Slashdot Mirror


Last Titan Launch from Florida

The Breeze writes "Driving along San Diego's freeways, I often passed a large Lockheed Martin facility that had big ATLAS and TITAN logos on them - it looked like it was still operating, even though I thought the Titan missile had been retired years ago. Well, according to CNN, the last Titan to be launched from Florida just took off with a classified military payload. I had no idea that they were still using 50-year old technology to launch stuff into space. If you are not adverse to MS Word documents, Patrick AFB, (the Air Force station at Cape Canaveral) has some press releases about the launch. Interested parties might want to click here for more info on Titan, along with links to the Titan Missile Museum where you can actually see a Titan in a silo -- and where Zeframe Cochrane launched his first warp ship from."

174 comments

  1. Good bye by helioquake · · Score: 1


    Good by Titan, and thanks for all the memories.

    1. Re:Good bye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Lanzan un satelite de ultima tecnologia nanochip pero camuflada como una obsoleta tecnologia para que no pueda ser espiada por los enemigos extraterrestres.

      They send a satellite of last waves nanochip but camouflaged like obsolete technology so that it cannot be spied by the extraterrestrial enemies.

    2. Re:Good bye by GotenXiao · · Score: 1

      aka So long and thanks for all the fish ;)

      --
      Goten Xiao
    3. Re:Good bye by Enigma_Man · · Score: 1

      It was fun watching it streak up the east coast. I saw it clear as day from Massachusetts, watched one of the stages separate and fall away, and watched the main part of the rocket eject extra unburnt fuel.

      -Jesse

      --
      Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
  2. That "Titan 2" site makes my eyes cry... by Khakionion · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ...when my eyes aren't busy bleeding profusely.

    --
    OMG! Wau!
    1. Re:That "Titan 2" site makes my eyes cry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That Blink tag can't be depricated fast enough for me.

    2. Re:That "Titan 2" site makes my eyes cry... by goneutt · · Score: 2, Funny

      These arent tears, we are puking through our eyeballs.

      --
      Bacardi + slashdot = negative karma.
  3. Not so outdated by Eric+Smith · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I had no idea that they were still using 50-year old technology to launch stuff into space.
    It's not 50-year-old technology. At least not all of it. There have been many updates to the Titan since it was originally developed; portions of it have been completely redesigned.
    1. Re:Not so outdated by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 0, Redundant

      There have been many updates to the Titan since it was originally developed; portions of it have been completely redesigned.

      Yeah, the payload keeps changing...

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:Not so outdated by Spetiam · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even if it were all 50-year-old technology, if it's still effective, why not use it? People still use hand-held hammers...

    3. Re:Not so outdated by demachina · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As others have noted its not exactly the same technology, its just the same name a company and team used over decades for a family of launchers as are Delta and Atlas.

      And as others have noted much of the technology really was good and didn't need to evolve.

      But it should also be noted there is a good reason expendable booster evolution has been slow in the U.S.

      In particular the Space Shuttle completely decimated and paralyzed expendable booster development in the 70's and early 80's and set it back for at least a decade if not two in the U.S. If you recall there was a NASA mandate during the Shuttle's heyday that all NASA satellites would be launched on it, the DOD similarly, though somewhat more reluctantly, put all its eggs in the shuttle basket which nearly wiped out the business for expendable boosters for a long period.. It wasn't until the Challenger disaster that everyone in the U.S. remembered unmanned expendable boosters were really way better for launching satellites.

      At that point Delta, Titan and Atlas went from nearly dead to rebirth but it took years to revive the expendible boost production lines and just get them back where they were before the Shuttle nuked them.

      Delta in particular was the team which was given a charter to build new booster technology, there is a pretty good writeup on Space Review. The Delta Heavy is one candidate for launching the CEV. Unfortunately just about every launch vehicle we have compares poorly to the Saturn V if you ware serious about going to the Moon or Mars. All the CEV plans I've seen require multiple launches and docking all the components in LEO to get to the Moon versus the Saturn V doing it all in one shot. Delta 4 Heavy is a slight improvement over the Saturn 1B which was the last U.S. man rated expendable booster used in Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz but pales against Saturn V.

      All in all its kind of sad commentary on how little America's space program has progressed since it peaked during Apollo.

      The CEV program is going to take a good 10 years, if a miracle occurs and it stays on schedule, until there is a manned launch and then its going to be putting a tiny conical capsule in to LEO. It will be a disappointment to anyone who remembers Apollo. In most respects they would be better served if they just dust off all the Apollo plans and reverse engineer that hardware systems, update things like the computers that have progressed dramaticly, and pick up where Apollo left off versus spending 10 years and a lot of money to design something less capable than Apollo.

      --
      @de_machina
    4. Re:Not so outdated by NardofDoom · · Score: 4, Funny

      Bah! You kids and your hammers! When I was your age we used a rock. we just picked it up and bashed away. Sure, we bruised our knuckles and cut our hands, but we didn't complain. We liked it!

      --
      You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
    5. Re:Not so outdated by ozbird · · Score: 1

      What I'd give for a rock! We had to punch the nails in with bare knuckles, and if they bent we'd rip them out with our teeth.

      But tell that to the kids of today, and they won't believe you...

    6. Re:Not so outdated by Captain+Chad · · Score: 1

      In 1955, there were no space rockets at all. Sputnik was not even launched until 1957, and the US had to struggle for years to catch up. I think the submitter may be exaggerating a bit when he says the technology is 50 years old.

      --
      Check out Chad's News
    7. Re:Not so outdated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You guys had rocks? We banged it in with our heads!

      Building a house was like going to war! You went in knowing some of you wouldn't make it back.

  4. Even more... by PresidentKang · · Score: 5, Informative
    from Florida Today .

    But it's not the last Titan, just the last to launch from Cape Canaveral. According to the article on Florida Today: "This Titan is the last of a family of 168 to be launched from Cape Canaveral. One last flight is scheduled to take off from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California."

    Quite the powerhorse. Congrats to all who worked on it over the years for jobs well done.

    1. Re:Even more... by iammaxus · · Score: 1

      Sure you don't mean workhouse?

    2. Re:Even more... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I had mod points, You would get a +1(coffee through the nose)funny.

      Thanks my sinuses needed that.

  5. Remember? by SethD · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why does this make me think of "Remember the Titans?"

    1. Re:Remember? by tezbobobo · · Score: 1

      Because, like the rocket, they should've given up while they were ahead (the director, not the footballers).

  6. What a coincidence... by FrostedWheat · · Score: 4, Informative

    The last Skylark rocket is to be launched on Sunday. It's also a 50 year old rocket!

    Amazing to think there was a British space program once!

    1. Re:What a coincidence... by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 1

      Actually I just checked, the Skylark is exactly 52 years old...

