Prepping for the shuttle finale

Posted: Thursday, October 15, 2009 6:15 PM by Alan Boyle

NASA

Astronaut Tim Kopra exercises in zero-G on the shuttle Discovery in September.

NASA astronaut Tim Kopra knows full well that the space shuttle may never fly after his next mission, currently scheduled for next September. But he also knows that in the space business, you can almost never say "never."

"I think we're all planning for this to be the last flight," he told me last week. "Of course, you never know until all the decisions are made."

NASA laid out its plans last month, just after Kopra wrapped up a two-month stay on the International Space Station. Those plans call for Kopra and four other astronauts who have had one round trip each on the space shuttle to go up for their second and final turn, under the leadership of veteran commander Steve Lindsey.

One of Kopra's future crewmates on the shuttle Discovery, Michael Barratt, came down from the station on Sunday. Another one, Nicole Stott, is just beginning her tour of duty in orbit.

"It's a great crew, and I'm very thankful to be on this mission," Kopra said.

For now, Discovery's STS-133 mission represents the space shuttle fleet's last delivery call before its retirement. Those plans could change, however, depending on what the Obama White House decides to do with America's space program.

One of the options on the table is to extend the fleet's operating life for a few more flights, to cut down on the gap between retirement and the debut of next-generation spaceships such as NASA's Orion (or, for that matter, the crew-capable version of SpaceX's Dragon cargo craft). If the White House takes that option, Kopra's flight wouldn't be the last after all.

Kopra and his crewmates can't concern themselves with such big-picture decisions, of course. For now, the 47-year-old Army colonel's top priority is to get himself back in shape for the flight to come.

He's still recuperating from his time in space, which started with Endeavour's long-delayed launch in July and ended with Discovery's landing last month. When he arrived on the station, it marked the first time there were 13 people gathered together in one place in outer space - including the station's newly expanded expedition crew of six and the seven visitors from the shuttle.

Kopra said he didn't feel jammed in: "Not only was it not crowded with six people on board, it wasn't crowded with 13."

On the inside, the space station is now the size of a five-bedroom, two-bathroom house, and if you want to get around somebody in a hallway, all you have to do is float up toward the ceiling and fly over them.

"For me, life on space station was truly awesome," Kopra said. "I knew it was going to be a great experience, but I didn't anticipate that the quality of life was going to be so high."

Kopra's two months on the station may have ranked as one of the shortest "long-duration" flights in orbit, but the readjustment to Earth's gravity was still a challenge.

"The first couple of days were actually pretty challenging," he said. "My head felt like it was 50 pounds when I lay down to go to sleep. But the improvement is rapid."

He's still working on reports and debriefings from his time on the station. He's also going through a rigorous rehabilitation routine that includes physical workouts as well as mental coordination exercises.

"I feel like I've been in boot camp for the last three weeks," Kopra said.

Soon preparations will begin in earnest for the mission ahead. Kopra doesn't yet know what his duties will be as a mission specialist - but the fact that he's now an experienced spacewalker would put him in a good position to take on another extravehicular outing if necessary. Whatever his role turns out to be, Kopra can hardly wait.

"By the new year, we will definitely be in training," he said.

Join the Cosmic Log team by signing up as my Facebook friend or following b0yle on Twitter. And reserve your copy of my book, "The Case for Pluto," which is coming out this month.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Incredible, they finally get the shuttle right at the end of the program. Or so it seems. But I guess the foam threat is something they can't get around.

I sure can't understand why they didn't make examination of the shuttle tiles a standard procedure ever since the Canadarm and high resolution cameras.

Thomas Ashby (Sent Thursday, October 15, 2009 7:02 PM)

Still not at all clear to me why NASA cannot design a replacement for the Shuttle concept, rather than going back to the basic design of the Apollo capsule for the next generation vehicle - seems to me like step backward.

Tony Close, Chicago (Sent Thursday, October 15, 2009 8:50 PM)

It's important to note that it wasn't the ice/foam shedding or wing damage issue alone that doomed the Shuttle program, it was the culmination of costs and other concerns (which I will not list) including "age".

However, you make a good observation Thomas. This vehicle system has a known reliability rate based upon the maturity of its components - based on lab testing,engine testing, vehicle testing and flight testing.

For the policy makers: It would make sense, and it would be the responsible thing to do, to advocate for a second generation Shuttle. Since going beyond LEO would cost too much and reaching LEO(i.e. space station) with a capsule return vehicle is not "novel", we have but one choice. A smaller Shuttle would advance the cause of the Aerospace industry and reap economic benefit.

