I here present the first ever shuttle landing. The STS-1. This was another great achivement for the human race in space flight. Space Shuttle Columbia participated in this mission, the first shuttle mission, it's so sad to know that we lost her.

First ever Space Shuttle Landing.

I would also like to present the launch:


First ever Shuttle Launch.






How I wish that she would have touched the ground again that day, that 1st of February of 2003.

She still flies in my memories.




We miss you Columbia.

Source crew image

Yes, alex, we do...

Mans greatest achievement (the reuseable shuttle), and a sad loss of brave human life.

I would take exception to the Shuttle as beings man's greatest acchievement, belial.
I will say, however, that the Shuttle is the most magnificent piece of flying machine ever built. Despite her inherent flaws, and the danger in flying her (which is very well managed today, but nonetheless present), she is a hell of a ride, and the most functional and versatile spacecraft that's ever flown.

Plus, she's a real beauty, and the people who fly her, who take care of her, and who support her in so many ways are all top-notch folks.

That having been said with all sincerity, I will say something that I've undoubtedly said before:

The Shuttle, as she was originally designed and fabricated, was the wrong vehicle, and a mistake.

I watched her go from a completely re-usable craft to a vast and dangerous compromise in a matter of years. I had issues with it.
Everything that evolved as a result of the short sightedness on the part of Congress which resulted in this compromise set in motion a long chain of events which saw a degradation in the upper management of NASA, a shift in emphasis away from the primary goal of space exploration and flight crew safety, and in fact, to a paradigm of compartmentalized gross negligence.

We had, in effect, lost a program, or perhaps, the program had lost its direction.

This overall failure resulted in the loss of two vehicles, and the irreplacable loss of 14 brilliant and vibrant human beings. A lengthy period of "pain in space" resulted from about 1984 through 2003, in my view. It took that long to install the proper people in key positions, and it took a President to mandate exploration again...in order to restore NASA to its former glory and mode of operational excellence.

I should state, for the record, that during that period where we were suffering, I felt sorry for the people who worked in places like JSC and KSC: the launch control teams, shuttle processing folks, flight controllers and directors, support folks, engineeers, technicians, and the like. They always had been, and always remained, the best and brightest of what America had to offer. They functioned as best they could, their hands tied by what I considered a vile paradigm.

Mr. Jay Green, who sat in the MOCR during Apollo 11 as a flight controller, was FD in Houston on January 28, 1986.
I will never forget the look on this fine man's face...as well as the rest of the flight control team on that morning. The best people we had couldn't do a thing...



That will be burned in my mind forever.

Today, from Dr. Griffin right down through mission managers, anmd of course to the control teams and support groups, we see the direction and purpose of NASA executing what it does impeccably once again.
If anyone is not impressed with what NASA has done since return to flight, they are either blind, or simply haven't been watching. We are, once again, seeing this organization execute the way only they can do. I haven't been as proud of them since around 1972.

When the Shuttle does finally touch it's main gear on the ground for the last time in 2010, I can tell you there will be tears. They will be bittersweet tears...full of memories of the pain, and memories of the success.

I look forward to the Shuttle's retirement, and toward the advancement of exploration that will begin shortly thereafter.

I hope they put this old lady in a place of honor, and never let her rust or rot. She deserves a place of honor, so long as we fly in space. That girl suffered for what we will accomplish. I will always look on her with a mixture of respect, joy, and profound sadness, as well as a realization that space flight is a dangerous business, and only the best can do it well.

They do.

MID, you really do need to write a book about your experiences. I'll buy a copy for sure, as I know a great many members here will!

My tears will be shed, you can be sure of that, and many people just won't understand why.


I always enjoy MID's posts, they are very.... I don't have a word for it, so he can count on me!

Aw you guys!



My sincere thanks for the kind comments...

The same.

Someone told me she had a nightmare ( a dead body) around 5am that morning, cried out. 4 hours later, she was shocked again and stuck on TV. Not knowing if her dream related to that event or not, she couldn't sleep well every launch and landing day eve.

