perkil8r]

Just been on the NASA website as I often do and was looking at the calendar for April. April 12th will be the 32nd anniversary of the first Space Shuttle Mission STS-1, incredible to think it was that long ago! I remember watching the first launch and the first landing as a child of 7years (yes I really must be that old). It really was a remarkable craft that long exceeded it's original mission expectations.

 

I was lucky enough to see Endeavour up close on a tour of the Kennedy Space Centre in 2011. What struck me was how small it was. On the TV they looked huge, but in reality they are so much smaller than you would imagine. To think of what was achieved with the craft is also mind blowing. Amongst other things, taking the vast majority of parts into orbit to build ISS, it took Hubble up, and of course we must not forget it went back to retrieve and repair Hubble in orbit.

 

Of course it has also been marred with tragedy too with the loss of Challenger and Columbia. It remains a massive part of mankind's journey beyond the binds of our tiny blue planet, you have to wonder if there will be another craft which will make such a huge leap forward? The fact it was re-usable I think is one of the single most remarkable things though, and something that will undoubtedly be something most people would expect from the next generation of craft I imagine?

 

Technical Data for Endeavour:

 

• Length: 122.17 ft (37.237 m)
  
• Wingspan: 78.06 ft (23.79 m)
  
• Height: 56.58 ft (17.25 m)
  
• Empty weight: 172,000 lb (78,000 kg)
  
• Gross liftoff weight (Orbiter only): 240,000 lb (110,000 kg)
  
• Maximum landing weight: 230,000 lb (100,000 kg)
  
• Payload to Landing (Return Payload): 32,000 lb (14,400 kg)
  
• Maximum payload: 55,250 lb (25,060 kg)
  
• Payload to LEO: 53,600 lb (24,310 kg)
  
• Payload to LEO @ 51.6° inclination (ISS):
  
• Payload to GTO: 8,390 lb (3,806 kg)
  
• Payload to Polar Orbit: 28,000 lb (12,700 kg)
  
• (Note launch payloads modified by External Tank (ET) choice (ET, LWT, or SLWT)
  
• Payload bay dimensions: 15 by 59 ft (4.6 by 18 m)
  
• Operational altitude: 100 to 520 nmi (190 to 960 km; 120 to 600 mi)
  
• Speed: 7,743 m/s (27,870 km/h; 17,320 mph)
  
• Crossrange: 1,085 nmi (2,009 km; 1,249 mi)
  
• First Stage (SSME with external tank)
  
  • Main engines: Three Rocketdyne Block II SSMEs, each with a sea level thrust of 393,800 lbf (1.752 MN) at 104% power
    
  • Thrust (at liftoff, sea level, 104% power, all 3 engines): 1,181,400 lbf (5.255 MN)
    
  • Specific impulse: 455 s
    
  • Burn time: 480 s
    
  • Fuel: Liquid Oxygen/Liquid Hydrogen
    
  
  
• Second Stage
  
  • Engines: 2 Orbital Maneuvering Engines
    
  • Thrust: 53.4 kN (12,000 lbf) combined total vacuum thrust
    
  • Specific impulse: 316 s
    
  • Burn time: 1250 s
    
  • Fuel: MMH/N2O4
    
  
  

 

In 134 flights the 5 Orbiters traveled a combined distance of 537,114,016 miles which equates to 20,952 Earth orbits. Spent a total of 1,320 days, 1 hour, 32 minutes, 44 seconds outside of Earth's atmosphere and was crewed by a total of 848 people (355 individuals).

 

There were 6 orbiters built: Columbia, Challenger, Endeavour, Atlantis, Discovery and Enterprise, although Enterprise never made it to orbit.

 

Enterprise was the first space shuttle, although it never flew in space. It was used to test critical phases of landing and other aspects of shuttle preparations. Enterprise was mounted on top of a modified 747 airliner for the Approach and Landing Tests in 1977. It was released over the vast dry lakebed at Edwards Air Force Base in California to prove it could glide and land safely.

 

 

Endeavour inside the VAB at the Kennedy Space Centre in Dec 2011 being stripped out ready to go on display at the California Science Centre in Los Angeles.

 

I just thought I would share my rambling thoughts on what must be one of mankind's most incredible vehicles.

 

(Interestingly Endeavour is named so after HMS Endeavour which took Cpt James Cook on his first voyage of discovery in 1768, hence the English spelling instead of Endeavor)

[T A WOW]

It is a nice looking bit of kit. I always struggle to understand why we just dont make more. With todays manufacturing methods it would be able to be made much much more efficiently/faster/cheaper. We know they work so you don't want even need to redesign them. You could do a refit on tbe the electronic system but I wouldn't have thought that would be to much hassle for nasa!

[+Graham]

It is a nice looking bit of kit. I always struggle to understand why we just dont make more. With todays manufacturing methods it would be able to be made much much more efficiently/faster/cheaper. We know they work so you don't want even need to redesign them. You could do a refit on tbe the electronic system but I wouldn't have thought that would be to much hassle for nasa!