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:What a coincidence... by dmanny · · Score: 1

      OK. You made me look. Nice play.

      --
      All my previous sigs now look like this one, I wish they were permanetly recorded when used. :-(
    3. Re:What a coincidence... by DeathByDuke · · Score: 0

      And that British Space Programme was canned by a Conservative Government, doing what Tories do best. Cutting funding to everything.

      Blue Streak, Black Knight and Black Arrow were our biggest Government funded rockets, and were first designed to be used as ICBMs, naturally. Testing was done in Woomera in Australia in the 1950s and 60s, and a full launch of a British Satellite was conducted in the early 70s.
      And the origin of the Missile silo came from this programme, which the Americans then used after we shelved the idea due to funding, space and environmental concerns (we would've had to place silos across most of the best countryside).

      The rockets almost had a flawless launch record (Blue Streak was 100%), and for the early 1960s, it looked like we could have launched our own manned spaceflight programme after the Russians and Americans.

      Black Knight was mostly used to test atmospheric resistance and durability of the rocket designs, and its knowledge and designs were incorporated into Blue Streak.

      Black Arrow, had two failures to its name, and one successful placing of a British made Satellite, Prospero into orbit. Its still up there, circling, and transmitting.

      When Blue Streak was cancelled, a new design, called Black Prince came about. It fused Blue Streak and Black Knight together, with Knight being the second stage. However, enough funding was acquired, and despite attempting to woo the commonwealth members inot helping to fund the project, it got brushed aside, and Blue Streak got a French second stage instead. The rocket was now called Europa 1.
      On paper, Black Prince could have rivalled the Atlas Agenas or Centaurs of the US, but was unfortunately cancelled. As a result the newly formed European Space Agency turned to the French for its launchers, and they provided the Ariane series. The rest as we say, is history..

      For more information and facts, and for my source of information above, http://www.spaceuk.org/index.htm

    4. Re:What a coincidence... by Tandoori+Haggis · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the informative article. You sited one party as being responsible for the demise of the British space program. Looking at the article to which you kindly provided a link, it seemed that there were other factors. Those who would be using the ground based rocket did not seem to want it.

      And as for the party that replaced them?

      http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/tsr2/ind ex .html

      "All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics. TSR.2 simply got the first three right."
      - Sir Sydney Camm

      --
      My hyperlinks aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
  7. Shall we play a game? by iamzack · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    How about Global Thermonuclear War?

    1. Re:Shall we play a game? by steved3298 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      How bout a nice game of chess?

  8. Why can't you? by Chess_the_cat · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I had no idea that they were still using 50-year old technology to launch stuff into space.

    Have physics and the law of gravity changed in the last 50 years?

    --
    Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
    1. Re:Why can't you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Patrick AFB is actually about 20 miles away from NASA. I live next to it.

      I saw the rocket go off and was surprised that the Titan series were still in use.

      I wonder what model is next... hopefully the USA can keep up with Japan's JAXA.

    2. Re:Why can't you? by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      Yeah the US has a lot of work to do to catch up to JAXA, you know with there rockets that don't work and all.

    3. Re:Why can't you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah the US has a lot of work to do to catch up to JAXA, you know with there rockets that don't work and all.

      Can you guess what JAXA rockets and your english skills have in common?

    4. Re:Why can't you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uhuh

      My American propaganda crap is the truth, so shove it up yerr ass biotch!

    5. Re:Why can't you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your mom is 50-year old technology, and I still launch her stuff into space.

      ...

  9. Older but by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Insightful

    sometimes older and simpler is better than supersuper complicated stuff. Soyuz puts the shuttle to shame in the reliability department for example.

    So I'd say if Titan rockets worked, why change them?

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Older but by mikejz84 · · Score: 1

      Thats easy: about $480 Million Per Launch. The entire EELV program was basically to half the cost of the the Titan IV

    2. Re:Older but by simonbp · · Score: 1, Informative

      Because the Atlas V and Delta IV EELV's (Evolved Expendible Launch Vehicle) put the old Titans to shame; they are are chaeper per kilo to LEO and can be clustered together to form a Saturn I-class LV....

      Simon ;)

    3. Re:Older but by Planesdragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Soyuz puts the shuttle to shame in the reliability department for example.

      Not unless they're using them in some fashion I'm not aware of.

      A Soyuz--or any other similar design--is used once. Then the car-sized bit that you have left is either given to a museum or sold for scrap, and you make yourself a new one.

      The Shuttle isn't less reliable than the Soyuz--it's just far more usable, and hell of a lot bigger.

      (FWIW, the way of the future is amazingly like what the shuttle should have been--a resuable person-lifter, not a heavy-lifter that lets folk sit in the cabin.)

    4. Re:Older but by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 1

      The Shuttle isn't less reliable than the Soyuz--it's just far more usable, and hell of a lot bigger.

      A near-100% successful space program in 2005 involves (a) unmanned heavy-lifters like the Ariane, Delta,... rockets to haul stuff up in orbit, and (b) Soyuz or other simple space vehicles with Soyuz-like track records to carry people up there.

      What good is the Shuttle if it requires crews of 7, costs a fortune to launch and - more importantly - regularly kills its occupants, gets grounded for months or years, embarrasses the entire nation and forces it to pay the Russians to take over (with their Soyuz, they know better than using their Energya/Buran) while the accidents are being investigated?

      The Shuttle is a waste of money and human life. And it's not even that flexible at the end of the day. They should have scrapped it long ago...

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    5. Re:Older but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, Energia is a heck of a rocket. The Russians just realized that it was silly to piggyback Buran on it, Energia would do a lot better as a pure lifter...

    6. Re:Older but by RollingThunder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not so sure your comparison is fair.

      Reliability is all about meeting your design goals without fail when in operation.

      The Soyuz was always designed to be single use, and to work for that single use. It meets that criteria and I'd call it reliable.

      The Shuttle was designed for multiple use on a reasonable turnaround. Since two have been destroyed, and the others take a very long time between launches due to safety concerns and reviews, I would say it's not reliably meeting it's design goals.

    7. Re:Older but by dmaxwell · · Score: 1

      How much good does that reusability do us? If a reusable rocket is as much or more costly to launch than a disposable then what is the point? If it takes longer between missions and is more dangerous for manned flight then it looks even worse. The only thing the shuttle really has going for it is that it can throw a lot of weight into orbit. We need to design something more along the lines of the old Saturn V. That would be a true "space truck".

    8. Re:Older but by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "So I'd say if Titan rockets worked, why change them?"

      Speaking naievely here, consider some of the cool Shuttle designs we've seen in Popular Science. I think a lot of us would like to see what a new modern rocket would be like.

      Don't get me wrong, I think you're right. Nobody wants to gamble with payloads. But I do think there's a sense of stagnation in the development of orbital technology. I mean, 96 was almost 10 years ago and we still haven't had the Eugenics wars!

