T-43 Hours and Counting

An anonymous reader submits "As seen on NASA TV, for the first time in over two years, the countdown clock has started at 6:00 PM EDT for the Wednesday 3:51 PM EDT launch of Space Shuttle Discovery on the first of the return to flight test flights. The launch is not for certain due to weather issues associated with hurricane Dennis. Currently it is estimated for a 70% chance of launch on Wednesday, with the chances lowering later in the week. If you are confused on how T-43 hours equals almost 3 days, perhaps you should read Countdown 101."

Comments

OH CRAP

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm in Alabama, and I just now watched out my window as Dennis suddenly started to turn, [i]popped a wheelie[/i], and turned around nearly 180 degrees right back toward florida. Well, so much for the shuttle launch.

Re:OH CRAP

[__aaclcg7560]

Uh, huh. Even a hurricane has trouble getting front row seats to a shuttle launch and has to sneak in through the back way. I don't think anyone will notice...

NASA TV

[rerunn]

NASA TV certainly has come a long way since the days of CUSeeMe rooms. Anyone remember those?

Re:NASA TV

[mcc]

Anyone remember those?

All I remember about CUSeeMe is a lot of nudity.

Man.... NASA sure has gotten a lot more conservative since then

Re:NASA TV

[Danathar]

yea.....I also remember them providing a multicast feed of NASA TV to the Education/Research community. That feed mysteriously dissapeared years ago. Now the only way to watch it in high quality (NOT WEBSTREAMING) and multicasted is via the University of Oregon...why NASA does not do this themselves is beyond me, it's not like they could'nt throw up a multicast feed in Mpeg-1 in say 20 min.

Re:NASA TV

[seanwg]

can you actually get any content from them? i'm multicast enabled but can't see anything from uoregon? sean

Just like (American) football

[spectral]

Where you have short periods of time that somehow extend to 2-5x as long as they're 'supposed to', because of all the time stoppage in the middle!

Re:Just like (American) football

[Anonymous Coward]

And then they pre-empt Futurama! I'll be in the angry dome!

NASA and NFL in cahoots

[ChillyWillie]

Maybe NASA is leasing their timer from the NFL where the last several minutes really takes a half hour.

Re:NASA and NFL in cahoots

[Anonymous Coward]

For every game minute (not just the last quarter or several minutes!) in the NFL you can expect 3 real life minutes to pass by. This is true of most major sports, with the exception of baseball. Civilizations rise and fall in the course of a single inning.

Re:NASA and NFL in cahoots

[secolactico]

That's nothing. In basketball, the last 15 seconds include about 3 timeouts.

And stop dribbling and take the goddamm free throw shot already! Or at least keep the clock running.

Re:NASA and NFL in cahoots

[Anonymous Coward]

This is, of course, not true at all in the most major sport in the world (soccer) where a 90-minute game with a single 15-minute halftime usually takes less than two hours from kickoff to final whistle.

Re:NASA and NFL in cahoots

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but the game is so boring that watching it takes 3 years off your life.

Hurray!

[Fjornir]

Worlds grow old and suns grow cold
And death we never can doubt.
Time's cold wind, wailing down the past,
Reminds us that all flesh is grass
And history's lamps blow out.

But the Eagle has landed; tell your children when.
Time won't drive us down to dust again.

Cycles turn while the far stars burn,
And people and planets age.
Life's crown passes to younger lands,
Time brushes dust of hope from his hands
And turns another page.

Yet the Eagle has landed; tell your children when.
Time won't drive us down to dust again.

But we who feel the weight of the wheel
When winter falls over our world
Can hope for tomorrow and raise our eyes
To a silver moon in the opened skies
And a single flag unfurled.

For the Eagle has landed; tell your children when.
Time won't drive us down to dust again.

We know well what Life can tell:
If you would not perish, then grow.
And today our fragile flesh and steel
Have laid our hands on a vaster wheel
With all of the stars to know

That the Eagle has landed; tell your children when.
Time won't drive us down to dust again.

From all who tried out of history's tide,
Salute for the team that won.
And the old Earth smiles at her children's reach,
The wave that carried us up the beach
To reach for the shining sun.

And the Eagle has landed; tell your children when.
Time won't drive us down to dust again

Re:Hurray!

[Anonymous Coward]

More like reallycoolpoemsbyLeslieFish.com

Re:Hurray!