Ernie Acosta, Houston, TX (Sent Thursday, October 15, 2009 9:03 PM)

hello to msnbc?/i am age 72 plus-my father and millions were all ww1/ww2 war veterans-in canada it was the rcaf/my father was no 5 in training=i carry his spirit anf my mothers when watching many shuttle missions-they and the rest of my aunts/uncles/have never seen the internet/all the wonder of space-so i am privaleged-for sure-i intend to handle hotel ownership and developement in caribe areas-and make rooms available for iraq/afghanistan veterans-no charge-that is the least i can do-i was taken back when i heard that the apollo missions to the moon employed 400,000 people-incredible-i now wonder how many people nasa employes?/the shuttle is the result of honor to america-very pleased that the japanese have produced a cargo ship to compete with the soyoz-russia is on a path to create energy strangulation of sections of europe-and the russiansuppliedc all equipment re-iran nuclear advancement-russia is a gangster/and has hidden agenda-guaranteed-the free world does not have to depend on soyoz alone-damm good for japanese-they are exhibiting their color-and it isnt yellow-it is integrity/jdenishuggard,west vancouver,bc,canada

jdenishuggard,west vancouver,bc,canada (Sent Thursday, October 15, 2009 9:05 PM)

Tony Close, Chicago (Sent Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:29 PM)

You can't re-enter the atmospere directly from a trans-lunar flight in a winged vehicle. The shuttle comes in from earth orbit starting near 17,000 MPH. Coming in from the moon, an asteroid or Mars, you are going around 25,000 MPH plus. That's a ton more energy. You have to enter in a blunt capsule. A winged vehicle, even with the latest technology can't survive. Winged vehicles are good for earth orbit only.

Andy W, Schaumburg, Il (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 12:14 AM)

They don't go with another shuttle based platform for a lot of reasons. An Apollo type system like Orion is cheaper to send great distances (moon, Mars, which is what Orion is eventually meant for) because it's smaller and weighs much less. A system like the Shuttle wasn't meant for interplanetary missions. To design a new low orbit craft along with one that can venture out further into space in tandem would have cost WAY too much money. So you make a craft like Orion that can do both and is cheaper to fly into space.

Chase, Glendale AZ (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 12:52 AM)

NASA and the US government need to prioritize and rethink the decisions of past administrations. The American people along with the rest of the world benifit GREATLY from our exploration of space and the discoveries made there. WE need to maintain the space program and support it with "stimulus" $$$. As logic dictates, jobs are better than throwing good money after bad tring to "sustain a war" that only makes the rich bastards (read Halburton) richer.
At least americans can get jobs in america....where does all that war $$$ go, anyway???

Vince S. (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 1:00 AM)

Inconceivable that the U.S. would allow such a long gap between shuttle and Orion programs that we will have to depend on the Russians for ISS support. We should expend the resources to extend the shuttle program and expedite the Orion to close that gap. Also, why can't at least one shuttle by outfitted and docked as the ISS as a permanent U.S. "safe-harbor" - lifeboat- rather than go to waste in a museum?

Al Richards, Flemington, NJ (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 6:25 AM)

Why retire the shuttle fleet! Update the shuttle and its cargo bay to accept the Orion moon lander and use this proven system to accomplish a 2nd visit to the moon. I might be wrong but it seems to me the cost would be less than planning a whole new delivery system.

J. Pecoraro, Commack, New York (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 8:37 AM)

A sad article today Alan. So sad that the Shuttle program is going to end in a year, hopefully it will be extended. There's a billion dollar piece of scientific machinery just sitting on the ground that should be brought up to the International Space Station as originally planned. Plus why can't we get international partners for our shuttle program to cut our costs down. Why can't we use all that knowledge we gained flying the shuttle to improve it so it can fly longer? It will truly be a sad day when the shuttle stops flying.

Eric, Salinas, CA (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 9:49 AM)

I think that they need to combine the capsules of the Apollo missions with the reusability of the shuttles. The capsule design, of placing them on the top of the rocket as opposed to putting them on the side, like the shuttle protects them from more damage during lift off, but doesn't give them the cargo space they would need. So their solution is to send up 2 separate rockets now, which wouldn't that cost more money? I understand why they are going back to the capsule design for safety reasons, but if we look at the history of the space program, and compare the number of manned missions that actually made it, to the missions where life has been lost, they are actually doing pretty good. You are putting people on a very high powered rocket and shooting them into space, and then bringing them back in a way that destroys asteroids and meteors on entering the atmosphere. The safety record seems in pretty good standing to me, they just have to remember not to get comfortable and let something slip by them and cause another accident.