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    9. Re:Older but by Mercano · · Score: 1

      The shuttle requires a crew of two, not seven. The other five are just along for the ride, as far as flight operations are concerned. And the reason it costs more to launch then a Soyuz is because you are launching more. Over twice the number of people, plus a schoolbus-sized load of equipment in the cargo bay. Plus, it can bring BACK schoolbus sized loads in the cargo bay. Space in a Soyuz reentry module is very limited.

      --
      #include <signature.h>
    10. Re:Older but by ErikZ · · Score: 1


      Yeah, isn't it great how expendable rockets burn up on re-entry every time? Man, if only the shuttle had that kind of record.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    11. Re:Older but by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      Older but sometimes older and simpler is better than supersuper complicated stuff. Soyuz puts the shuttle to shame in the reliability department for example.
      Completely wrong on both counts.
      • The Soyuz TMA flying today has very little in common with it's 60's era progenitor. It's a much modified machine that is in the main actually of the same era as the Shuttle.
      • As I explain in this post the "safety and reliability" record of the Soyuz is largely illusory.
  10. Replacement? by flydude18 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What will the Air Force use now?

    1. Re:Replacement? by PresidentKang · · Score: 3, Informative

      Deltas (II and IV) and Atlas (V) are still much newer and going strong. I don't think there will be a shortage of rockets for military satellites in the near future.

    2. Re:Replacement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      According to slashdot, space elevators should be about done by next week. I mean, we see an article about "massive", "huge", or "groundbreaking" work on them like every 40 minutes.

      I say scrap the rockets. What a waste of hardware.

  11. 50 year old missles, 50 year old UIs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    The majority of Slashdot readers refuse to evolve from the commandline.. why expect anything else from other geeks using other technology?

  12. Not Old at all! by mikejz84 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Booster that flew was a Titan 4B (and is not the last Titan-4B to fly, just the last at the Cape--One more will fly from Vandenberg) The Titan 4B first flew in 1997 and was an upgraded verson of the Titan 4 that first flew in the mid 80s. The Titan 4 was primarly used as a replacement for Mil Payloads after Challenger. The Titan 3 was a workhorse of launchers during the 70s (Including Voyager and Viking). The Titan 2 serverd as the bases of the following lines and was an ICBM and booster for Gemini. The Titan Rocket that flew is not old tech wise, its old in the same sense as the cars we drive today being based on improved designs of the past. Please google before you post something without knowing all the facts.

    1. Re:Not Old at all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Thanks for the tidbits. I was hoping a rocket geek would post early with some detail of how the Titan line had changed.

      Really didn't think there'd be much left of the original like poster seems to think. Possibly as little as between a 65 malibu and an 05.

      Anybody got a link to a site with a good history of the Titan line?

  13. Watch out for the Borgs by Alarash · · Score: 1

    I hope they'll keep one or two handy. You never know when you can use Warp technology, and I'd hate disapointing Captain Picard.

    1. Re:Watch out for the Borgs by TheKidWho · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Well it WAS a titan rocket that launched Zeffren Cochran into space for his first warp drive test =)

    2. Re:Watch out for the Borgs by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      Well...it IS a classified military payload. Maybe they know something we don't.

    3. Re:Watch out for the Borgs by uberdave · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. The Phoenix was built out of an ICBM in Montana. There'll be plenty of those left over when the time comes.

    4. Re:Watch out for the Borgs by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "I hope they'll keep one or two handy. You never know when you can use Warp technology, and I'd hate disapointing Captain Picard."

      Oh boy, my nerd side's coming out. Just a week ago I watched First Contact with Okuda's text commentary. He talked about the fictional Titan used in the movie. It was, if memory serves, a type VII. (Note: If it wasn't a 7, then it was a model that hasn't been built yet, at least by the time the movie was made.)

      The actual rocket they used was one that was disarmed due to the treaty with Russia. (I want to say type III, but I was never particularly educated on rockets.) It didn't have the engine, so they had to modify it a bit for the movie. They also filmed it in an underground launching facility the gov't was nice enough to let them use for the movie. (Note: I don't think it was active...)

      Well, okay, I don't have a lot of useful information here. But if anybody's curious, the STVII director's cut has a neat text commentary that provides some insights into Titans and what went into filming that movie.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    5. Re:Watch out for the Borgs by The+Breeze · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the govt didn't loan them the site - they filmed it in the Titan Missile Museum by Tucson - I posted the link in the article. A neat place. Everything's on springs to ride-out a nuclear near-miss.

      -Steve

  14. Here's why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Why does this make me think of "Remember the Titans?"

    Because you have no life?

  15. Military Payloads Need Reliability: Titan Delivers by reporter · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Rockets are similar to cars. The choice is between a car that is in the 4th year of its production run and a car that has been redesigned new from the ground up. Completely new cars tend to have numerous problems, which are fed back to the engineers who then make the necessary modifications for next year's production run.

    Even Hondas suffer from this problem. If I must have the most reliable vehicle, I would choose a Civic model in its last year of production over a brand new, completely redesigned Civic.

    Since the Titans have been in use for a long time, the engineers have already fixed any outstanding, serious problems. The Titan is a reliable workhorse and should be the delivery vehicle for a military payload. Such payloads are vital to the national security of the United States, and we absolutely must avoid mishaps, especially given the emerging threat from China.

  16. Titan launch by CdrTostada · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Last night I was at disney's grad nite, and we saw the rocket and at first we thoguht it was like a plane with sparks coming off the end or something, I dont know, it didnt look like anything we had seen, except for a shuttle, but we knew they werent launching a shuttle. But now I know it was the titan. Its pretty cool to have seen what was probably the last titan to ever be launched.

    1. Re:Titan launch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Solids...and stage 1 burn.

      The Titan is badass in viewing only second to the shuttle (and the old Saturn V)

    2. Re:Titan launch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Delta IV Heavy is a sight to see as well. Three full (liquid) rockets strapped side by side all lighting at liftoff. It is the Titan replacement, as long as they can fix the problem from the first launch.

    3. Re:Titan launch by sjmacko29 · · Score: 1

      I was in Kissimmee, which is about 75 miles inland. We were at a perfromance. When we walked outside, coincidentally, we saw the three spots of light in the sky, along with a large plume of smoke. It took us a minute to figure out it was a multi-stage rocket. It was quite impressive, and the last point of light was visible for several minutes.

  17. 50 years old.... by wpiman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    50 year old technology is proven technology. If you are going to risk a multi-billion dollar satelitte- something that has had thousands of launches under its belt sounds good to me.

    1. Re:50 years old.... by Eminence · · Score: 1
      • 50 year old technology is proven technology. If you are going to risk a multi-billion dollar satelitte- something that has had thousands of launches under its belt sounds good to me.

