Slashdot Mirror
The Space Shuttle Returns
An anonymous reader writes "NASA's Return to Flight site details the space shuttle's to return to active use. The Flash intensive site features details on the mission, the crew, and the shuttle itself. Additionally, the site features none other than Scott Bakula as Captain Archer on the bridge of the Enterprise (USS, not STS)."
It's looking for revenge. "Earth, you killed my brother... and now it's your turn to die!"
Flash intensive site, a Scott Bakula video, and a front page Slashdot article.
Well, I'm guessing that NASA got that bandwidth sponsorship afterall.
Lets just hope we're not gonna see an article on Slashdot talking about another delay for launch due to limited funds.
I'm a virgo and on Slashdot. Coincidence? Yes.
Turned out it was cheaper to pay NASA to create a real Star Trek than to pay Paramount to produce season 5 of Enterprise.
And grammatical correctness too.
The Flash intensive site features details on the mission, the crew, and the shuttle itself.
I'm glad they spent $7,500 on an ultra-flash-intense site. Your tax dollars at work.
Until Paramount cancels the program.
Can we do something? Maybe if we all pledge money now, they won't cancel the shuttle after this season.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
It's been a long time
Since the last shuttle flight
There've been some changes
And a hell of a lot of gripes
But I can see the ship on the gantry now;
Nothing's in our way!
And they're not gonna hold at T-minus-10
We won't miss our window today!
'Cause I've got faith in Discovery!
I'm goin' where the SRBs take me!
I've got faith in Atlantis!
If we break down she'll come an' get me!
I've got faith in George Bush!
And on the budget funds he'll send me
I'll go all the way to Mars...!
'Cause I've got faith (I've got faith)
I've got faith in these shuttles of ours!
Cut to Scott Bakula in elaborate Mission Control set:
"Hi! I'm Scott Bakula! You might remember me from such cancelled sci-fi shows as Star Trek: Enterprise and Quantum Leap..."
"Al, why haven't I leaped yet?"
"Ziggy says you can't leap until the site gets one million visitors"
You know guys, I'd mod you up if I had the points. I'm amazed at what comedy can result from my own stupidity.
Having saved a few cents on O rings here, a few cents on insulating foam there and another few cents on leading wing edges they can now afford to hire the best web artists and B list TV stars to build a really cool website. ;-)
Seriously speaking, I'm all for NASA communicating what they are doing but I prefer there older sites which have been more content driven and highly functional rather than "flashy".
Just what we need, another generation inspired to become astronauts because it means "we can have sex with green women in bikinis".
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
I love it when a government agency spends money on self-promoting hype rather than something substantial.
Insert witty sig here.
Scott Bakula, an entertainment figure, on behalf of the NASA marketing dept. hyping the shuttle program to the entertainment-starved masses (rhetoric). :).
And Arnold would become the gov. of California, and Jesse "The Body" Ventura of Minnesota.
It's interesting what life starts to look like from a country that is inundated with entertainment.
... What's next on this list?
Does Nasa *really* need the support of the masses who sit in front of their weekly TV shows? or do they already have it? Should the NASA crew members not be making the cameo apperances since they are the *real* "heroes"? Scott Bakula is an actor who will never step into space. If it comes down to entertainment factor, might as well use Mickey Mouse as a spokesman (cool factor ruled out
Isn't that a bit presumptuous?
How do we know it's not the Scott Bakula's evil Mirror Universe twin?!?
Bruce
Non-Flash Version Text Only Version
PR is absolutely mission critical work for NASA.
If they lose public support, they lose funding, it's as simple as that.
If this web package was purchased for even as much as 1 million dollars, it was money well spent, possibly one of the most important line items in their budget.
Using Scott Bakula, while of debatable wisdom to those of us who hated Enterprise, shows astounding good sense on the part of someone at NASA. We can debate about whether Shatner or Stewart would have been better, but at least they're in the right ballpark.
But the site looks sharp, it's informative to a lay-person, and tries to make the shuttle program seem real in viewer's minds.
The only gripe I have is the CPU hit for playing the video. What codec is that?
disclaimer: I think the shuttle should be scrapped and we then return to capsule based launches which were cheaper and safer even with 60's technology.
