
Space Shuttle and Space Station Photographed Together - otoolep
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap140831.html
======
teleclimber
This reminds me of an experience I had in Joshua Tree one evening.

The sun had just set and it was getting dark. I noticed two bright dots in the
sky in close proximity to each-other. At first I thought "airliners", but had
to rethink my hasty conclusion because the lights weren't blinking. I had to
stop walking to really take in the scene: two very bright white dots in the
eastern sky, about one closed fist at arm's length away from each other,
moving across the sky slowly but consistently.

Having observed ISS before I knew how bright it could be. This certainly
seemed like another ISS sighting, but what was the other thing? Then I
remembered: the shuttle had launched not too long ago for a mission to ISS.
Could I have just witness the moments after undocking? I checked NASA's data
as soon as I got home and sure enough the undocking time was just prior to my
observation.

This was among the last shuttle missions so I'll never forget that moment!

------
tempestn
Immediately wanted to use this for my wallpaper, but was hoping I could find a
better multi-monitor version. It still looks cool if you just center it, but
it would be even better if the earth weren't cut off.

Couldn't find one, so decided to make it. I basically rotated and cropped it
to get as much of ISS as possible, then added a bit more Earth. This way it
looks like the planet is naturally just falling below the horizon of your
monitors, rather than being cut off. Fortunately the space background is a
nice deep black, so that's easy to extend.

If anyone else is running (2560x1440) x 3, feel free to use it:
[http://www.helpertubes.com/images/iss_shuttle_7680x1440.jpg](http://www.helpertubes.com/images/iss_shuttle_7680x1440.jpg)

Or if you prefer, this version crops the top solar panels of ISS, so you get a
closer view, and less artificially generated Earth:
[http://www.helpertubes.com/images/iss_shuttle_7680x1440_clos...](http://www.helpertubes.com/images/iss_shuttle_7680x1440_close.jpg)

Enjoy!

~~~
tempestn
Here are a couple more:

7680x1600 version:
[http://www.helpertubes.com/images/iss_shuttle_7680x1600.jpg](http://www.helpertubes.com/images/iss_shuttle_7680x1600.jpg)

9516x2320 source:
[http://www.helpertubes.com/images/iss_shuttle_9516x2320.jpg](http://www.helpertubes.com/images/iss_shuttle_9516x2320.jpg)

------
ceejayoz
Not just the Shuttle, but a Soyuz and a European ATV. Every significant
spacecraft model at the time in one photo.

~~~
jackgavigan
Looks like two Soyuz...

Edit: Actually, one Soyuz (TMA-21 on _Poisk_ ) and a Progress (M-10M on _Pirs_
). The ATV is the _Johannes Kepler_.

~~~
bane
And the picture is taken from another Soyuz.

------
otoolep
Be sure to check out the full pic at

[http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1408/shuttleiss_nasa_6048.jp...](http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1408/shuttleiss_nasa_6048.jpg)

~~~
rbanffy
I used one of this series as my wallpaper for quite some time after its
initial release. It's useful to remember humans can do extraordinary things.

------
mutagen
The damaged S1 cooling panel lends it an authentic, lived in, this thing is
here to stay look.

[http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-27/h...](http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-27/hires/iss027e036630.jpg)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station_ma...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station_maintenance#2009_.E2.80.93_Potential_ammonia_leak_from_S1_radiator_due_to_damaged_panel)

------
tdicola
The thing that impresses me the most about the shuttle is that it was designed
in the mid 60's, built in the 70's/80's, and flew 100+ missions to space over
~30 years. I have a car that was built in the mid-80's and barely trust
driving it a few thousand miles a year without it breaking down. I can't
imagine what it took to keep the shuttles flying to space for so long without
more major accidents.

~~~
FigBug
There were six shuttles and had 25, 28, 10, 39, 33 & 0 missions each for a
total of 135 missions and killed 14 astronauts. Not that impressive a record
for something that was originally intended to do 55 launches a year.

Something I find more impressive is the B52 Bomber, first flew in 1952,
finished production in 1962, expected to be in service until 2040. Will be in
service for almost 100 years.

If like an aircraft, you were doing 1 hour of maintenance for every 10 - 20
hours driving, I'm sure your car would be more reliable.