      Yeah, sure. I'm sure they used a horse-drawn cart to get it to the launch site. After all, if you are going to risk a multi-billion dollar satellite something that has thousands of years of proven use is much better than a car (a mere century).

  18. Launched? by brycef · · Score: 5, Funny

    "...and where Zeframe Cochrane launched his first warp ship from."

    No. It's where Zeframe Cochrane WILL launch his first warp ship from. Get your facts straight.

    1. Re:Launched? by Molt · · Score: 1

      No, it is "Launched". There's been another temporal anomaly, and the warp ship was launched over 1,500 years before it was meant to.. completely destroying causality, and making a lot of Enterprise fans very annoyed. Fortunately by inverting the BS-field emitters we may be able to be able to save life as we know it.

      Ah well, I guess it's nice to see that old space science still works even as old space science fiction seems to be running out of steam.. or hyperdrive, or whatever.

      --
      404 Not Found: No such file or resource as '.sig'
    2. Re:Launched? by Amiga+Lover · · Score: 1

      >> "...and where Zeframe Cochrane launched his first warp ship
      >> from."
      > No. It's where Zeframe Cochrane WILL launch his first warp
      > ship from. Get your facts straight.

      Something I've always wondered. Cochrane went into space in a titan rocket - and warped. All cool.

      How did he get back to earth?

    3. Re:Launched? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. It's where Zefram Cochrane WILL launch his first warp ship from. Get your facts straight.

      You are such dorks. Not that I'm not.

    4. Re:Launched? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Will have lanuched. Time travel is going to have already ruined verb tenses.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    5. Re:Launched? by NewNole2001 · · Score: 1

      The Enterprise-E just beamed him down. Why do you think they were there?

    6. Re:Launched? by NanoGator · · Score: 3, Informative

      "No. It's where Zeframe Cochrane WILL launch his first warp ship from. Get your facts straight."

      Well, if we're going to argue 'facts', the Titan referred to in First Contact has not been built yet. They very specifically referred to a model that has not been built yet. The main reason for this is that the Titan they used could not get into orbit. So they incremented the number a few times and made implications that there was a nuclear war. The idea there was that one day there would be a Titan developed that could, in theory, get a warp ship into orbit to test drive. (Basically, it was a pre-emptive move to shut up the nitpickers.)

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    7. Re:Launched? by spedrosa · · Score: 1

      One of the major problems encountered in time travel is not that
      of accidentally becoming your own father or mother. There is no
      problem involved in becoming your own father or mother that a
      broadminded and well-adjusted family can't cope with. There is
      also no problem about changing the course of history - the course
      of history does not change because it all fits together like a
      jigsaw. All the important changes have happened before the things
      they were supposed to change and it all sorts itself out in the
      end.

      The major problem is quite simply one of grammar, and the main
      work to consult in this matter is Dr Dan Streetmentioner's Time
      Traveller's Handbook of 1001 Tense Formations. It will tell you
      for instance how to describe something that was about to happen
      to you in the past before you avoided it by time-jumping forward
      two days in order to avoid it. The event will be described
      differently according to whether you are talking about it from
      the standpoint of your own natural time, from a time in the
      further future, or a time in the further past and is further
      complicated by the possibility of conducting conversations whilst
      you are actually travelling from one time to another with the
      intention of becoming your own father or mother.

      Most readers get as far as the Future Semi-Conditionally Modified
      Subinverted Plagal Past Subjunctive Intentional before giving up:
      and in fact in later editions of the book all the pages beyond
      this point have been left blank to save on printing costs.

      The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy skips lightly over this
      tangle of academic abstraction, pausing only to note that the
      term "Future Perfect" has been abandoned since it was discovered
      not to be.

    8. Re:Launched? by The+Breeze · · Score: 1

      Yes, launched, in that although the movie says he launched / will launch from Montanna, the movie was actually FILMED in Tucson, at the Titan museum - so, if you refer to the making of the movie as the "launch", then the past tense is indeed correct.

    9. Re:Launched? by istewart · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I assumed it would be some sort of splashdown. There's got to be a lake of some kind in Montana or a bordering state, even though that might be a hard target to hit. He could've made a ground landing, but we have to assume that the Phoenix was intact since Picard says it was later placed in the Smithsonian.

      The crew compartment could've detached and splashed down a la Apollo, but that doesn't make much sense to me. It would probably be uneconomical to discard all the warp technology in the main body of the craft.

    10. Re:Launched? by brycef · · Score: 1

      Uh, Yes. Exactly.

    11. Re:Launched? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah. Zeframe Cochrane is probably the code name of the first man who has ALREADY made a warp flight. Do you really think the govt would tell us if our country had warp capability? I rest my case.

  19. Re:Military Payloads Need Reliability: Titan Deliv by mikejz84 · · Score: 1, Troll

    Ah...Titan was NOT reliable. It had a success rate of only 86% (http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/titan4b.htm) Atlas has a near perfect record for the last few decades.

  20. Re:Military Payloads Need Reliability: Titan Deliv by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Titan II was even Man rated. The Titan 3 was supposed to be. The old Deltas and Atlas's where even older. The Delta was based on the Thor and the Titan I was the next generation ICBM after the Atlas. The current Atlas and Deltas are totally new rockets with old names.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  21. and where Zeframe Cochrane launched ... by mikelieman · · Score: 1

    How is it that a guy from Alpha Centauri could do that on Earth?

    Sounds to me like someone's lying.

    Jesus ain't down with that...

    --
    Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
    1. Re:and where Zeframe Cochrane launched ... by Servo5678 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Zefram Cochrane started out on Earth, building and launching his warp ship (the Phoenix) on April 5, 2063 at a missile complex in Bozeman, Montana. It was only later in life at the age of 87 that he moved to Alpha Centauri.

      The life of Zefram Cochrane

    2. Re:and where Zeframe Cochrane launched ... by mikelieman · · Score: 1

      Nope. That's REVISIONIST HISTORY.

      First Contact is not canonical.

      Braga's an idiot.

      I should stop now. I've said too much.

      --
      Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
    3. Re:and where Zeframe Cochrane launched ... by Servo5678 · · Score: 1

      The movies are canon. Just because you don't like an episode or movie doesn't mean that you can just blitz it from Trek history. If people could do that then there would be no Trek canon at all.

  22. I work on the Titan at the Cape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Beautiful launch on a beautiful launch and a fitting end to a legacy and a tradition in space.

    A memorable night there for those who attended and worked many years at the Cape.

    Parent is right AND wrong about 50-year old technology. The basic premise is the same in processing but the avionics and software are FAR from ancient and are in fact very recent. Titan is too expensive however now because of the previous use of hypergolics transitioning to newer and safer fuels as well as refinements in processing and launching that were implementing in the Atlas V.

    Long live the Titan.