Why not have an actual NASA person do the intro? It's a pretty sad joke when you need the Captain of a failed fictional show to generate hype about the return to space for manned missions. Cause you know an actor is far more qualified than a Rocket Scientist to tell you about the importance of the Space Shuttle in the endeavor of space exploration. What ass-clown in NASA PR team is responsible for this? It's revolting that NASA needs to resort to Flash-porn and hype. Damn you unwashed masses!
"Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor not an aerospace engineer!"
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
Yes, I hate it when our government institutes created to advance science in our country try to inspire the next generation. I hate it when they present science and technology in a manner that captures the imagination of the public. Don't they know the place of science in this country - they should just stay in their cubicles out of the public eye where they belong.
> A postage stamp sized video that takes 100% of a 3ghz machine to play.
> Well done NASA, you guys rock.
Yeah, c'mon NASA, it's exactly rocket science you kn...
OK. We may be in trouble.
L.
http://dayton.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/MEDIUM/GPN-2000-0 01363.jpg
. html
t ifacts/ HS-Enterprise.htm
"The Shuttle Enterprise rolls out of the Palmdale manufacturing facilities with Star Trek television cast members. From left to right they are: Dr. James D. Fletcher, NASA Administrator, DeForest Kelley (Dr. "Bones" McCoy), George Takei (Mr. Sulu), Nichelle Nichols (Lt. Uhura), Leonard Nimoy (the indefatigable Mr. Spock), Gene Rodenberry (The Great Bird of the Galaxy), and Walter Koenig (Ensign Pavel Checkov)"
taken from http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2000-001363
This is the Space Shuttle Enterprise, which is not usually counted among the shuttles. It's not spaceworthy, and was made to test Shuttle landings from the air (among other non-space tests), and was releasted from atop a (large) airplane for its flights, as shown here:
url:http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/dsh/ar
There's tons more on the (Space Shuttle) Enterprise, it's supposedly in the Smithsonian and you can see it in person - just google.
But looking back historically, that photo has a lot more class (even without Shatner - was he making another record? Okay, ESPECIALLY without Shatner!) than this thing with the series Enterprise (I haven't even seen it - the video doesn't play for me on Firefox 1.0.3 - NASA's not down with Firefox?) and the heroic but failed attempt at saving it.
Tag lost or not installed.
I'm no expert on space travel, so I'm sure someone more informed than I can fix the numbers, but a little research has told me that there have been between 2 and 9 shuttle missions a year between 1981 and now, with a 2 year hiatus after Challenger. Assume, the average is 4 per year, for 22 years, that means that there have been 88 shuttle flights. I'm fairly young, so I don't remember most of the space program, but I can only think of two Shuttle disasters, Challenger and Columbia. That gives the shuttle a success rate of 97.7%. That doesn't sound all that dangerous to me...
Of course, each failure is by definition fatal and expensive, but I wouldn't call the space program a failure or overly dangerous.
The Saturn I, IB, and V boosters all had a 100 percent success rate during launch. There have really only been 4 major disasters in the nearly 50 year history of spaceflight, and only three of them fatal (Apollo 1, and the two shuttles. Apollo 13 being the 4th, and nonfatal disaster)
They can mitigate the risks involved but never even come close to eliminating them all.
That statment applies to LIFE. The same can be said of cars, airplanes, boats... horses... Life is risky. Period. the question is, do the benifits outweigh the risks. I'd say yes, but I'm sure there are those that disagree.
Here is some better info, these are all the Shuttle Launches in the past and the future planned launches.
http://www.thespaceplace.com/shuttle/past.html
And the guy above is a troll with no experience in rocket science. AFAIK If there is an explosion or a leak in a tank, the Hydrogen dissapates into the atmosphere so quickly that all the energy can not be put into an explosion. So him trying to compare the energy by MJ of the shuttle to a nuke is flawed because the mechanics are vastly different.
Soyuz only seems safer, when in reality, the two are about even. It is true that when you factor in total deaths on Spache Shuttles you come up with a larger number. Soyuz crew: 3, Space Shuttle crew: 7. Crash for crash, bodies pile up faster from space shuttle crashes, and that's when they have the same failure rate.
Failure rate and fatality rate are different ratios, and "safer" is so damn subjective....
Like what I said? You might like my music