The Way (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 10:08 AM)

I can pretty much almost GUARANTEE that a
single-stage or two-stage to orbit spaceplane
is already in operation. NASA in cooperation with
the NRO (National Reconnaisance Office) and
the NSA (National Security Agency) spend BILLIONS
out of the 2009 50 Billion dollar "Black Budget"
to get their satellites and recon vehicles
into orbit. And the space shuttle is now an
obsolete system and is being shut down becuase there's
something quite a bit better out there courtesy
of the USAF. My guess is that the current and very
secretive shuttle replacement is probably a
very shuttle like craft launched from a
large aircraft and sent to space much like
that Scaled Composites X plane. My guess
it holds about the same weight as the shuttle
and has been operational for probably at least
five years.

Henry Eckstein (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 10:10 AM)

To cancel the shuttle concept and to return to 50 year old technology is sheer stupdity. Except for expense, the shuttle's are sound. The main issue is with the boosters, not the space plane. Even that issue, wasn't a serious issue until they tried to make the foam more environmently friendly. When it was obvious that the environ foam was dangerous they should have reverted to the tried and true. With all the time that has passed, we should have flying a cheaper, better, more advanced shuttle II. Possibly one that could reach the La Grange point and return.
The shuttle program needs to be re-instated and expanded to take advantage of 21st century inovations

Greg G, Boston (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 10:19 AM)

I love the space program, I was born when Trurman was in the White House so I have witnessed it all, but can you imagine what we could accomplish if we invested this much time and money in finding a cure for Diseases like, but not limited to; Cancer, MS , MD , Heart disease..........or for that matter building more and inter-connecting fresh water reservoirs so farmers can still grow our food during drouts. I think it's time we take a hard look at weather we should continue with the Space Program or not during these economic hard times.

Fred, Atlanta, Ga (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 10:23 AM)

It is too expensive and complex to employ a reusable spacecraft. Note how all other competing spacecraft are very similar capsule based designs, because it is simpler and cost effective.

Though to really expand into and utilize space, we need something far cheaper and safer than rocket based designs to get man and especially material into orbit. I'd really like to see a lot more effort into elevator type designs. Imagine how much more we could learn, colonize, and develop commercially if it were much more trivial to get off and on the earth.

Smoof (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 10:24 AM)

The idea is to have a launch vehicle that meets mission needs. While the concept of vertical launch and runway landing is cool, it's not at all practicle. Indeed, it's wrecklessly unnecessary when given alternatives. The Russians have proven for years the advantage of the Apollo style capsule launch and recovery.

I'll be sad to see the shuttle go. I remember watching with awe the very first shuttle launch back in '81. I was only 5, but it captured my imagination. The shuttle has been such a positive influence and inspiration in my life that, one day, I hope to be able to place my hand on her nose at the Smithsonian and say, "Thank you."

Shawn Brier, Kalamazoo, MI (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 10:55 AM)

An "Apollo-like" vehicle is not a step backward. Apollo was capable of lunar work and the concept would work for Mars too. The shuttle is literally stuck in earth orbit only. It can barely even make it to hubble, a high earth orbit.

While my preference would be to have multiple space programs and capabilities, if we can only afford one, lets go with one that can leave Earth this time.

Frank, Dallas, TX (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 11:13 AM)

Wow jdenis, that is deep. I too applaud the Japanese for their new HTV spacecraft, which docked with the space station last month. Japan's HTV and Europe's ATV (launched on an Ariane V) are creating a truly international set of ISS service vehicles. But the Russians were first, I'm afraid they'll be launching for a long time still.

OK, the Space Shuttle is reusable unlike any other other spacecraft, but it really is too expensive. Capsules are simply more efficient.

Yet even as we still mourn the passing of the X-15 and the cancellation of Dynasoar, don't write off the mini-shuttle (X-37) that's been in "permanent development" for the last 15 years. It's tentatively set for first launch next year atop an Atlas V rocket. Keep your fingers crossed!

Bill Rogers, Oakland (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 12:22 PM)

NASA should partner with the DOD and develop a SSTO vehicle based on the cancelled X-33 program. This new vehicle would eventually replace Atlas 5 & Delta 4 for satellite launches and bring NASAs MPLMs to the ISS as well as haul up new modules.