    1. Re:I work on the Titan at the Cape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *beautiful launch on a beautiful NIGHT.

      pays to preview...

    2. Re:I work on the Titan at the Cape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1


      Congrats, to you and your mates!

      Love,
      Slashdot

  23. Old Irish proberb.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A new broom sweeps clean, but an old broom knows the corners, as my folks used to say.

    I agree 100% Unless rockets have advanced so much that they're loads more efficient, lift higher better, faster, more reliably, etc--which they haven't, aren't, and don't... Then there's no reason for change.

    Unless the reason for change is the change itself, then that's a double edged sword, at best.

  24. If it ain't broke, don't fix it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Reliable rocketry hasn't advanced far since Goddard's time. The Titan is a perfect example of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" technology.

  25. One more already scheduled? by Man+In+Black · · Score: 1
    According to Wikipedia's Titan entry:
    The second-to-last Titan launched successfully from Cape Canaveral on April 29, 2005. The final Titan is scheduled to launch from Vandenberg in July.
    --
    -"One machine can do the work of fifty ordinary men. No machine can do the work of one extraordinary man." -EH
  26. Might I recommend a book by hedley · · Score: 3, Informative

    Titan II: A History of a Cold War Missile Program
    by Jay W. Kelley

    I have this book. Its heavy on the detail of the missile silo development and the cold war time it was developed.

    There was no other missile in the US arsenal that could loft the 9MT warhead it carried. Still to this day it is the heavyweight leader.

    Hedley.

    1. Re:Might I recommend a book by hedley · · Score: 1

      Kelley wrote the forward. David Stumpf was the author.

    2. Re:Might I recommend a book by toxic666 · · Score: 1

      I recommend another book if you can get a copy:

      To Defend and Deter: The Legacy of the United States Cold War Missile Program

      by Lonquest and Winkler
      USACERL Special Report 97/01

      It covers Nike, Safeguard, BOMARC, Atlas, Titan, Minuteman, Jupiter, Thor and Snark. That's a lot of history, but they managed to put together very reliable systems.

  27. nerd alert! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Zefram Cochran will launch his warp ship, the Pheonix, from Montana.

  28. Re:Military Payloads Need Reliability: Titan Deliv by fm6 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Rockets are similar to cars.
    Not least because a 50-year-old car can do the job it was designed for, with a little maintenance. Or a hundred-year-old car for that matter. We throw out old hardware because we're infatuated with the latest and greatest, not because the old hardware is worthless.
  29. Long lead times by Herr_Jones · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I worked on my first Titan-Centaur in 1989, and at that point there were already end-items assigned out 10+ years. Launch vehicles are based on methodical and tested revisions to proven platforms. Mistakes are expensive. For context, I got the task to replace a program that managed end item change tracking. I was given the original source code on green-bar; the change note entries were in double letters by 1959.

  30. Re:Military Payloads Need Reliability: Titan Deliv by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    especially given the emerging threat from China [phrusa.org].

    Hey, don't you usually post as anonymous coward? Too bad, now everyone knows who you are.

  31. Zeframe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it's from where Zefram Cochrane will launch his first warp ship. I don't expect formally correct grammar from Slashdot, but at least they could run a simple spell check.

  32. boingboing.net has some info on this by 311Stylee · · Score: 2, Interesting
    they have been following a story about a boat parked in maine with some weird looking antennas on it. apparently, it is going to be used to track the launch. the urls to the first and second story.

    according to what I read, some dude from space.com seems to know all about it and says nasa isn't doing any other space launches and the satellite launch is the only thing it could be.

  33. Bye Titan 2 by ellisDtrails · · Score: 0, Troll

    Please deliver your classified military payload safely. May the death, destruction and oppression contained in your hallowed cylinder bring freedom to all 'muricans!

    1. Re:Bye Titan 2 by eclectro · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Please deliver your classified military payload safely. May the death, destruction and oppression contained in your hallowed cylinder bring freedom to all 'muricans!

      Just like the Global Position System (GPS) does, which is a military payload. Bringing better lives to millions.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    2. Re:Bye Titan 2 by daraf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let's not forget about the Internet, nuclear power, and the airplane.

      Politics / opinion aside, I think too few people realize that military technology often translates into useful civilian technology. The corollary to beating swords into plowshares is better swords make better plowshares.

  34. Tried and true by Skippy_kangaroo · · Score: 2, Informative

    While the Titan's might be '50 year old technology' they are much better at launching payloads into space than the much newer shuttles. In fact, there has been a lot of criticism about America's unhealthy focus on reusable vehicles i.e. the shuttles. They are relatively wimpy in the payloads they can lift (they can barely get satellites to geosynchronous orbit and don't go there themselves). So, newer is not necessarily better.

    1. Re:Tried and true by Limburgher · · Score: 1

      Titan's WHAT might be '50 year old technology'???? Titan's guidance systems? Titan's software? Please either specify or watch your use of the posessive. ;)

      --

      You are not the customer.

    2. Re:Tried and true by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Informative

      Until the delta IV heavy, there was no American launch system that could match the Shuttle for payload. (30,000 lbs) Unless you count the discontinued Saturn line. In fact, I haven't heard of many Proton launches lately...

      Since the only RLV in existence is also the undisputed heavy lifter for something like two decades, I'd say the lack of demand for real heavy lifters is the reason they all seem to top out at 30klbs to LEO.

      Of course I say this grudgingly as I'd like to see either new RLV's to prove the concept really is cheaper or abandment of the idea for the forseable future.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    3. Re:Tried and true by Skippy_kangaroo · · Score: 1
      Note the quotes and compare it with the article. It's not a precise statement just a reference to an earlier use of the term.

      As for my view - it's 50 year old technology in the same way that the automobile is 100 year old technology and computers are 150+ year old technology (if you want to go back to Babbage)

    4. Re:Tried and true by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      While the Titan's might be '50 year old technology' they are much better at launching payloads into space than the much newer shuttles.
      To start with, the Titan IV is 80's tech, mainly younger than the Shuttle. Secondly, out of 168 flights, somewhere around 8 have failed utterly (.04), where the Shuttle has lost 2 out of 113 (.01). (Not to mention the fact that all of the Titan payloads were lost - the Shuttle has had four failures that caused loss of mission, and all of them were reflown without requiring replacement.)
      In fact, there has been a lot of criticism about America's unhealthy focus on reusable vehicles i.e. the shuttles.
      Not by anyone knowledgeable about launcher development, the Shuttle accounts for something like 1/5 of the total (US) launches since Columbia's maiden flight. In addition developement of expendables has continued apace across that timeframe.
      They [the shuttles] are relatively wimpy in the payloads they can lift (they can barely get satellites to geosynchronous orbit and don't go there themselves).
      60,000 lbs is barely wimpy - in fact it's at the upper range available from *any* active launcher from any nation in the world. Further more, a Titan IV can't get *any* of itself to geosync - no different from the Shuttle.
    5. Re:Tried and true by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      IIRC, a Delta IV Heavy has not been built yet.