 

Tobias.

They dont make them for the same reason why your car looks nothing like a 30 year old car -- it is old technology.

Everything on these is made to fit everything else.

Right down to the last nut, bolt,  gauge, switch was designed to fit in a specific space and to a specific weight.

Even the expectations and mission parameters have moved on.

It is far cheaper to redesign and build a new craft than try to modify the design of this old bus.

 

Mike you were seven on the first launch, that makes you a youngster compared to those of us who remember the space race from the beginning.   

First man in space, first moon landing.

What really amazes me is how far we went in such a short space of time and now it seems to have reached a brick wall.

I just wonder what we will achieve if anything in the next 30 years.

[andyboy1970]

I remember at Primary school (I was 11) everyone going down to the TV room to watch and the first attempted launch was cancelled.

I watched the actual first launch at home, I think it was the only one with a white external fuel tank.

 

Towards the end they were combing scrap yards for computer parts that were no longer made.

 

A lot of the switches etc. are military spec. and still used on aircraft. 

[Craig]

Cracking post Mike.

I loved the Shuttles, but it was time to retire them.

They would have constrained us to missions into Earth orbit whereas we need to be pushing the boundaries now, and that needs a new craft.

[Perkil8r]

It all comes down to cost. By the time they got towards the end they had skimmed the price to build the Orbiter to a mere $1.7bn from the first ones which cost circa $2.2bn each. A launch cost them around $450,000,000 which is considerably more than other methods. I forget the figures we were quoted by the tour guide at NASA, but when designed it was done so with the aim of launching for a cost of half a million dollars (I'm sure that was it, although I may be wrong) which is a massive difference to the actual cost of $450 million.

 

Also, now that the ISS is pretty much as big as they want (for now at least) there is little need for a low earth orbit craft. The shuttle was never designed to go further than 450miles away. It is far cheaper to allow commercial enterprise to undertake re-supply missions to ISS, and also to launch satellites. At the moment it is much cheaper too to effectively rent a ride aboard Soyuz than continue to repair and maintain the Orbiters and launch them. This is now leaving more budget for NASA's next projects. The next projects are to launch humans beyond low earth orbit, at the moment that requires the use of a module like that which was used in the Apollo missions due to the much higher re-entry speeds and therefore heat. There may come a day when another Orbiter type craft will become possible, but I rather suspect that will be a long way off since we don't need to continue with that type of craft for low orbit missions.

 

I think the next craft to look at all like the Orbiters will be commercial and most likely used for moving people around our planet by hopping out of the thin blue line and back in. It's not a huge leap of imagination to think that we may one day see day trips, or even short breaks in low earth orbit where one of these craft gets redesigned to enable civilians to do a few orbits of earth before dropping back into the atmosphere. This is still a far stretch from what we can currently do as there will need to be far more powerful engines that can be self contained and allow for non vertical take off, but I have no doubt that it will be possible one day.

[BAZ]

A great reminder of a great bit of kit. It's sort of emotional that they have ended up as museum exhibits, almost like they are in the old folks home now.

Ironically they are sending men and supplies to the ISS in a Soyuz, which is even older.

 

Thanks for sharing Mike.

[Perkil8r]

On the subject of cost etc I have found some thought provoking statistics whilst watching some Carl Segan shorts on YouTube. The worldwide Military budget is a staggering $2.1 Trillion per year, whilst space exploration worldwide only accounts for $38 Billion per year. That equates to just 1.8% of the budget we spend to "protect" ourselves from eachother is being spent on protecting the future of our species by looking beyond our own planet. If we reversed that for just one year, just think what we might achieve!

[Perkil8r]

Launch

 

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0OmJFFQp50

 

And Landing

 

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5fhcsQY_MU

Edited April 13, 2013 by Perkil8r

[+RonC]

Great thread Mike, same year as I left the Army!!

[Rusty Strings]

I remember watching the launch of STS1 at work after somebody had smuggled a portable TV in. Again, like Apollo, it seemed the dawn of a new space age - a proper space ship that could be re used, surely the idea would catch on.

[Big Al]

Not forgetting, of course, that STS1 itself flew on an anniversary. It was 20 years the day from Yuri Gagarins flight on Vostok 1. Seems strange (and a little sad) how much progress was made in those 20 years compared to the 32 years since...

[Tibbz2]

I was born in the wrong era

[Perkil8r]

Not forgetting, of course, that STS1 itself flew on an anniversary. It was 20 years the day from Yuri Gagarins flight on Vostok 1. Seems strange (and a little sad) how much progress was made in those 20 years compared to the 32 years since...

 

You say that, and in some respects I agree, but let us not forget the Mars landers, Hubble, ISS and numerous other missions which are sending back incredible pictures and data. I do agree that with regards to manned flight though we have stalled a little. The next decade looks to be a very important one though, with plans to land on an asteroid, commercial manned moon landings and possibly a manned mission to Mars.

[Doc]

The manned mission to Mars will be the big one, I imagine it will be like the moon landing all over again, it's going to grab the nations attention thats for sure.