Well, poleshift, premonitions are a fact...they happen, often in strange ways. After Challenger, and then Columbia, I am still a little tense prior to launch and on re-entry (of course, a little tension during such phases is natural I should think (it was always that way)), but this is a little different than in the past. It's a subtle, rather buried un-ease, but I cannot shake that slight rumble in the gut...

I don't quite know where you are trying to get to there ( your point ).



Even though I know they have everything under control and everything seems good I can't help but get nervous everytime during a shuttle launch or reentry. The image of the Challenger exploded after the launch and the Columbia's fragments during reentry haunt me everytime this two incidents take place. And I also know deep inside that this two parts of spaceflight are one of the most dangerous. So I just get that tension during this.

MID, thanks for your understanding.
A little tense for you and fans, it's nature. For her, it's odd. She nevered concerned shuttle before that nightmare.

A bit off topic. I meant someone dreamed a corpse. And she wondered if she saw one female astronaut in her nightmare.

But what did those astronauts do about 4-6am that date? Any communication records, especially when and what was the last word of the 2 ladies?

During that time, the astronauts aboard STS-107 were in the midst of nominal de-orbit preparation tasks. They sealed up the Spacehab module, were stowing equipment in the mid deck, and would be closing the payload bay doors somewhere around 06:00 ET that day. Shortly thereafter they would be donning their launch and entry suits...standard stuff in preparation for coming home.

Sure there's communications records for all of the missions. You can likely find communications transcripts for the flight at NASA.gov someplace. However, most all of what you'll hear was communication between Houston and Rick Husband, the CDR of the mission during entry.

There was most certainly some talk back and forth amongst crew members, but I don't know of any transcripts of any internal discussions that were going on. All I do know is that Kalpana Chawla was acting as flight engineeer, and probably would've been talking on intercom with the pilots, sitting immediately behind them on the Flight Deck, and Laurel Clark was shooting a video on the flight deck during re-entry...but as to what the last things they may have said were prior to the breakup, I have no idea...

You're welcome.


Well, it may have just been coincidence. Maybe she had a nightmare, which of course is a relatively typical event...and it just so happened that this disaster occurred the morning after (that not being quite so typical an occurrance). Naturally, people might make a connection in such a circumstance. Perhaps it was a premonition...perhaps it was coincidence...?

But not having any particular concern with the Shuttle program, no connection to anyone on board, etc., rather makes me think that this falls more into the co-incidental category rather than into the premonition category...

Most average folks had no idea a Shuttle was even on orbit that day...

Anything could have been done to save them at that moment?


Morelikely. And hope so.

Unfortunately, poleshift, the blunt answer is no.

The fact is that without an abort prior to the point where re-entry into the atmosphere, or very high heat and aerodynamic loads was required (in other words, some form of contingency abort or an RTLS or perhaps a TAL abort maybe at 4 to 4.5 minutes into flight...maybe, the crew of STS-107 was condemned.

Of course, with everything operating nominally, no abort would be ordered, and of course wasn't.

Their fates were sealed, albeit unknown to anyone, at about a minute or so into their ascent to orbit.

I hate saying that, I honestly do. It makes me sick to my stomach to this day. However, it is a fact. Columbia, once on orbit, was not coming back intact, asnd there was absolutely nothing anyone could have done about.

Sad to hear it's destined.
Hope it's the last one.

Great thread Alex01

I will never forget that fateful day, I think my whole class was crying when we watched it on t.v.

Mid, thanks for all the wonderful posts, always look forward to reading them.

You are welcome, Silver...and thank you for the kind comments...

Have another stupid question: could the shuttle ET be painted fully/partly in mesh, or be wrapped fully/partly in some net?

I think I get it....you're wondering if some sort of net / mesh could be wrapped around the tank to prevent foam from falling off...?