[Fjornir]

OK -- I want to give a shout-out to whichever fucktard decided to mod this offtopic. You might not like it -- you might not even care -- but this is entirely topical.

Listen up and there's a small chance you might learn something. There was a time when an astronaut was a superhero and more. "What do you want to be when you grow up?" "An astronaut" -- not a powerpuff girl like you're all into now. So you, spongebob, and patrick can go back into the corner and have another circle jerk together. Myself, when Discovery lifts again I'm going to raise a glass to all of my heroes from the shuttle program... And I'll take a drink for every name on the roll of honor for Challenger and Columbia.

Re:Hurray!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a fool if you assume that if manned spaceflight is cut off, Congress will just decide to give the rest of the money for robotic spacecraft. They won't. NASA will loose its prestige, and Congress would cut back on the robotic spacecraft missions.

You are also a fool if you assume that if Congress closes down NASA they will automatically divert the funds to feeding the homeless or giving body armor to the troops. Congress doesn't work that way. $17 billion out of $2000 billion will go back into the general account and noone would even notice.

You might also state that the shuttle does not perform any 'exploration' missions. But that would be tunnel-vision. Neither Mercury nor Gemini peformed 'exploration' missions, either. Sometimes you need to build up to a more advanced platform. If NASA wanted to go to the Moon on its first flight it would have been similar to trying to build a nuclear submarine with only wooden ship technology. Engineering platforms are important because you can break up an immensely difficult task into several smaller but achievable tasks over a longer period. Mercury and Gemini showed that a spacecraft could support EVA's, dockings, navigation, etc. Performing all of this on Apollo would have been insane!

So what is the purpose of the Space Shuttle? To build the ISS, of course. The ISS is the very simple version of the spacecraft that will eventually take humans to Mars. It is an engineering platform to determine how we have to build a spacecraft that will allow humans to survive in deep space. It will not be the last space station. The information taken from the ISS will build a more advanced space station closer to the demands needed by the Mars mission spacecraft. After several space stations we will build simple long range spacecraft (like to the L3 and back). Eventually we will perform operations where humans are no longer shielded by the magnetosphere. And then we will go to Mars. From the information from the Moon bases (of several iterations) we will build will help us determine how to build a Mars base. Then we will conduct 'exploration'.

Seems inefficient compared to robotic spacecraft? In a way. But humanity is not just about science. Sometimes science drives us to achieve technology. Sometimes its the other way around. They coexist. It is the destiny of humanity to conquer Mars. It is the destiny of the US to lead the exploration of space. Whether you like it or not, Congress will see to it that this is always true. If China, Japan, ESA, etc. ever appear to be surpassing us in space technology, there will be a boost to NASA's budget so that we don't loose national prestige. Accept it. Robotic spacecraft will supplement human spaceflight, but never replace it.

Re:Hurray!

[m0ng0l]

Huzzah!!

Well said!

Hoist one for not just US astronauts, but for *all* humans who have died attempting to reach "the final frontier!"

And yes, I am a former Trekkie.

Re:Hurray!

[Anonymous Coward]

former? oh yes, Enterprise. I'm sorry for your loss

Re:Hurray!

[ph43drus]

Myself, when Discovery lifts again I'm going to raise a glass to all of my heroes from the shuttle program... And I'll take a drink for every name on the roll of honor for Challenger and Columbia.

I will raise that glass with you. To Dreams and Heroes.

Jeff

Re:Hurray!

[PingXao]

I'll echo m0ng0l and offer a rousing

Huzzah!

as well.

Re:Hurray!

[Lucractius]

Ill lift a glass to Dreams.
To the few that dreamed we could go that far to those that keep the dream alive.

And anyone that risks their life for dreams as grand as these certainly counts as worth a toast.

To the brave men and women that dare to look up, wonder just whats out there, and who keep reaching for the stars.

*raises glass*

Heres to them.

Re:Hurray!

