APOD: Atlantis Lift Off (2010 May 08)

[APOD Robot]

Atlantis Lift Off

Explanation: Atlantis has lifted off, but not from launch pad 39A. Instead, this sharp, wide-angle photo taken on April 13, shows the space shuttle orbiter lifted off the floor of Kennedy Space Center's Vehicle Assembly Building. Shortly afterwards, Atlantis was attached to an external fuel tank and solid rocket boosters prior to roll out. Now resting on pad 39A, Atlantis is scheduled for its actual liftoff on May 14. Embarking on the STS-132 mission to the International Space Station , that launch will represent the final scheduled launch for Atlantis. Atlantis was named for a sailing ship operated for the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute from 1930 to 1966. The maiden voyage of the Atlantis, Orbiter Vehicle-104, began on October 3, 1985. In 1991, Atlantis deployed the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory.

<< Previous APOD

Discuss Any APOD

Next APOD >>

[/b]

[Hofi]

I like this photo. It shows the great height difference between the orbiter and the great fuel tank in the background.

I have one question: What are the dark spots left of the yellow retrainer? I don't think they are windows^^

[Astronut]

It looks like Sesame Streets Big Yellow Bird is going to outlast NASA's BIG White one's. So lets all have a and celebrate a job well done. My will be of the 'Root' variety.

[BMAONE23]

I like this photo. It shows the great height difference between the orbiter and the great fuel tank in the background.

I have one question: What are the dark spots left of the yellow retrainer? I don't think they are windows^^

I believe those are the Hinges for the massive Cargo Bay Doors.
There are 4 sets of doors on either side each with three hinges

[DonAVP]

This is the last launch for Atlantis. There will be two others this year and that is it for the shuttle. I am going to open a political can of worms here and state that I think the Obama admin. is being very short sited and foolish by not funding any of the recommended missions that were proposed. Is this yet another indicator that the US is in decline? I will confess that I have relatives that work at the cape. Were is the private sector in space development? There is a hugh talent pool that is being wasted by not continuing some effort at the cape. If for nothing else to transition to the private sector over the next five or ten years. Just my thoughts.

[Hofi]

Hi!

We all know that there are financial problems nearly all over the world. The shuttle was thought to be cheap because it's reuseable. Indeed, it did not work as planed. That's the reason why the USAF joined the project - because NASA had not the money to pay the expenses.
In my opinion, the shuttle is much to expensive. It would have been better to invest in safer and cheaper rockets than in the shuttle project. (Please notice that 16 Astronauts died in the shuttle!) It does not cheer my heart that the US won't be able to send men into space for some years. The Russian Federation and China will be the only ones. But we are not in the Cold War any more. The best way would be to set up an international cooperation as seen at the International Space Station. It's not necessary for each country to build its own rocket! So cooperate and push spaceflight forward!

That's my opinion!

[sailmail]

is this an illusion??? note the two white trucks on the left of the photo, they are also levitating...

[Astronut]

The white trucks are not levitating, they have their hydraulic stabilizers engaged so they can use the booms to work on the Shuttle.

When the stabilizers are engaged, they become like four solid platforms that actually lift the trucks off their tires so there is no motion from the truck tires being engaged with the ground.

[neufer]

<<In 1927, a National Academy of Sciences committee's recommendation for establishing a permanent independent research laboratory on the East Coast to "prosecute oceanography in all its branches" led to the founding in 1930 of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI). A $3 million grant from the Rockefeller Foundation supported the summer work of a dozen scientists, construction of a laboratory building and commissioning of a research vessel, the 142-foot ketch Atlantis, whose profile still forms the Institution's logo.



Several ships are named after the RV Atlantis [including] the Space Shuttle Atlantis. It now serves the Prefectura Naval Argentina as the Dr. Bernardo A. Houssay and is the oldest serving oceanographic scientific vessel with over 1,300,000 miles under its belt.>>

[iamlucky13]

Hi!

We all know that there are financial problems nearly all over the world. The shuttle was thought to be cheap because it's reuseable. Indeed, it did not work as planed. That's the reason why the USAF joined the project - because NASA had not the money to pay the expenses.
In my opinion, the shuttle is much to expensive. It would have been better to invest in safer and cheaper rockets than in the shuttle project. (Please notice that 16 Astronauts died in the shuttle!) It does not cheer my heart that the US won't be able to send men into space for some years. The Russian Federation and China will be the only ones. But we are not in the Cold War any more. The best way would be to set up an international cooperation as seen at the International Space Station. It's not necessary for each country to build its own rocket! So cooperate and push spaceflight forward!

That's my opinion!

The Air Force got in on it because they wanted a hands-on ability to launch, service, and recover reconnaissance payloads. After the basic form of the shuttle was defined and detailed design was well under way, they backed out because digital imaging had improved enough they felt much less need for Air Force personnel in space.

The International Space Station is a poor poster child for international efficiency. Each participant is constantly waiting each other participant to meet this milestone or that so the program can proceed. Any internationally coordinate program has to be conceived such that members are not held up by others' lack of progress. Also, there are enough different rocket needs in the world for most of the variety we have now.

While I agree it's time for the shuttle to be replaced, the safety and cost can't really be compared to any other vehicle so far. There is no other system capable of launching 7 astronauts into orbit in one operation, much less with 25 tons of cargo. The problem there is that we can almost always accommodate such a need in separate launches. It also has the best safety record of any manned launch vehicle, despite those two accidents. On that note, it's worth pointing out that the cause of the Challenger accident was fairly conclusively resolved, while the cause of the Columbia accident been significantly reduced, in addition to being mitigated.

I'm still holding out hope that Obama and Congress will recognize the value of adding two additional flights to the manifest to launch the AMS payload and additional fuel and supplies that the ISS will be short on for several years. The hardware is built. There's little more to do but keep the necessary staff on payroll for another 6 months.

[iamlucky13]

I like this photo. It shows the great height difference between the orbiter and the great fuel tank in the background.

I have one question: What are the dark spots left of the yellow retrainer? I don't think they are windows^^

Depending which spots exactly you're talking about, I see two possibilities:

1.) The hinges BMAONE23 mentioned, which follow a line parallel to the lifting frame.

2.) The spot of black thermal tiles just to the left and below the lifting frame on the front of the Orbital Maneuvering System pod. Most of the upper side of the shuttle is protected from the worst of the heat of re-entry, so heat resistant insulating blankets are sufficient, but that spot sticks out enough to heat up a bit more, so they cover it with silica tiles.