    6. Re:Tried and true by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      nope, Delta IV heavy launched in December of last year. You can watch rollout videos on Boeing's website. It's um.. very big.

      A quick google reveals:
      http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/bls/d4he avy/flash.html

      (warning: there's a lot of flash on "flash.html")

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  35. Way to up the ante... by Attaturk · · Score: 0, Troll

    the last Titan to be launched from Florida just took off with a classified military payload

    I can't be the only foreigner wondering what the hell the US military is doing putting something so big and heavy that it requires a Titan into space. So much for Kennedy's speech at Rice about keeping weapons of mass destruction out of space, eh? China you watching this?

    1. Re:Way to up the ante... by Nerull · · Score: 4, Informative

      The current theory, supported by the orbit it was launched into, is that its the 5th in a fleet of radar imaging satillites, known as "LACROSSE".

    2. Re:Way to up the ante... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see how the above post is a troll. I too wonder why the US insists on militarisation of space.

    3. Re:Way to up the ante... by Attaturk · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I think it's because I implied that the US misuse of space was nefarious and bullish. Must have touched a nerve.

    4. Re:Way to up the ante... by Cyberherbalist · · Score: 1
      I wouldn't have modded it Troll, myself, but your comments are, with all due respect, not that insightful.

      "...US misuse of space..." This is a wildly sanctimonious sentiment. Just what is this misuse of space, anyway? The only proper use is what you think it should be used for? Or only for scientific experimentation? Not for national defense --- that's illegitimate? Oh, please.

      If the use of space does not result in harm to others, then it is not a misuse. Keep in mind that if what bothers you is that US spy satellites can see what's in your backyard, that isn't a genuine harm. Just cover it with a tarp and they won't be able to see a thing.

      --
      "The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance."
    5. Re:Way to up the ante... by Attaturk · · Score: 1


      "US misuse of space" is not sanctimonious. It's a fact. I'll quote JFK to help illustrate my point if you don't mind: "We have vowed that we shall not see space filled with weapons of mass destruction, but with instruments of knowledge and understanding."

      So you see, it's absolutely nothing to do with paranoia or "what's in my back yard". It's very simple really. I object to weapons in space. I object to any kind of nationalism in space. I object to any nation believing it has the right to dominate, militarily or otherwise, space. I'm entirely expecting to repeatedly get modded down by US patriots but frankly this is the kind of thing that I'll always happily burn karma on.

    6. Re:Way to up the ante... by Cyberherbalist · · Score: 1
      I have a number of issues about which I am very much an idealist. And I would agree with JFK about the idealism of not having space filled with weapons of mass destruction -- so you see we would agree with each other on this.

      However, the idealist in me also sees reality. And the reality is that they who have the power make the rules. And like it or hate it, there is no power on earth that can make the use of space completely outside any kind of nationalism, unless that power itself is outside nationalism, i.e. a neutral, non-national power that would enforce equal access and be able to forbid domination by any one or group of nations.

      BUT, in order to be able to do such a thing, that neutral, non-national power would have to have the ability to project force in very uncomfortable quantities -- and it would have to be able to project that force from space. Which defeats both your idealism, and mine.

      The sad fact of the matter is simply this, we live in an imperfect world, where He Who Has The Gold Makes The Rules, and unless and until something happens here on earth to diminish man's desire or lust for power over his fellow man, somebody will have weapons, or weapons-related artifacts, in space. Just pray it is someone who has some scruples, or willingness to allow others to lead their lives largely unmolested.

      Despite the shrill cries of outrage, the United States is currently the only power on earth which is both able to dominate space, and has no real interest in using that domination to run everyone else's lives. Note I do not say, is unwilling to use its advantage in its national interest. But typically the national interest of the USA does not translate out to invading peaceful nations, or forbidding the use of space to anyone else with peaceful intent.

      --
      "The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance."
    7. Re:Way to up the ante... by Attaturk · · Score: 1


      But typically the national interest of the USA does not translate out to invading peaceful nations, or forbidding the use of space to anyone else with peaceful intent.

      Unfortunately the former point is debatable and the second point open to interpretation - and if the US' recent example of how it interprets its intelligence is anything to go by, then your idealism is at much at risk as mine.

  36. Re:pedantic, I know by okmijnuhb · · Score: 1

    Not really pedantic.
    The editor of a publication with the huge number of readers, should know the difference between "adverse" and "averse."
    It's really rather an embarrassing reflection of his intelligence, and/or education.

  37. old but reliable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    They might be old, but the fewer parts they use and the simpler the technology is less things will go wrong or brake. Why for instance is the russian space agency so good? They use old stuff. Without the almost 40 year Soyuz spacecraft the ISS would have long gone down the gravity drain...

    I suppose the Titan is far more reliable and fault-proof than the Space Shuttle.

  38. oh, please. by porkchop_d_clown · · Score: 1

    we've used titans for 50 years now to put spy satellites in polar orbit.

    Better tighten your tinfoil hat.

    1. Re:oh, please. by Attaturk · · Score: 0, Troll

      we've used titans for 50 years now to put spy satellites in polar orbit.

      Ah that's OK then. Silly me.

  39. Nitpicking by tilleyrw · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I live in Titusville, FL and work in Cocoa Beach as a subcontractor to the military. Patrick Air Force Base is a different and separate entity to Cape Cavanaveral Air Force Station.

    As a badged and cleared employee, I've walked around the base of the gantries from which they launch Titans, after attaching the boosters, the payload, then the command (autopilot, etc.) module on top.

    --
    This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
    1. Re:Nitpicking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Patrick is about 20 miles south, but Patrick Air Force Base is the parent base to Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. So different may apply, but separate only applies to geography, not to organization. I was directly west from the pad off U.S. 1 watching the launch. With all the problems the Titans have had in the past years, I hope the Delta IV and Atlas V have better histories launching the heavy loads.

  40. Stop Wasting Our Time by reallocate · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Yes. I suppose /. would run a story about the Tooth Fairy if some other idiot sent it in.

    About all this Titan had in common with the original Titan ICBM was the name.

    If the /. staff can't be bothered to have a clue, maybe they can actually pay attention to the news so they stop running this kind of stuff days after it happened.

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    1. Re:Stop Wasting Our Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If the /. staff can't be bothered to have a clue, maybe they can actually pay attention to the news so they stop running this kind of stuff days after it happened."

      The submitter made the comment about 50 year old tech, not the editors.

      And this happened yesterday evening, its hardly 'days after it happened'

      Of course, if posters bothered to have a clue, they wouldn't be able to whine about every story.