[Anonymous Coward]

Whitey's on the Moon
by Gil Scott-Heron

A rat done bit my sister Nell
With whitey on the moon
Her face and arms began to swell
And whitey's on the moon
I can't pay no doctor bills
And whitey's on the moon
Ten years from now, I'll be payin' still
While whitey's on the moon
You know, the man just upped my rent last night
'Cos whitey's on the moon
No hot water, no toilets, no lights
But whitey's on the moon
I wonder why he's uppin' me
'Cos whitey's on the moon?
Well, I was already givin' him fifty a week
And now whitey's on the moon
Taxes takin' my whole damn check
The junkies make me a nervous wreck
The price of food is goin' up
And as if all that crap wasn't enough
A rat done bit my sister Nell
With whitey on the moon ..

Re:Hurray!

[PingXao]

Very nice. I'm glad I didn't see the off-topic mods for this or I would have been really ticked off.

By now we all know the race to the Moon and Apollo were rooted in the Cold War, and politics had as much to do with that magnificent success as science and exploration. Yet, it was an adventure people will forever look back upon even after those of us who remember the day are gone.

For many, myself included, who were young and not driven by politics or Cold War rhetoric and one-upsmanship, landing on the Moon stands as one of the proudest moments of our lives, even if it happened before we were even teenagers. Not just for America, but for the entire world.

The current U.S. manned spaceflight program is perhaps only a shell of its former self, but to this day I think the plaque left on the Moon, attached to the Eagle's landing gear sums it up beautifully:

Here men from the planet Earth first set foot upon the Moon. July, 1969 A.D. We came in peace for all mankind.

I used to have a little 4x6 inch replica of that plaque around, but it was misplaced at some point during the intervening years. Of all the little meaningless mementos and trivial souvenirs I've collected along the way it's the one I miss most.

Re:Hurray!

[Fjornir]

And you know what, man? I'll crouch face down in the mud barely able to breathe to support the men standing on my back who will make this bird fly...

Good for Science

[Bios_Hakr]

As much as I hate to say it, the best thing that could happen would be for something to go wrong.

I'd hate to see more people die, but if it means more budget for unmanned probes, it'd be worth it.

Maybe a collapsed gear on landing or something where they can get back alive...

Re:Good for Science

[Anonymous Coward]

As much as I hate to say it, the best thing that could happen would be for something to go wrong.

You know, sir, I'd love to meet you.

So I could hit you.

Love,
Someone who gives a shit about humanity

Re:Good for Science

[Somegeek]

What the hell is wrong with your priorities? It's ok if people die if it causes an increase in a budget item?

Why don't you just start advocating killing seniors? All that saved medicare money might buy anther probe!

Re:Good for Science

[Bios_Hakr]

People die every day. Lots of them. If 7 more deaths means that *real* science can get more money, then I'm all for it.

Especially if that *real* science can do things like find other planets sutable for humanity.

Face it, we need to get to the planets and other stars. This "circle the earth" shit just isn't cutting it.

Re:Good for Science

[Bios_Hakr]

I do give a shit.

If the shuttle fails there are two options.

The first is that we close NASA. Divert that money into feeding homeless. Lives would be saved. Hell, even new armor for Humvees would save more lives than NASA.

The second is that we do more unmanned stuff. You know, real science. Going to other planets and stuff. Might even save the human race.

Re:Good for Science

[cyberfunk2]

And this is why people like you, dont run the country.

"If 7 more deaths means that *real* science can get more money, then I'm all for it."

I'm a "real" scientist (chemist), and I never should want anyone to have to die because of my work.

Re:Good for Science

[iamlucky13]

Excuse me, were you one of the Challenger managers who told the engineers to quit whining and launch or how do you justify saying such crap? Getting an increase in the budget for unmanned probes is not worth the loss of human life. Yes, the unmanned missions should get more funding, but the argument ends there. Don't go tossing in the "it would serve NASA right" garbage. I could almost accept if you said something along the lines of "I wish NASA would look at what they had to go through to get this far and realize what a waste the shuttle is," except for the fact that they already have looked at it and realized it. That's why the shuttle is being retired as soon as the ISS is done. It would be sooner, but too much has been invested in the ISS to have it's completion pushed back another 5-10 years while the remaining launches get redesigned or repackaged to fit on Delta or Atlas rockets.

Frankly, I feel the manned portion of the program could use more funding, too, but only after it has a clearer sense of direction than "let's go to the moon again." Human beings in space create a much fuller sense of purpose and accomplishment than robots, as well as some unique scientific opportunities.

Re:Good for Science

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Wish for the collapse of human spaceflight.
2. ?
3. Get humans to the planets and other stars.