I envision a restraining layer of some really strong material, perhaps?

I have a few serious arguments against that idea (off the top of my head).

1) I have a difficult time envisioning some sort of screen like structure, made of what(?) that would form fit an ET (that's a big maumoo!).
2) The cost of such a project would be alot.
3) The benefit is dubious...because:

a..it'll add alot of mass to the ET, which changes the fuel requirements for orbit insertion, which might make the ET insufficient for the job at hand.

b..the aerodynamics of such a thing are frightening to contemplate..for me at least (a mesh like screen with all those drag producing nooks and crannies being slammed through the atmosphere at thousands of feet per second...it would effect stability and airflow and this is already a very complex aerodynamic system (which I have never actually liked a whole lot)as it is).

c..It would take years of research and testing to fabricate something like this...if it could be...which I rather doubt.

...I think your mesh would peel right off of the ET, taking with it pieces of ET foam and doing potentially fatal damage to the shuttle...probably enough to cause a contingency abort...(bail out into the ocean, if you can get the vehicle stable enough to do so)...

4) We already have taken great pains to minimize the shedding of foam from the areas where it has typically separated. A great deal of aerodynamic modification to key areas on the ET have shown great effect in limiting if not eliminating foam shedding since return-to-flight.

5) We have the capability of effecting repairs if necessary, and are in the process of testing further methods to do so in the event of a serious damage.

6) We have learned a great deal about the damages caused to tiles and can aerodynamically model these things in ground tests (based upon the inspection data sent down during every shuttle flight from the OBSS), and can accurately predict the effect a given damage shape will have on orbiter safety during re-entry (in ways that simulate what you see on TV shows like CSI...although these things NASA does are real!).

My bottom line is, no, I don't think it's a practical thing to do. I think we're on the right track just the way we are.
I think the cost-effectiveness of having the insulation on the outside of the tank rather than on the inside (where I always thought it belonged) has shown itself to be ineffective in extremis, but we are where we are, and we're managing it with the techniques and technology available to us now.


I will say this, however:

Your idea shows some pretty creative thinking!
I appreciate that!

MID, thanks for the nice comments.

Yeah your are right.

The External Tank was painted white for STS-1 and STS-2. No foam loss reported for STS-2; for STS-1, 1/4-inch to fist-sized foam loss reported.
So it might be good to paint ET back on its key areas?

For the net / mesh thing, wrap the net or paint some glue on the key areas; then spray the foam on as the final layer, i.e. embed the net in the foam to avoid aeroheating(?). With the net embeded, there could be more choice in its material. It could be in nylon, plastic, thin wire, sort of glue. That should be researched.

About dozen flights have foam shed problem while others remain good. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad. Don't know why. What did the foam maker do for the good ones?

You're welcome. They're intelligent thoughts.




Again, I appreciate your zeal regarding the problem.
However, it should be understood that alot of engineers have spent alot of time assessing the problem and have made some very good fixes to it, without having to go into the extennsive R & D, additional mass, and likely additional power that would be required in your idea.

The foam maker is certainly involved in any discussions and analysis pertaining to the material, but the NASA engineers who are responsible for design and fabrication are doing things with that foam to fix the problem. That may involve changes to the foam itself, or changes to the structure of the ET and the foam application, or a combination of both things depending on what analysis indicates.

We have lots of data on the problem, and common areas of foam separation, since return to flight, and great pains have been taken to analyze that data and formulate solutions to prevent it. What we can derive from this data is what happens, the extent to which it happens, where precisely it happens on the structure, and when it happens.

We can then examine this closely by several analysis techniques, like wind tunnel testing of the whole assembly, duplicating the dynamic conditions that occur when we observe these conditions. We can then derive the forces imparted to the offending areas, and propose, fabricate and test re-designs which will reuce those loads in those areas. This is basically how the engineeers fix these problems.

