PastPost - STS-130 Endeavour

Note: This post was originally posted on a now-defunct website in 2010.  However, it is timely given that STS-133 Discovery is aloft on her last mission before retirement and Endeavour is scheduled for her final launch on 19 April.  It is hoped that the following images set an appropriate mood as the shuttle program enters its twilight period.

______________________________

Fire and (Almost) Ice
The Night Launch of STS-130 Endeavour

Monday 8 February 2010

This year, 2010, will be a significant year in the history of aviation for it marks the end of operations by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration of what is arguably the most advanced and unique aircraft ever developed.  It goes by the names of orbiter or space shuttle or by one of the individual names emblazoned on the upper right wing surface and both sides of the craft's forward fuselage - Atlantis, Discovery or Endeavour - and has launched exclusively from the Kennedy Space Center on Florida's appropriately named Space Coast since 1981.

The first mission of the year, STS-130, got underway in the early morning hours of 8 February.  Originally scheduled for 4:39 am on 7 February, thousands of spectators, tickets in hand, began arriving at the KSC Visitor Complex during the previous evening.  Viewing spots were staked out and the complex's attractions, displays and stores remained open overnight to provide those in attendance with things to do in advance of the launch and places to go to escape from the unseasonably low temperatures.  Heavy winter coats, hats, hoods and gloves/mitts were the order of the evening as the thermometer, unable to register the effects of a noticeable wind, dipped to 45°F (7°C) but history was in the making.

After nearly 29 years of operations, only five missions remained to be flown - all in 2010 - and this was to be the last night launch.  Weather, specifically the presence of clouds, was the only 'fly in the ointment' and proved to be the deciding factor in scrubbing the first launch attempt.  As the crowd departed KSC, their disappointment likely paled in comparison to the feelings of the six astronauts aboard Endeavour who had been strapped in some two and one-half hours earlier.

Spectators, though fewer in number, returned later that evening for a second launch attempt.  Temperatures were similar though the wind was somewhat less than the night before and, importantly, forecasts indicated that there would be a 60 percent chance of favorable weather for a launch.  The 5+ hour wait, again accompanied by the insightful commentary of former NASA astronaut/space shuttle pilot and US Navy fighter/test pilot Captain Jon A. McBride and by the sounds of NASA Northrop T-38 and Gulfstream II weather check aircraft and an Air Force Reserve Command Sikorsky HH-60 Pave Hawk helicopter on security patrol, passed relatively quickly.  Though there was a period during which meteorological conditions were below those required for a launch, by the end of a built-in hold a T-09M (minutes), a roll call of those monitoring the various technical disciplines required to send a vehicle into orbit indicated all was well.  Unlike the previous morning, the Supervisor of Range Operations, satisfied with the weather, answered in the affirmative to enthusiastic cheers at the Visitor Complex and, I'm sure, to the relief of NASA ground personnel and the Endeavour crew.  The final countdown began and excitement mounted as the onboard auxiliary power units were started a few minutes later.

At about a half-dozen seconds before liftoff, the shuttle's three main engines were started and the addition of the two solid rocket boosters at T-00M00S created a growing orange glow beyond the tree line near the Visitor Complex.  As Endeavour climbed above the trees it was as if the sun had risen early and quickly and the accompanying distant rumble created by more than 7.5 million pounds of thrust followed STS-130 skyward.  The shedding of the two solid rocket boosters was clearly visible in the night sky and STS-130 continued on into orbit under its own power.  As Endeavour passed from sight, the crowd began to dissipate and as they did thoughts of the future of America's manned space flight program were on the minds of more than a few.