Yeah, your plan sounds great.

Re:Good for Science

[MyLongNickName]

Tell ya what. If you care about the homeless so much, take the time you've wasted on Slashdot, get a second job. Use the money to feed and house them. Or go volunteer for Habitat for Humanity.

Re:Good for Science

[Somegeek]

Tell you what then, kill yourself and I will donate a thousand dollars to the science project of your choice. I bet we could get some more people on here to kick in too. Could be a real windfall for some deserving program- think about it - and it only requires one death, not seven!

Re:Good for Science

[QuantumG]

Yeah! Stop wasting time posting on Slashdot, build a robot army, overthrow the government, conquer europe and start a socialist paradise! What the hell is taking you so long! Go do it now!

Re:Good for Science

[Anonymous Coward]

One of those suggestions was an intelligent, well reasoned, well thought out proposal for improving humanity. The other was just silly! Where is he going to find a job?

I'll get started on the robots.

Re:Good for Science

[Anonymous Coward]

The shuttle will be retired before the station is completed as the station was built in a low decaying orbit so that the shuttle could reach it. That same low orbit will destroy it soon after even a theoretical completion.

Re:Good for Science

[ThreeE]

You sir, have set a new low.

Re:Good for Science

[demachina]

Well in a lot of ways NASA's manned space program is a jobs program and without it there might a lot of homeless aerospace engineers(all the ones not willing to get a top secret clearance and work for the DOD on antimissile defense). The only problem with it as a jobs program for the potentially homeless is the efficiency of the charity is horrendous.

You know its a jobs program because in a recent article on the new adminstrator and his attempts to get NASA redirected towards something that isn't a dead end like the Shuttle and the ISS, there were several blurbs about how Congressman wouldn't stand for any budget cutting during the transition to CEV that meant lost jobs in any of their states/districts. The implication being NASA has to keep both its civil servant and Boeing/Lockheed contractor army at the same levels from now to eternity. That means NASA will continue to pour billions of dollars a year in to supporting this jobs program, whether there is real work or not, and it will drain funding away from actually building new launch vehicles. Also if you keep the staffing levels the same as now when CEV starts launching the launch costs are going to astronomical too.

Unfortunately since the beginning, NASA and its contractor horde were spread across the nation so congressman would give them money and political support because it resulted in jobs in their states and districts. It was OK during the Apollo era because funding was vast and they had a purpose. Over the years the funding dwindled, and the sense of purpose disappeared. It became a jobs program instead of an organization pushing back frontiers. It resulted in the ISS in particular, a 100 billion dollar hole in space which has no useful purpose other than it created high tech jobs, kept aerospace engineers in the U.S and Russia employed, and made Boeing, Lockheed etc. a lot of money for very little.

You want to fix NASA's manned space program can everyon civil servant and contractor and start over and implement Kelly Johnson's 14 rules(he built the SR-71 and U2 and the Skunkworks) in particular:

Rule No. 3
The number of people having any connection with the project must be restricted in an almost vicious manner. Use a small number of good people (10 percent to 25 percent compared to the so-called normal systems).

Basicly fire all the civil servants and all the contractors and start over. Put everyone in one place, and put someone in charge that can do more with less instead of less with more. Burt Rutan would be a great counterpart for Kelly Johnson though he would have to be completely freed of all the politics and bureaucracy that is strangling NASA. There are lots of people in the Russian Space Agency who would also be great for the nucleus of an all new manned space program. Of course they are already doing Kliper and it sounds like there is a chance Europe will team with them on it and kiss NASA off. The RSA is already building mockups of Kliper, while NASA is just pushing piles of paper from point A to point B on CEV.

You know the manned space program is fixed when Johnson is closed. It was insane to put a 1000 miles between the launch site and mission control just because LBJ wanted to give his home state jobs, see, a jobs program again. The bad communication between Johnson and Kennedy was a leading contributor to both shuttle disasters.

Re:Good for Science

[vrioux]

Finally, someone not drunk or stoned on slashdot.