    2. Re:Stop Wasting Our Time by reallocate · · Score: 1

      It is the responsibility of the editors to edit the posts before they publish them. If they can't even be bothered to verify the accuaracy of reader submissions, why are they being paid?

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  41. Future tense... by Bender0x7D1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I know that it can be tough to know what tense to use given that there was a temporal cold war and all that, but it should be:

    where Zeframe Cochrane will launch his first warp ship from.

    and not:

    where Zeframe Cochrane launched his first warp ship from.

    Then again...
    if you were there when it happened before, but in the future, then I guess you could use the past tense.

    --
    Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
    1. Re:Future tense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Actually, if you're referring to something that happened in a fictional movie in the past, then "where Zeframe Cochrane launched his first warp ship from" is perfectly fine. Should I be surprised that this escaped someone on /.?

    2. Re:Future tense... by jcuervo · · Score: 1
      I know that it can be tough to know what tense to use given that there was a temporal cold war and all that, but it should be:

      where Zeframe Cochrane will launch his first warp ship from.

      and not:

      where Zeframe Cochrane launched his first warp ship from.
      What about: "where Zeframe Cochrane will have launched the first warp ship from".
      --
      Assume I was drunk when I posted this.
  42. Cool by iawix · · Score: 1

    Saw it last night from my driveway here in Daytona, first launch I've ever seen. We saw three lights... I'm assuming it had boosters? (they dropped off after a while)

    --
    FAA Certified Flight Instructor
    1. Re: Cool by Steve+Blake · · Score: 1

      Saw the satellite separate from the second stage in a parking lot in Cary, NC at 9pm. At first I thought it was a firework: there was an expanding ring of yellow-white light that grew to about 2 moon diameters before fading out. Very cool.

      There is a good timeline for the ascent at http://www.spaceflightnow.com/titan/b30/status.htm l .

  43. Titan -- a wild and dangerous machine by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 4, Interesting
    IIRC the Titan boosters used the rather poisonous Nitrogen Tetroxide as the oxidizer. That stuff is mighty bad for human lungs if it gets into your air. Also the computer was cooled by liquid mercury.

    Also I had the pleasure of taking apart an one of these Titan guidance computers. It was about the size of a big suitcase. Built to take many G's-- it had a aluminum case about 3/4 inch thick. All thge modules inside were potted in a tough pink styrofoam.

    An amazing device with about 300 credit-card sized PC boards all plugged in and soldered into a backplane. Each PC board had what looked like four to six Westinghouse flat-pack IC's, probably DTL logic, maybe four gates max per chip. Amazing what they could do with that little hardware. The memory was some PC-board version of magnetic wire memory, as cores probably couldnt take the g's and vibration. Sobering to be poking through a device designed to land 9 Megatons on the Ruskies.

    1. Re:Titan -- a wild and dangerous machine by RoboProg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wow. "PC". My mind keeps wanting to think personal computer, or even "PC[MCIA] card". I have to force myself to remember printed circuit boards, like the hobby crud we did in the 70s where you'd drop on a dozen do-dads or so (and then proceed to burn them up, if you are me in junior high, heh heh)

      Somehow, it seems much more appropriate to have big-iron-ish parts on a beast like this, rather than grafting on somebody's Palm-Pilot or iPod :-)

      --
      Yow! I'm supposed to have a plan?
    2. Re:Titan -- a wild and dangerous machine by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Why would you cool a computer with a conductive liquid?

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    3. Re:Titan -- a wild and dangerous machine by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 1

      > Why would you cool a computer with a conductive liquid? The coolant ran through pipes, not freely over the components. One might suspect mercury has some property that's lacking in the other obvious choices. Maybe they couldnt stand to have the coolant boiling and generating bubbles, which would make the center of gravity unpredictable.

    4. Re:Titan -- a wild and dangerous machine by tokabola · · Score: 1

      You've never heard of water cooling? Water is conductive also, you know.

      The advantages of using mercury over water are twofold - first it is a better conductor of heat so it makes a more efficient cooling solution.

      The second advantage is that mercury doesn't expand when it freezes the way water does. While the coolant shouldn't ever freeze it is damn cold in space and things go wrong. If mercury solidifies (freezes) for a few minutes it can be thawed out with no damage to the equipment. If water freezes it will burst pipes, cooling jackets, and heat exchangers, leaving a leaky, inoperative cooling system.

      I'm not sure what affect the low pressure would have on water, since it's in a sealed system it may be pressurized. If not, water will boil at pretty low temps in a low pressure environment. That would seriously reduce the cooling effectiveness. I don't know for sure, but I suspect mercury is more stable under reduced pressure, with a higher vaporisation temp.

      Tommy
      IANARS
      --
      Open Source for Open Minds
  44. I watched the whole thing from a country road. by Deff+Jay · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A friend and I were on our way to Orlando and accidentally drove around 70 miles too far West. While we were driving back north east to find our way back onto the turnpike we saw the whole launch. At first we thought it was a really bright light above a farm house in the distance, until we got out of the car and saw the trail of smoke. The rocket appeared to break off into 3 pieces near the end of it's visibility. I am assuming these were some of its lower stage boosters? An unbelievable thing to see by accident, makes me think i should get lost more often.

    1. Re:I watched the whole thing from a country road. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how the fuck did you get 70 miles too far west? didn't you see the signs? or the gulf?

      nice story tho... :)

  45. Here's another Titan launch by Kohath · · Score: 1
  46. Launch almost evacuated oil platform in Canada by saskboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The US Military promised to blow up the rocket should it veer off course and potentially endanger Canadians off the coast of Newfounland.

    http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/04/30 /titan-missile050430.html

    --
    Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
    1. Re:Launch almost evacuated oil platform in Canada by shawnce · · Score: 1

      Talk about very very long odds on hitting a platform of that size with a much smaller booster in a big area of ocean.

    2. Re:Launch almost evacuated oil platform in Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the chances are admittedly low, but think if it did hit. It'd be Canada's Sept. 11 practically, complete with two massive towers burning, and brought about by an air disaster even. I wonder why other NASA launches don't pose a similar risk, and why the same launch trajectory isn't used as for other manned missions for instance.

    3. Re:Launch almost evacuated oil platform in Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CBC sensationalism as usual...
      The usual lefty luddites crawling out from under the birchbark canoe, uhhh, gas-guzzling SUV.
      One has a much better chance of winning the 6-49 loto.
      I was willing to go sit on the platform, if they'd give me $100,000...
      No wait- I'd do it for $1000 (and a warm overcoat)

    4. Re:Launch almost evacuated oil platform in Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The CBC is reporting news. The Nefoundland and Labrador government, and the platform opperators were the people making this a news story, not the CBC which REPORTS the news and thus isn't permitted to Make it. Sensationalizing it, is something they did not do, it wasn't on the front page for long of the website, and clearly you'd not heard it before or you'd have brought it up earlier.