(above)  The roar is not yet heard as Endeavour and crew rise above the tree line at the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex some seven miles (11.3 km) distant.  The space shuttle is the result of 1969 recommendations to place a space station in orbit following the conclusion of Apollo - NASA's then-current program to send humans to the moon for the first time.  A space transportation system was to be established to supply such a station and reusable vehicles would be used to 'shuttle' personnel, equipment and consumables from the earth to the space station, place satellites in orbit and retrieve satellites for return to earth as required and support military space activities.  Official go-ahead was given in 1972 and the first shuttle - Orbiter Vehicle 101, named Enterprise, was delivered in the summer of 1976 for flight testing in the earth's atmosphere only.  The first to go into space was OV-102 Columbia and that ship's initial launch, STS-1, took place on 12 April 1981.  Four others - OV-099 Challenger, OV-103 Discovery, OV-104 Atlantis and OV-105 Endeavour - joined NASA's fleet later making their initial trips to space between April 1983 and May 1992.

(above)  The distinctive twin flames produced by the solid rocket boosters, or SRBs, are visible here as Endeavour is caught between the scattered clouds found at 4,000 feet (1,219 m) above sea level.  The space shuttle is one of four system components and though it is equipped with three rocket engines of its own, each Space Shuttle Main Engine putting out 375,000 pounds of thrust (1,668.1 kN) at sea level, it would never leave the launch pad if not for the two SRBs and the familiar orange external tank.  The external tank, to which the shuttle is attached, is compartmentalized to hold the liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen used to fuel the SSMEs.  The two SRBs - one attached to each side of the external tank - provide the main push for the shuttle and each produces some 3.3 million pounds of thrust (14,679 kN) at launch.  Total launch weight is approximately 4.5 million pounds (2,041,166 kg) and the launch configuration is maintained until the reusable SRBs are jettisoned at an altitude of about 150,000 feet (45,720 m) or 28 miles (45.7 km) and the external tank at approximately 70 miles (112.7 km).  The kinetic energy of the shuttle then carries the craft and crew the rest of the way into orbit around the earth.

(above)  Endeavour emerges from the cloud deck in this launch view.  With the exception of periods of time after the first few missions and surrounding the loss of two shuttles and crews - STS-51L Challenger on 28 January 1986 and STS-107 Columbia on 1 February 2003 - space shuttle operations became relatively 'everyday' occurrences to most folks.  Launches received little fanfare from the media, apart from those in regions connected to the space shuttle program, and so did the accomplishments of the crews in orbit.  However much research has been done as a result of space shuttle missions.   Thousands of scientific experiments have been carried out within the confines of space shuttles and in pressurized payload bay modules designed to provide additional capacity and they have included research in the fields of biology, biomedicine, physics and communications.  Direct imaging of the earth and atmosphere has been done frequently with the use of radar and photography but the space shuttle program is probably most famous for the deployment - and sometimes retrieval - of NASA and American commercial satellites and scientific research platforms and those of a host of international nations.  One of the most significant deployments was that of the Hubble Space Telescope and shuttle astronauts have returned on four occasions to service and modify it.  The space shuttle has also played a key role in the construction and ongoing operation of the International Space Station by hauling station components large and small, equipment for installation in the ISS, supplies and replacement personnel.  Indeed, all of the remaining shuttle flights will deliver components for the ISS along with equipment to support onboard experiments.

(above)  The forward portions of the external tank and SRBs are barely visible beyond the glare produced by STS-130's five rocket engines.  The crew of Endeavour was tasked with the delivery and rather complicated attachment of a new node, or module, and cupola for the International Space Station.  Several days - and space walks - were spent preparing and mating the ISS, Tranquility node and cupola and installing external plumbing to cool the new node.  It will house ISS life support systems and physical fitness equipment thus freeing up valuable space in other areas of the station.  While most media reports focused on the outstanding view of the earth available from the multiwindow cupola, it will primarily serve practical purposes giving astronauts an actual view, instead of video images, of ISS remote manipulator arm operations.

(above)  Endeavour hurtles spaceward.  Only four more space shuttle missions will be flown, including one more by Endeavour, after which the program will wind down and an important era in the story of space research will come to an end.

767 Update

Following on the heels of yesterday’s Boeing 767 post, the US Air Force yesterday announced that Boeing has been chosen to supply the replacement for the long-serving KC-135 Stratotanker.  Based on the 767-200ER, the new aircraft has been given the C-46 designation – not to be confused with the US Army Air Forces’ Curtiss C-46 Commando of Second World War fame – and the first tankers will be the KC-46A version.