They'll find that dynamics at a particular time in flight produce excessive aero loads on a specific area, and they'll re-shape the foam in that area, or perhaps eliminate it, change it's thickness and its shape, etc., so as to reduce the loading.


That's what's been done vis-a-vis the ET foam. The aerodynamics of the Shuttle assembly in launch config is very complicated. You've got an aerodynamically sound ET, but along two sides of it are strapped two SRMs, which are pretty clean things in and of themselves. However, when they're all strapped together, you create some pretty complex zones between the SRMs and the ET where the airflow of both of them interact, producing some pretty strange dynamics, which change depending on velocity, air density and dynamic pressures. Now, strap a shuttle on the other side, which is complex enough in it's aerodynamics (it's an airplane, which is a complicated aerodynamic structure in and of itself), and there's a third area of convergence aerodynamically.

Quite frankly, it's a hell of a mess, which produces a whole slew of dynamics that are far too complicated, and inappropriate to explain here.

But that's what engineers do. They analyze this complicated system and make sure it works the way they need it to work. They've been doing it with the ET for years, and thoroughly examine it every time the Shuttle flies.

These efforts have paid off. Now, a proposal like yours, which is essentially a major structural change, is an option, but that option, and certainly some other ideas, would be used only in the event that we could not fix the problem with what we have to work with now. So far, they've done that.

Is it possible to add some kind of liquid glue into liquid foam, mix them, spray...?

I imagine this foam is not simple stuff. The actual composition of it is not public knowledge.
It is sprayed into place, is highly adherent, insulative, and sealed with a smooth finish coat.

Since I have no idea of it's actual composition, I cannot even attempt to answer your question. I can say that the engineeers who work this material have intimate knowledge of it, and its characteristics, and that aerodynamic changes to key areas of the ET (vis-a-vis the foam shape in certain areas) have reduced the problem we've had to a minimum.

However, inherent in such a scenario is always going to be the possibility of some shedding due to a variety of factors (this is pretty tough stuff, but it is very lightweight...a bird impacting a critical area of the ET in the first moments of flight could cause enough energy to detatch a substantial piece of this material...). However, studies and engineering fixes have minimized this, and analysis in depth continues on each mission.

So far, this process has netted some pretty clean orbiters...like the one on-orbit right now. No problems at all, no focused inspection necessary, and the TPS is cleared for re-entry.

Good news. Many thanks, MID.

You're welcome pole...

It is good news, of course, but let me add an essential piece of awareness to any discussion of such things.

Never assume that things are entirely 100% safe in the realm of human spaceflight.
In fact, always realize that such a scenario is impossible.
Also never become complacent and relax, thinking that nothing's going to happen...

We must necessarily employ our total energies to managing and reducing risk as much as possible, but at the same time, never, ever lose sight of the risks that are in fact present, and the requirement to stay on our toes every minute of every day we are on orbit, or somewhere in the realm of human space flight.

good post mid ,on a light heartd note is nasa useing expanding foam bought at home depot in spray cans? Think I saw a nasa guy in there backing up to the back door loading up on a few thousand cans of that stuff LoL DONTEATUS. but in the real world they do a magical job getting us into space on that old platform,hope the new 2009 model gets up and running soon. can you belive really how fast time flys with our space tech,and systems to support it all. I thank my luckie stars every nite I watch nasa and ISS shows we do need to give ourselfs a pat on the head once and a while! keep the pics comeing MID we all love those shots of nasa hardware.

You mean this baby?
A recent photo of an Orion CEV mockup.



That baby's going to be a little later than 2009. We'll be retiring the Shuttle in 2010, accoreding to present plans. This fellow's going to be a few more years after that before she's ready to fly...unfortunately, there's going to be a gap of a few years between the last Shuttle flight and the first Orion flight...

It was on a recent tech show too many to remember on sat,t.v. but they showed the Orion cap,on it and the process of the interior design still a small place to call home for a Mars mission of many months. but those astro-flyers love a challenge. Im on seat edge ready to cheer them on I do want to see humankind on Mars b4 I go to that atomic state of mind. great post and pics MID DONTEATUS

Wow. What an amazing thread this has been to read through. Excellent posts.