    5. Re:Launch almost evacuated oil platform in Canada by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      The universe has a tendancy to like those kind of odds.

    6. Re:Launch almost evacuated oil platform in Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CBC sensationalism as usual...

      No, it was Danny Williams being Danny Williams as usual. The CBC just reported it.

      The people of Newfoundland and Labrador have elected governments that screwed their own province so much in the past that provincial nationalism nowadays equals almost instant support. Tobin played off it before and now Williams is playing off it.

      Don't blame the CBC for telling Canadians what Canadian politicians are saying.

  47. Re:Military Payloads Need Reliability: Titan Deliv by jandrese · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well that an 50 year old cars have terrible gas milage, put out way more pollution than a modern car (orders of magnitude), and require near constant maintence to keep running. People romanticize about old cars all the time, but forget that it used to be rare for a car to make it 100,000 miles, a feat that is commonplace today, even among cheap and nasty cars. The old hardware isn't worthless, but the new stuff is considerably better in most areas. The only major area where modern cars continually score worse than older cars is in maintainability by shade-tree mechanics. Old cars are a lot simpler and don't need sophisticated tools to be worked on, unlike many modern cars.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
  48. Re:Military Payloads Need Reliability: Titan Deliv by fm6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Right, old cars are not as good as new cars -- I never said they were. But they do the job. And so does an old rocket booster.

  49. Re:pedantic, I know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or perhaps simply his typing.

  50. Re:Military Payloads Need Reliability: Titan Deliv by Dolda2000 · · Score: 1
    especially given the emerging threat from China.
    While (1) torture is certainly a bad thing and (2) China may well be considered a thread to the US, I don't really see how torture in China is a threat to the US.

    Maybe that's just me...

  51. I just coming from the past-ed. Yeah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone read the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy and read up on what it has to say about "Tenses" as they refer to past, present and future.

  52. One problem by Mark+of+THE+CITY · · Score: 1

    Older tech is proven, but someone's got to make it. If your suppliers end-of-life on you, you're out of luck.

    --
    The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton
  53. new fark thread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FLORIDA Scientists send rocket based on 50 year old technology into space

  54. Titan II was a bottle rocket compared to this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Soviet SS-9.

  55. Wow. Really mature. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, what a great response! Your penchant for witty responses will be remembered throughout history along with the Edsel, Pepsi Clear, and Rosie O'Donnel's singing career.

    Jackass.

  56. More info here... by thrill12 · · Score: 1

    http://satobs.org/p_chien.html

    But it states "lacrosse" is no longer the codename used for the project.

    --
    Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
  57. Re:Wow. Really mature. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Oh, what a great response! Your penchant for witty responses will be remembered throughout history along with the Edsel, Pepsi Clear, and Rosie O'Donnel's singing career.

    Jackass.

  58. National Museum of the U. S. Air Force by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has 2 titans, in addition to many other US missiles.

    http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/ac/ms.htm

  59. You are hardcore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Sobering to be poking through a device designed to land 9 Megatons on the Ruskies.

    Wow... that's hardcore. When I have to sober up, I just drink coffee. ;)

  60. Re:Military Payloads Need Reliability: Titan Deliv by saltydogdesign · · Score: 0, Troll

    the emerging threat from China

    Uh, would that be the same China that relies on the U.S. to buy a huge chunk of the goods they produce, and that loans hundreds of billions of dollars every year to the U.S. to help prop up the economy there so that they can continue buying those goods? That China?

    And these military payloads, they fit into this economic equation how?

    --
    // This is not a sig.
  61. If You Don't Like It, Spell It Out by cmholm · · Score: 1
    I think you're right. I think /. is by and large moderated in the United States, where it's usually considered a character flaw to "beat around the bush". A cultural quirk, but there you go.

    Ok, your post was theoretically scored as a troll for it's likelihood of provoking pointless argument, so let's get to the point. You consider the Titan launch an escalation of space militarization. Assuming the most likely case, that it's one reconissance bird replacing another, what's the issue? Don't see any value in nations keeping an eye on each other? Ever use Google maps or Keyhole? If so, how are you or I any different than the US DoD, unless you're assuming it increases the odds that the DoD will use the information to whack someone.

    Really, space-based information gathering is old, old news. If you really thought the bird was packing heat, then your comment could rise above it's (-1).

    --
    Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
  62. Patrick AFB by LooseChanj · · Score: 1

    Patrick is in fact about half an hour south of Cape Canaveral AFS.

    --
    Mix the failings of Usenet with the shortcomings of the World Wide Web and the result is slashdot.
  63. Re:Military Payloads Need Reliability: Titan Deliv by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cunto.

    The US would be fucked without the superpower that is China.

  64. Waiting for the titan by latch665 · · Score: 1

    April 19th, the scheduled date of the launch, i was out there at 8 pm, waiting to see it. We waited accross the banana river, on the shore close to the launch site. Me and my brother waited for 3 hours but never saw it go up. I wanted to say good-bye

  65. Missle warning by radoni · · Score: 1

    flying in to Florida for the Hitchhiker's movie:

    "This is your captain speaking. I've been advised to take a south route through Ft. Lauderdale due to a missle launch, so expect to see some fireworks after the turbulence. I'll keep you all advised..."

    (later on)

    "Ladies and gentlemen if you look over the left wing you'll see the rocket, it's quite a sight."

    (people jump over to left windows, plane rolls a few degrees)

    --
    SIGERR: laziness exceeds quota
  66. Details by whitroth · · Score: 1

    a) This was not quite 50 yr old tech - it was a Titan IV (a *big* sucker).
    b) Other than the Shuttle, this has been our heavy lifter.
    c) the launch...(as seen from 17 mi. from the pad): huge flame, and the details from my wife, the former NASA engineer and hypergol expert, says Titans are straight hypergols, no solids or cryogens. Seperation...then, about the time it hit mach 2, it went through a high cloud layer, and it looked as though it had blown up, a white-ish ring suddenly and rapidly expanding around it, but the bright flame of the main engine still burning strongly.

    Wow.

    mark

  67. Celebrating Weapons of Mass Destruction by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Remember just a couple of years ago when possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction, especially fictitious ones, was justification for starting a war? Now we're back to the Good Old Days, when Weapons of Mass Destruction are a *good* thing, protecting our country from the *bad* people, making us *safer*....

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  68. If, by "ok" you mean by porkchop_d_clown · · Score: 1

    the same as the russians, chinese, japanese and europeans then, yeah.

    1. Re:If, by "ok" you mean by Attaturk · · Score: 1

      Don't worry I'm quite even-handed in my disapproval. Anyone who sanctions the militarisation of space I consider to be, at the very least, a philosophical opponent.

  69. Re:pedantic, I know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's that word again.