Of course all of this could change if the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS), having submitted a tanker version of its Airbus A330, should choose to appeal the decision.

Boeing’s KC-135 Stratotanker has been in US Air Force service since 1957 and though crews usually operate far from the publicity spotlight, their work is crucial to the USAF’s ability to conduct air operations – transport, combat or other activities – on a global scale.  The first examples of the new KC-46A are to be in service no later than 2018 by which time the youngest KC-135 will be well over 50 years old.

The following links are provided for more on the announcement:

Flightglobal

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2011/02/breaking-boeing-wins-kc-x-newg.html

Reuters

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/24/idUS229625744420110224

US Air Force

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123244029

(above)  Looks can be deceiving.  This Boeing KC-135R, 59-1502 seen taxiing at Nellis AFB, Nevada in late 2010, is now around 50 years old.  Aircraft and crew hail from Air Education and Training Command’s 97th Air Mobility Wing at Altus AFB, Oklahoma.  More specifically, they are assigned to the 54th Air Refueling Squadron which is responsible for the training of KC-135 aircrew.



A Grand for the 767

There was a time, during the last century, when major achievements of the aeronautical sort were met with considerable public recognition by media of the day.  Such newsworthy events were not limited to aviation ‘firsts’ and record-breaking flights but included the latest technical breakthroughs and industrial advancements by scientists, engineers and other innovators involved in aviation.

Alas, such treatment seems not to be afforded by purveyors of that which passes for news today.  Indeed, it appears that the release of a new video game or the usually self-created tribulations of a so-called celebrity are more worthy of media attention while aviation activities are often covered in little more than a few paragraphs if at all.

On that note, the Boeing Company, producer of prodigious quantities of jet airliners since the first Model 707 entered service with Pan American World Airways in 1958, celebrated an important event this month when the 1,000th Model 767 was completed.  The aircraft, a 767-381ER destined for All Nippon Airways, was rolled out to suitable fanfare on 2 February and flew for the first time on the 15th of this month.

The prototype, 767-200 N767BA, took to the skies for the first time on 26 September 1981 and since then the 767 has appeared in numerous variants.  The vast majority of 767s have been ordered by airlines and to that end the type has appeared in versions of increasingly greater length – and therefore capacity – and longer legs.  The -200 and -200ER (extended range) gave way to the -300 and -300ER and, ultimately, the -400ER.  Specialized 767 freighters, both new-build -300s and conversions of existing -200s, were developed by Boeing for the logistics industry.

Military versions, though built in very limited numbers, have also rolled off the assembly line.  They are in use, though not with any American armed services, as airborne warning and control system (AWACS) platforms and as tankers to refuel other aircraft while airborne.  A tanker/transport version, tailored for use by the US Air Force, has been in the long-running, on-again-off-again competition against the Airbus A330 to replace that service’s fleet of aging Boeing KC-135 Stratotankers.

The 767 has been quite a success for Boeing.  It is only the second wide-body type to be produced in numbers greater than 1,000 and shares that distinction with another Boeing design – the instantly recognizable Model 747.

The following links are provided for more on the rollout of 767 #1,000:

Flightglobal

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/02/03/352770/picture-boeing-unveils-1000th-767.html

Reuters

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/03/idUS404616260920110203

(above)  Though not procured in large numbers, the 767 was the choice of many airlines – both old and new – in eastern European countries and the former Soviet Union in the years following the end of the Cold War in 1989.  Aeroflot was, by virtue of its status as an arm of the Soviet Union’s communist government, once the world’s largest airline in terms of fleet size.  However, the airline was not long in adopting Western-built airliners when freedom arrived in late 1991.  Boeing 767-300 series aircraft like this one first entered Aeroflot service in 1994 and 13 have been flown at one time or another since then.  Today the airline flies ten examples.



Airline Mergers or Acquisitions: What’s the Difference and Does It Make a Difference?