Re:Good for Science

[ThreeE]

Trust me, anyone that thinks Kliper is real is fundamentaly clueless. And anyone that thinks building a space transportation infrastructure by Kelly Johnson's "rules" is even more so. Firing all the civil servants and contractors and starting over would be a horrendous mistake. All of our space flight knowledge would be lost. Handing it over to a hobbiest like Rutan would be just as silly. And calling the Russians a nucleus is a joke -- they haven't even left LEO. And why in the world does proximity to the launch site make a hill of beans difference to the design effort? Jobs program? None of the companies you mention or allude to could really care less about the tiny amount of contract dollars they get from NASA -- their NASA business represents a drop in the bucket to their other lines of business and at much lower margins. Your solutions (I'm being generous here) are neither appropriate or practical.

Re:Good for Science

[rbarreira]

Maybe it collapses on the top of your head and then you'll be happy, who knows...

Re:Good for Science

[fermion]

You know the manned space program is fixed when Johnson is closed. It was insane to put a 1000 miles between the launch site and mission control just because LBJ wanted to give his home state jobs, see, a jobs program again. The bad communication between Johnson and Kennedy was a leading contributor to both shuttle disasters.

You know that someone has either done too much cociane, is stupid, or has read too much Rand when they try to apply a theory made up in an ideal situation to a real world on going issue. Challenger was caused by an Senile republican, and Columbia was caused by multiple failures and basic design flaws. Neither of these were distance related.

First, we do not live in a world where distance matters. Even in 1960 distance did not matter that much. Yes JSC is in houston becuase of LBJ, but if it weren't in houston, it would be somewhere else nearly equally far away.

I can generally tell that people are clueless about spaceflight, and real world events in general, when they complain about the locations of the space centers. KSC is where it is because it is the most southern part of the US. This allows us to save a bit of fuel on launch. It is not a good location for many other things due it exposure to threats, both natural and man made. If everything was in one place, a single bomb could take out everything. JSC is stout set of buidling that can work even in dangerous weather.

Furthermore, no practical politician is going to build that much money into one location. It would make the economy too dependent on the government teat. Just look at the communities that have dependencies on the dole created by the military bases.

And, as mentioned, distance is not that much of an issues. Even in the 60's we had these high tech things called telephones and aeroplanes. This allowed us to have the launch facilities in a very good location, and mission control in much more protected locations, and other centers in other locations to maximize the availablity of resources.

It is not the ideal solution, but no real world solution is. It is better than some commercial solutions, which carry the launch vehicle to sea, or launch from the texas desert, which means that we are going to have a fully fueled aircraft exploding, dropping burning peices and combustables from Dallas to Atlanta, instead of over the ocean.

As I have mentioned before, the private commercial sector has done little more that the Soviets did over 40 years ago. While your points are somewhat valid, they hav not produced an infrasture to send people to space, merely LEO, which can really be done with a hot air ballon.

I believe that the private sector can do, and will do it, in the next 10 years. But look at the ineffeciencies and waste in any large corporations. It matches or exceed governments. The same will be true for space travel.

And, btw, without government handouts we would have very little industry. Some of these handouts lasted a long time. The government funding of the taking of land from the native americans, and the giving of land to the new immigrants. The government handout of land to the railroads. The government handout of spectrum. The government support of the early airlines through the air mail. NASA is a government handout, one that is going to pay off when the private sector gets off it's ass and startes investing. Now, thanks to the dot com bubble, there is enough money to so do.

Re:Good for Science

[lee1026]

Me, I rather have the people almost get killed. Like have the shuttle blow it self up 10 minutes after they got off - it would be the best of both world. Anyway, it's not going to work - it would mean more cash for Iraq.

Re:Good for Science

[demachina]

"Trust me, anyone that thinks Kliper is real is fundamentaly clueless."

Like CEV is real, its an RFP from NASA that was a gigantic exercise in bureaucracy and killing trees to which Boeing and Lockheed responded with half baked artists conceptions, and Lockheed wants to build a mini-me shuttle. Why bother with a competition when you know in advance Boeing and Lockheed would be the two competitors, coin toss over which one wins at which point they partner to insure any pretense of competition disappears. All the people working on Shuttle transfer to CEV and the astronomical launch costs stay exactly the same if not more. Only thing going in NASA's favor is Griffin is way better than O'Keefe, maybe he will turn it around but I wager the politburo there will suck the life out of him.