Rob Edmonds, Manchester, NH (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 12:31 PM)

Shuttle production along with regular technological upgrades in their design will continue for the forseeable future because they're the real workhorses in the space program. The headline-grabbing vehicles carrying crews to the moon, Mars, certain asteroids and beyond will need to be launched on their way from a supplying infrastructure of orbiting stations and moon and/or asteroid-based depots. These all-important supply lines will be tended by the shuttles. Once such a system of supply, plus, including for instance, moon-based production of fuel from lunar ice deposits, is mostly operational, we'll really then be on our way to the stars. But initially we'll sure need lots of hard-working shuttles.

Gib Check, Friendship, WI (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 1:14 PM)

There are highly paid NASA rocket engineers who have gone over all of the options and the government has made their decision; so imo there's really no point in complaining over that decision. I know a lot of Americans are proud of NASA and the work they do and I agree with that, but on the same token, the russians have a VERY successful Soyuz rocket of which the latest generation (Soyuz-TMA) has features to accommodate requirements requested by NASA. I'm happy NASA can save money by relying on the Russians instead of having to rush out an upgraded transport vehicle themselves. The ISS is nearly completed. The whole point of the shuttle was to bring modules to the ISS. When the ISS is completed let the Russians spin their wheels and worry about transport launches to the ISS so that NASA can concentrate on future missions.

Ryan Keeler, Sierra Vista, AZ (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 4:02 PM)

The Shuttle should continue to operate with two crew and ejection seats like the original proving flights and used in the heavy lift catagory that the Ares V is supposed to fit. Who knows if that puppy will ever see the light of day. The Aries spacecraft is probably the right way to go for safety reasons. Am I the only one who cringes at the word capsule? What is this 1960? The CEV will be nearly as spacious as the crew compartment on the Shuttle.

Eric Bryce Thibodaux, LA. (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 11:33 PM)

"There are highly paid NASA rocket engineers who have gone over all of the options and the government has made their decision..."

Which does not automatically make them correct, or that conclusion universal among all of them.

And then there's the politics...not the least of which are certain Senators who would (and did) balk at any alternative that didn't keep certain aerospace or NASA jobs in their states, no matter how much better that alternative might be...

"The whole point of the shuttle was to bring modules to the ISS."

No, the point was to launch payloads and people of most any kind into orbit on a regular, economical basis (and unfortunately, did not do as well as intended at that). The elements of ISS just happened to be among them, and began well after the Shuttle was up and running...

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY (Sent Saturday, October 17, 2009 12:08 AM)

Too bad the shuttle does not have a real replacement.
Really Orion and Ares I are laughable solutions at best.
As an engineer I'm very disappointed with NASA's work on the new architecture.
If I were grading them I'd give them a D-.
The Apollo shape is nowhere near the best shape for a capsule vehicle infact it's one of the most inefficient shapes they possiblely could have chosen.
For mass the Soyuz configuration is by far one of the most efficient for reentry biconics and lifting bodies perform far better.
Soyuz only has a third of the mass of Apollo yet has more total habitable volume.
Yes a lifting body can do lunar reentries in fact it can even perform reentries Orion can't such as Mars return.
This is why LM's original CEV was a lifting body they started with a Mars return vehicle and worked backwards to a lunar vehicle.
Orion can never perform a Mars return reentry unless the Mars transfer vehicle kills about 30% of the return velocity before reentry.
Really the Spacex Dragon and few other vehicles such as the Spacedev Dreamchaser can do everything Orion can do including go to the moon but for a fraction of the cost.

They should partner the UK on Skylon and give COTS-D funding for a new vehicle since Ares and Orion are evolutionary dead ends not worth wasting money on.

Dexter Oklahoma,City (Sent Saturday, October 17, 2009 3:34 PM)

What an obscene waste of money. This paralles the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
What a sorry use of our treasure.

Bill Williamson, Portland, OR (Sent Saturday, October 17, 2009 7:59 PM)

I would like to start by saying that I'm a huge fan of the shuttle. In my eyes it is the ultimate ride. My first question is, does anyone else besides myself feel this is a huge waste of billions of yours and my tax dollars. Given the state of our economy and our unemployment rate? Dont get me wrong I'm not bashing the space program, I'm bashing the people who are spending my hard earned tax dollars shooting empty rockets into the ocean. I'm 37, and I have no idea how much of my money has been spent on the space program over the years. Now ask yourself, what has the space program given you in return? Now doesn't the price of Velcro and Ductape seem a bit steep?....

Mike D, Salem, Massachusetts (Sent Thursday, October 22, 2009 6:54 AM)

Don't let Skynet fill the gap left by NASA's shuttle.

John Connor, Secret Location TX (Sent Thursday, October 22, 2009 4:21 PM)

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=2099882

More Cosmic Log

Recent Posts:

Archives:

Categories:

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:

ABOUT COSMIC LOG