STS-123 Options

[stevesliva]

I don't think the US government asserts copyrights or legal protections of any kind on its media, so there is nothing to protect people from taking government data and charging for it. You could see analogies in maps, weather data, census data, etc.

[ugordan]

It show the whole lift off up to orbit from inside the cabin with voice footage. A must

Did anybody else notice light pulses illuminating the back seats from around 8:30 till 9:00 and then after 10:00 again? Is that plasma from RCS thruster firings?

[climber]

ISS view from departing Shuttles is getting better and better : http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/image.../ndxpage46.html

[climber]

Endeavour's coming back home as I write.
Landing scheduled at 8.39 PM EDT at the Cape

[climber]

OK, Endeavour's back home now.

[Stu]

Endeavour's coming back home as I write.
Landing scheduled at 8.39 PM EDT at the Cape

Is that venting from the side of the OMS pods usual..?

[djellison]

That's the exhaust from the APU's. (little hydrazine turbine engines that provide power to move the aero-surfaces and engine gimbling etc ) - apparently...it's normal. We just don't normally see it when it's day light.

[nprev]

Yeah, I was a little alarmed at first by that myself. In fact, it looked like it was happening during rollout, and don't recall seeing that before. Maybe they're beginning the procedure a bit earlier in order to expedite crew extraction?

Of course, this was the first full coverage of a night landing I've seen; used to the 5-sec nose-on shots on the evening news.

[dvandorn]

The exhaust from the APUs is essentially invisible in normal light, that's why you never notice it on images of daytime landings. But it's a very hot exhaust, so it shows up like a whale's plume on the IR cameras they use for night landings.

I have to remind myself that this is the first night Shuttle landing in more than five years...

-the other Doug

[ilbasso]

That venting is the primary reason that as SOP, no one is allowed near the Shuttle for at least 1/2 hour after it lands.

[BPCooper]

I have to remind myself that this is the first night Shuttle landing in more than five years...

STS-115 was the last night landing in Sept 06; STS-114 the Return to Flight also landed at night.

Although it was normal, most longtime observers are saying they haven't seen it this pronounced in a long time. One said that STS-51 was about the same.

[dvandorn]

STS-115 was the last night landing in Sept 06; STS-114 the Return to Flight also landed at night.

Although it was normal, most longtime observers are saying they haven't seen it this pronounced in a long time. One said that STS-51 was about the same.

Really...? Honestly, I've seen so many launches and landings, they tend to blur together. I simply recalled that STS-123 was the first night launch since Columbia, based on the CAIB's strong reccommendation that all launches allow full telescopic coverage and observation so that any foam loss events could be observed (and, therefore, all launches were to occur in daylight). I also recalled that Shuttle flights have tended to a given scheduling -- night launched missions tend to land at night, day launched missions tend to land during the day.

Now that you mention it, though, I also recall that STS-115 was given an OK to land just after dark as a means of extending the flight and giving it greater operational flexibility. I didn't recall the RTF mission landing at night, though...

-the other Doug

[monty python]

I just got an e-mail from my parents who live just south of tampa bay florida. The shuttle produced a large sonic boom there as it came in. The house shook! There were lots of 911 calls to the police. COOL!!

Brian

[nprev]

Although it was normal, most longtime observers are saying they haven't seen it this pronounced in a long time.

Huh. Maybe the APUs didn't consume as much fuel, or there was a higher then normal interior pressure in the tanks?

Truth be told, hydrazine scares the hell out of me. F-16s use it for their starter mechanism, heard a lot of flightline urban legends/horror stories; nasty stuff, but guess that's true of all hypogolic fuels.

[BPCooper]

I simply recalled that STS-123 was the first night launch since Columbia, based on the CAIB's strong reccommendation that all launches allow full telescopic coverage and observation so that any foam loss events could be observed (and, therefore, all launches were to occur in daylight). I also recalled that Shuttle flights have tended to a given scheduling -- night launched missions tend to land at night, day launched missions tend to land during the day.

Now that you mention it, though, I also recall that STS-115 was given an OK to land just after dark as a means of extending the flight and giving it greater operational flexibility. I didn't recall the RTF mission landing at night, though...

-the other Doug

Well, the first night launch after Columbia was STS-116 on Dec. 9 2006. And it was a beauty. 123 was the second.

The Return to Flight 114 landed at night early in the morning; 115 also landed early in the morning at about 6am.

The times are dictated by the orbit of the ISS (or Hubble). It so happens that landing from station flights tends to wind up being 4-6 or so hours before the launch time most of the time (and most of the time has been on the ascending node heading north over the equator). STS-120 in October was an exception, as they came in on the descending node. 11am launch, 1pm landing. Looking at the others though, 114 was 10am launch and 5am landing; 121 3pm and 9am; 115 11am and 6am; 116 9pm and 5pm; 117 7pm and 1pm; 118 6pm and noon; 122 245pm and 9am, etc.

The day launch rule went into effect after Columbia for a while but as they got around to resuming flights they decided that after two foam-loss-free flights they would allow them again. Well you may recall that 114 shed foam; so, two more had to happen. But on the third post-Columbia mission, 115, they decided to lift it when 115 was facing a hurricane delay and would have had to wait a month for another day opportunity.