As I recall in our last thread on the Russian Space agency you made this some fine statement about it being funded by Russian prostitutes, in one sentance you managed sexist, racist, petty and immature. You seem to have some bias against the Russians therefor deserve to be ignored on the subject. Most objective observers would realize they DO have a lot of talent there, they just don't have NASA's budget unfortunately. As you recall they built the core of the ISS because they had more than a decade experience of operating a continuosly manned space station on a budget far smaller than ISS. That leads to my point about doing more with less (Rutan and the RSA) versus doing less with more(NASA).

"starting over would be a horrendous mistake."

For you maybe because I'm guessing you are one of the beneficiaries of the jobs program and you would be out on your ass and homeless without out it. I'm guessing you work there and from your past posts the space program would be better off without you. Score one for my plan because it would ax you :)

"All of our space flight knowledge would be lost."

It wouldn't be lost, you would immediately hire back all the people that had a clue. The goal is to get rid of all the paper pushing bureaucrats and deadbeats that have NO useful knowledge. You would be replacing a soviet ministry and a bureaucracy with a meritocracy. If you have the experience, the knowledge and more importantly the right attitude and the enthusiasm you would get hired and get a fresh start in an organization that wouldn't slowly suck the life out of you.

There is some useful knowledge left at NASA in specific disciplines but most of the Apollo expertise is long gone and the expertise in the shuttle and ISS is expertise in failure. Unless they learned well from their massive mistakes they aren't necessarily useful. They've also turned in to teams that fail more than they succeed. You would need to break their losing streak to salvage them.

"they haven't even left LEO"

Neither has anyone at NASA. At this point all the people that knew how to leave LEO have retired or died, Von Braun principle among them, he died in 1977. Probably best he did't live to see what happened to his dream after he died, it would have killed him.

"And why in the world does proximity to the launch site make a hill of beans difference to the design effort?"

Because eventually you are going to launch the thing and you want all the people that designed and built it there to make sure it doesn't BLOW UP, dumbass. Its total insanity to have mission control and launch 1000 miles apart, and having teams discussing complex engineering issues handicapped by telecons, videocons, or 1000 mile trips to get together and figure out whats important and whats not, what is going to blow up the vehicle and what don't matter and should be ignored so it doesn't kill the launch schedule for no reason.

"None of the companies you mention or allude to could really care less about the tiny amount of contract dollars they get from NASA"

Bullshit. NASA contracts are billions of dollars to Lockheed and Boeing, plus there is massive dual use application with all the

Re:Good for Science

[demachina]

"You know that someone has either done too much cociane, is stupid, or has read too much Rand"

Nice slam dude. Hate to point this out to you but the rest of your post is rambling and barely coherent.

"I can generally tell that people are clueless about spaceflight, and real world events in general, when they complain about the locations of the space centers."

If you read the accident reports on Challenger and Columbia you find they are chocked full of examples of bad communications going on between teams split between Johnson and Kennedy and that bad communication directly contributed to them making bad decisions, or failing to make good ones. I'm willing to bet if they had all been in the same room some of them wouldn't have happened.

Having worked on teams that are geographicly distributed and spanning time zones, I KNOW how bad communication can be, and worse when you have groups split up like that they tend to grow apart and start fighting with each other. Its an invitation to turf wars as each center fights for power and money, and it ends up in massive duplications, accounting, facilities, security, cafeterias, etc. Not a problem if you have lots of money to waste, stupid if you want to spend money on building spacecraft. You can do distributed developement for some things especially if EVERYONE is in a different place because you are less likely to get cliques and turf wars. You can do software with a distributed model because the product can travel through wires. You can do distributed development if people are working on things that are logically very compartmentalized. Kennedy and Johnson are massively intertwined with each other and its really stupid to not have them in the same place.

If you are building complex machinery you will be way ahead of the game if everyone is in one place. Your efficiency will be better, you will be less likely to make mistakes or have a miscommunication that results in a fatal error.

Not sure I'm really argueing that everyone should end up at Kennedy. All I'm argueing for is that the team be as small as possible, per Kelly's Rule #3 and that it all be in one place most of the time. From experience, increasing the size of teams makes them more inefficient, makes the schedule worse not better, and obviously makes the project vastly more expensive.

The bottomline best part about consolidation is it would totally disrupt and break up a largely disfunctional organization and hopefully break it out of a rut that is leading it to failure time after time.

At this point I give up even trying to rebutt your post. You ramble so much its hard to spot a coherent point to argue with.

Re:Good for Science

[Biogenesis]

You've obviously never worked on explosives then.