The combining of two airlines into one entity is as old as commercial flying itself but such activities have been headline stories in the last few years as large and long-established US carriers become merely names in history books.  Familiar ‘NWA’ (Northwest Airlines) and ‘Continental’ (Continental Airlines) on airliner fuselages are the most recent brands to disappear.

The term ‘merger’ has been bandied about on the internet in reference to any airline get-together but, in reality there are differences between the two types of consolidation.  While the end result may be similar – usually operations under one banner – the paths to that end differ.  A merger brings two firms, usually of roughly equal size and business activity, together to form one company.  From a financial standpoint, it involves the exchange of shares in the merging firms for shares, in some predetermined ratio, in the new entity.

An acquisition, on the other hand, is just that.  One company buys another via cash payment, and sometimes stocks, to the shareholders of the acquired firm.  The purchased firm can be another airline, usually of smaller size, or an airline facing financial difficulties as was the case when American Airlines’ parent – AMR Corporation – bought what was left of Trans World Airlines in 2001.

In any event, US airline consolidation, after decades of relative calm due in no small part to federal government protection, became an almost normal activity in the years following airline deregulation in 1978.  Many were acquisitions of smaller airlines by the so-called ‘legacy’ air carriers – those large companies which had been in existence for decades – in the quest for success through the ‘bigger is better’ philosophy.  More than a few were attempts by the established carriers to stay afloat, or airborne, against the tides of bankruptcy or competition from low-cost carriers and their corporate culture of efficiency and customer service (with a smile).

Does consolidation improve the airline’s bottom line?  Those supporting consolidation use the argument that ‘bigger is better’.  Considerable savings, the thinking goes, can be had by eliminating redundancies in administration and operations and decreasing capacity through a reduction in aircraft and overlapping routes.  However, most airline, air travel and economic experts have been hard-pressed to find the rosy outcomes predicted and some ‘legacy’ airlines have been in and out of bankruptcy even after consolidation with other carriers.  Countering possible savings are the costs of consolidation which include the merging of two sometimes very different corporate cultures, collective bargaining agreements, information/reservation systems, aircraft fleets and workforces of different efficiencies.

Does consolidation benefit the consumer?  If you prefer to travel with one carrier and the new airline’s route system includes destinations or regions previously served by one or the other of the merging companies, then that would certainly be advantageous.  However, apart from business travel, much or all of which is eventually written off at tax time, most folks are more concerned with the cost of getting from Point A to Point B and any savings that might be passed on in the form of reduced ticket prices.  Many who study the industry have come to the not altogether unexpected conclusion that on routes which were previously served primarily by the two consolidating airlines, it is not uncommon for prices to increase.  It would seem that the main influence in keeping prices from rising, at least domestically, is the existence of competition from low-cost carriers – coined a while back as the ‘Southwest effect’ – and those carriers’ 2009 operating costs (per seat mile)* were, when averaged, around 35% less than those of the ‘legacy’ carriers.

For those interested in airline-related numbers, a link to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Airline Data Project is provided: http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/default.html

(above)  Consolidation, North American style.  Airlines tend to disappear following consolidation and, since 2001, seven ‘legacy’ airlines – American, Continental, Delta, Northwest, Trans World, United and US Airways – have been reduced to four.  American Airlines, Delta Air Lines and United Airlines all integrated smaller companies into their operations while America West Airlines bought the larger US Airways and, for reasons of brand recognition, elected to retain the latter airline’s name.  The registration of this Airbus A319-132, N831AW, on approach to Toronto Pearson International Airport in June 2007, is the only indicator that the bird was once part of America West’s fleet.

(above)  Several European airlines- notably Lufthansa/Swiss, Air France/KLM and British Airways/Iberia – have merged in recent years but a different approach has been taken.  With the exception of Swiss International Airlines, all were at one time state-owned, well-protected flag carriers with very good brand recognition and they continue to operate under umbrella groups with their original names today.  Despite the blue paint and abundance of KLM titles, this Boeing 747-406, PH-BFG Guayaquil, seen landing at Toronto in September 2009, displays proof of company ownership by the French corporation Air France-KLM below the dark blue stripe.