~~~
idlewords
For military aircraft, there are far more hours of maintenance than flying
time. It's a factor of 10-20 in the other direction.

~~~
dredmorbius
I actually looked up the B-52 schedule and from what I could tell its
maintenance and duty schedules aren't _too_ out of line from recommended
maintenance for a privately owned automobile:

[https://plus.google.com/u/0/104092656004159577193/posts/PfZc...](https://plus.google.com/u/0/104092656004159577193/posts/PfZckXeBqP7)

The Boeing B-52 Stratofortress was introduced in 1952. Its mission is
presently projected through 2044.[1] That's a ninety-two year mission.

There were 744 built, unit costs range from $9.28 million (1962) to $53.4
million (1988). The most recent new production was 1963, over a half century
ago. Effectively the planes are rebuilt periodically, though some original
components may remain (I'm not fully up on my B-52 maintenance procedures and
schedules).

"Flyaway cost": $9.29m, in 1955 dollars, $82.53 in 2014 dollars)

Present maintenance costs: $10,406/hr.

That is equivalent to the purchase price of the aircraft every 8,000 flight
hours.

AAA publishes a "cost of ownership" report for automobiles which assumes
15,000 miles of travel and an average of $0.05/mi maintenance, or
$750/year.[2] This suggests that a B-52 level of maintenance is at least twice
the going cost of automobile maintenance. But not _hugely_ out of line given
relative capital costs.

GlobalSecurity.org claims B-52 total service life being 32,500 - 37,500 flying
hours.[3] Over the 92 year life of the program, that corresponds to a duty
cycle of roughly 4.6%, vs. 5.7% for the automobile referenced above. It also
gives us an annual maintenance cost per B-52 of $4.2 million -- or 5% of the
total purchase cost. Over the 92 year life of the aircraft, that's equivalent
to purchasing 4.7 new planes.

(Taken from a longer response to an allegation about failure to incorporate
demand-side depreciation in GDP, largely deconstructed, demolished, and
dismissed here.)

Also, incidentally, I dropped you an email concerning your "Internet with a
Human Face" blog posting, seen that by chance?

______________________________

Notes:

1\.
[http://www.gizmag.com/b52-upgrade/20098/](http://www.gizmag.com/b52-upgrade/20098/)

2\. [http://www.colorado.aaa.com/auto/fuel-guide/driving-costs-
fo...](http://www.colorado.aaa.com/auto/fuel-guide/driving-costs-for-vehicle-
types/)

3\.
[http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-52-life.htm](http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-52-life.htm)

------
otoolep
All amazing engineering achievements, and yet such white elephants in so many
ways. The Mars Rovers and Space probes have been so much more valuable for
science.

~~~
tdicola
I wouldn't write off the shuttle so quickly. It flew 100+ missions, brought up
the Hubble and helped fix it, brought up parts of the ISS, etc. Sure it didn't
get past low earth orbit but it did a lot of great stuff.

~~~
otoolep
Bringing up parts to the ISS doesn't count. It's done even less for science
than the Shuttle. :-)

Richard Feynman expressed great scepticism about the Shuttle, and its
scientific value. In his books he writes how he never came across a single
scientific paper that referenced it -- check out the chapter titled
"Committing Suicide" of "What do you care what other people think?".

~~~
NickPollard
The shuttle is a tool. If you're growing crystals in space or trying to
measure gravity waves, you don't mention the spacecraft, but you have to get
the experimental equipment up there some how or you can't do it.

Note: Not saying the Shuttle was the most suitable solution, but I think that
'it was never referenced in papers' is not a useful fact.

~~~
otoolep
No way. Anyone -- anyone -- who wrote a paper based on experimental data
retrieved on the Shuttle would absolutely list the Shuttle, the flight, and
the date. Basing research on data gathered in zero-gravity (technically micro-
gravity freefall) environment would be _so exceptional_ that the specific
spacecraft would have to be listed.

It would be like publishing a particle physics paper using data gathered at
the LHC and not mentioning that you got the data from the LHC.

------
mendort
Man, the shuttle's cargo bay was rediculously huge. Lofting that whole volume
for a routine iss resupply seems insanely wasteful. (I know that it is
expensive to loft mass, not volume. But in this case it is volume that needed
to be enclosed in a shell that could survive reentry.)

------
comrh
[http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-27/i...](http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-27/inflight/ndxpage42.html)
[http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-27/i...](http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-27/inflight/ndxpage42.html)
[http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-27/i...](http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-27/inflight/ndxpage43.html)

for more of them both. Some great shots.

------
SpaceInvader
And few pics of the ISS + other space crafts taken from Earth:
[http://www.astrokraai.nl/viewimages.php?category=9](http://www.astrokraai.nl/viewimages.php?category=9)

------
netman21
Has anyone ever created a virtual walk through of the ISS? Like every real
estate web site does for their listings? Google????

~~~
leephillips
I don't know, but this is probably better:
[http://www.wimp.com/orbitaltour/](http://www.wimp.com/orbitaltour/)

This is astronaut Sunita Williams providing an extensive video tour of the
ISS. Gives you a feel for what life is like up there. For example: they need
to take care that the use of the stationary exercise bike doesn't set up
vibrations that shake the exterior solar panel arrays.

~~~
peddamat
Watched every minute of that, thanks for posting!

------
rwmj
Is the Canadarm inspecting the bottom/tiles on the Shuttle? If not, then it's
dangerously close to them ..

------
leeoniya
wow those solar panels are huge.

------
roadnottaken
WHO'S TAKING THAT PICTURE??

~~~
aaronbrethorst

        [D]uring the Space Shuttle Endeavour's last trip
        to the International Space Station in 2011 May,
        a supply ship departed the station with astronauts
        that captured a series of rare views. The supply
        ship was the Russian Soyuz TMA-20 which landed in
        Kazakhstan later that day.