Re:Good for Science

[Anonymous Coward]

Divert that money into feeding homeless.

Maybe, just maybe some money can actually go into something that will advance the human race, rather than feeding scraps to people who are too lazy to be of any use to anyone, or creating devices that make us more efficient at killing others to save our own ass.

Re:Good for Science

[pandymen]

While I agree that NASA should only launch if they feel it is safe to proceed, I think it would be pathetic if they stalled this launch yet again. They have had more than enough time to ensure the security of the shuttle, but that blundering bureaucracy just can't seem to get anything done these days.

Re:Good for Science

[iamlucky13]

I totally agree with you. The shuttle is pretty much as ready to launch as it can get. I'd even argue it's safer now than when it was brand new. My disagreement was with the argument that it would be good for science/NASA/anything if the Discovery had an accident.

Re:Good for Science

[ThreeE]

Like CEV is real

Let's make a simple bet -- I say CEV will launch before Klipper. Payoff -- an apology here. I'll even simplify it: any new launch vehicle by either country counts.

As you recall they built the core of the ISS because they had more than a decade experience of operating a continuosly manned space station on a budget far smaller than ISS. That leads to my point about doing more with less (Rutan and the RSA) versus doing less with more(NASA).

I think you are stretching it to say the FGB, a leftover, unlaunched Mir part, is the "core" of the ISS. It was simply the first (and delivered late) part of the ISS -- paid for by the US. There were several other US modules ready to go -- in fact, an interim control module was ready as a replacement. As far as Rutan, you know that his accomplishment isn't anywhere near orbital technology.

Score one for my plan because it would ax you

Trust me, I am not dependent on NASA funding -- or my parent's allowance like you...

Neither has anyone at NASA.

Actually, there are several Apollo-era scientists/engineers working at NASA and NASA's contractors. Moreover, the Shuttle was designed by them. Your critique of their design is simply monday morning quarterbacking and ignorance of the constraints they had to work within.

Its total insanity to have mission control and launch 1000 miles apart

How would you suggest returning from the moon? Should we send up the engineering team first? Lots of industries have non-collocated teams and do just fine. Moreover, the designs aren't exclusively done at JSC anyway -- they are done in California, Texas, Kansas, etc. In fact, only Mission Operations are anything close to being exclusively done at JSC. So what was your point?

NASA contracts are billions of dollars to Lockheed and Boeing

Yes, but these contracts are cost plus with razor thin margins (often less than 10%). Go look at Boeing's and LockMart's income statement and tell me that $100M is "massive" to them. NASA business pales in comparison to their DoD businesses.

Education is the cure to ignorance -- go to class.

Re:Good for Science

[ThreeE]

Parent is high, Grandparent is spot on.

Apollo did just fine without collocation and with Kennedy and the Manned Space Flight Center (now JSC). What the Parent forgets is that we live in the real world and like it or not, politics are real (and good actually). Putting JSC in Texas guaranteed funding.

Remember, politics are not bad -- it is how large groups of people in a democracy make decisions. What the parent suggests is, at best, a benevolent dictatorship and, at worst, is simply tyranny.

Kelly Johnson's "rules" are fine and dandy for single vehicle development efforts -- in fact they are fantastic. But the systems we are discussing are far beyond even the remarkable SR-71 and U-2. They are systems of systems and require deep thoughts about systems architectures that go way beyond what any list of "rules" prescribe. It's simply not enough to say "get a few good people together in a single place and throw pizza under the door until they are done."

Finally, any successful team requires mutual respect. Calling someone a "fucktard" or "barely coherent" probably explains why the parent hasn't been on any successful, non-collacted teams...

Re:Good for Science

[demachina]

"Let's make a simple bet -- I say CEV will launch before Klipper."

Hell yea I'll take that bet as long as its a MANNED launch to LEO, safe up and back. I'm willing to accept the big handicap that NASA has way more money to throw at it. Even if I lose I wont have to apologize until 2015 at the earliest. I'm sure they will throw some tin cans in to LEO before then but they have to be MANNED in to orbit and thats gonna take NASA forever after they get done pushing paper and wringing their hands. I really hope the Europeans, Japanese, Chinese, Indians throw money behind Kliper. I bet they will, some ESA people are already talking like it, because I think they all know NASA is a joke at this point, and nobody wants to partner with Bush's arrogant America on anything at this point(excepting the UK).