Does anyone know what kind of spacecraft will replace the shuttles? How are the astronaughts going to get up into space once the space shuttle is finished it's last flight?

What are they going to do with the shuttles afterwords? Take them apart or put them in a giant museum?

my last comment was a bit cheesy. sorry about that.

The replacement for the Shuttle programme is the Constellation programme. This will create two new spacecraft and two new launchers.

The first spacecraft is the Orion. This is similar to the old Apollo spacecraft only much more modern and larger (it can carry 6 astronauts instead of 3 like Apollo could). Initially this will replace the Shuttle in ferrying men to the ISS. However the Constellation programme has its eyes set on much further horizons, the Moon and then Mars. The first manned mission of the Constellation programme is currently scheduled for 2012.

The second spacecraft is the Altair Lunar Lander. This is analogous to the Apollo Lunar Module (LM), except that it is capable of landing 4 men on the Moon instead of 2 and will the Astronauts will stay on the Moon for days or weeks instead of hours. The first manned landing on the Moon is planned for around 2020.

The two new launchers are the Ares I and the Ares V.

The Ares I has a first stage derived from the space shuttle solid rocket booster and a brand new second stage. The second stage will use an engine called the J2X derived from the J2 engine used on the old Apollo Saturn V launch vehicle's second and third stage. The Ares I will be used to launch the manned Orion spacecraft into Earth orbit.

The Ares V will be the new Saturn V. A huge rocket, this will be used to place the Altair in orbit. The first stage of this huge vehicle is derived from the shuttle External tank and also uses two SRBs derived from those used on the shuttle. It will use engines know as the RS-68. These are derived from those currently used on the Delta IV launcher. The second stage (also known as the Earth Departure Stage) uses the J2X engine used on the Ares I. This rocket will be launched unmanned. The Altair will be placed into orbit first and will remain attached to the Ares V Earth Departure Stage. The Orion will then be launched and will dock to the Altair. The Ares V Earth Departure Stage will then fire to take the attached Orion/Ares to the Moon. Lunar missions will consist of 4 astronauts. All four of them will land on the Moon in the Altair, leaving the Orion to operate autonomously in lunar orbit. As with the LM once the the crew have returned to the Orion the Altair will be discarded. The crew will re-enter and land in the Orion. At the moment it is planned that the Orion will touch down on land, unlike the Apollo Command Module which splashed down in the ocean.

NASAs pages on the Constellation can be found HERE.

The thread, in the UM Space News forum, which gives up to date news on the Constellation programme can be found HERE.

As for the Shuttles it is likely that they will be donated to museums. The shuttle prototype, Enterprise, which conducted the Approach and Landing test in 1977, is already on display at the National Air and Space Museum's Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center in Chantilly, Virginia

Thanks for the links Waspie Dwarf. I have been wanting to know this stuff for a while now.

I believe that once the astronauts succesfully complete a mission to Mars and back then they will be ready for the moons of Saturn. I think that's were NASA really wants to go right now although Mars does have it's appeal. It's just that Mars has been seen a lot by the rovers and such already so they know what to expect.

Once the solar system has been explored were could NASA possibly go next without lightspeed? Or even with lightspeed?

Posibly nowhere, even with close to light speed, interstellar travel is........... time consuming.

I don't think any speculation on that is worth the time right now, G.S.
I say that because we actually haven't started our exploration of the Moon yet, in earnest. I wouldn't expect any in-depth exploration of the Moon to actually be taking place for another 15-20 years...and as for extensive manned explorations of Mars...well...another generation will start that...hopefully.

The exploration of the Earth is hardly complete yet. I think the exploration of the solar system itself is something that men will be doing for centuries to come.

Good point. It's no use getting ahead of ourselves i think now.