"a leftover, unlaunched Mir part, is the "core" of the ISS."

Not even gonna start this stupid arguement again, Zarya and Zveda are the core of the station, everyone knows it except you. I think you know it too but refuse to admit it to yourself. It was manned as soon as they were operational. Only major module the U.S. has there at the moment is Destiny a lab module, it isn't the core.

Stop dissing Mir. While the U.S. spent 20 years and tens of billions of dollars on artist conceptions of a space station, none of which flew, the Russians had a permenent manned presence in space for a tiny fraction of the cost. If the Russian hadn't built the core for the ISS I wager it would still be sitting on an arists table. NASA saves face acting like it was charity bringing in the Russians. In fact they had NO knowledge about building a long duration space station. Skylab was cool but it was brief, LONG ago, and done by Apollo veterans most of whom have retired or died.

"Your critique of their design is simply monday morning quarterbacking and ignorance of the constraints they had to work within."

Their "design" failed in every respect. Granted a political quagmire between Presidents, Congress, NASA and the DOD helped it fail but they still failed and that is all that matters in the end. They failed to succeed. It was supposed to be cheap, it was the antithesis of cheap. It was supposed to have a high launch rate, it instead has been unlaunchable for years, and the launch rate goes down every year (and by the way the Russians had to step up and keep the ISS going for the last 2 1/2 years, and put NASA astronauts and supplies though NASA hasn't paid them a cent due to an embargo over Iran). It was supposed to do evertyhing in space. After Challenger it was largely abandoned and relegated to doing incredibly expensive physiology experiments. After Columbia its now good for nothing other than faking an expensive expendable launch vehicle to finish a $100 billion dollar hole in space.

Sorry man the Shuttle was a failure no matter how you slice it. Its sad, I wish it wasn't but it is. People need to come to grips with two failures in a row(Shuttle and ISS) and do whatever it take to stop failing.

There are some great technical achievements in the Shuttle but that doesn't change the fact that as a launch vehicle it was a failure.

"How would you suggest returning from the moon?"

Huh? Think you need to get there first and I don't think NASA has any chance to get there before 2020 if ever.

"So what was your point?" ... that if you read the accident reports on Challenger and Columbia there is a recurring theme that NASA failed to recogize danger and to deal with fatal flaws, because their team communication was terrible, and it was especially bad between the launch team at Kennedy and all the teams at Johnson. You can scatter your team all over the U.S. its just going to cost a fortune and you are dramaticly increasing the chance for mistakes, and in this case those mistakes cost billions and kill people.

"Moreover, the designs aren't exclusively done at JSC anyway -- they are done in California, Texas, Kansas, etc."

Re:Good for Science

[ThreeE]

Hell yea I'll take that bet... because I think they all know NASA is a joke at this point, and nobody wants to partner with Bush's arrogant America on anything at this point(excepting the UK).

Look's like we have a bet. Being right doesn't equate to being arrogant, and I for one am happy to keep foreigners out of the critical path and out of the militarily strategic high ground.

Stop dissing Mir.

It's hard not dissing the definition of a deathtrap. Between fires, progress collisions, and fritzy systems, Mir wasn't up to ISS' reliability. Plus, Skylab was better, bigger, and before its time.

Zarya and Zveda are the core of the station

They'd be lifeless, dark, and cold without the US contribution.

Speaking of dissing, you should lay of the Shuttle. It's humanity's best and most reliable (both in absolute and statistically significant) manned vehicle to LEO. Yeah, it's expensive. So what -- we can afford it.

Re:Good for Science

[demachina]

"Apollo did just fine without collocation and with Kennedy and the Manned Space Flight Center"

Apollo had VAST funding and could spend its way through any problem and any excess. Apollo had a precisely defined mission and schedule, thank you JFK, and uninterrupted funding to achieve it. Apollo happened before NASA had a chance to fully atrophy and bureaucratize. It was young then, the people were all the best, and they were there because they wanted to do the impossible. It was a set of teams a lot more like Skunkworks teams. None of that is true of today's NASA soviet ministry of space. Also note that scattered Apollo team built some pretty crappy hardware in the beginning. As you recall they killed 3 astronauts in a fire because their first attempt at a capsule was a badly designed death trap.

I'm not saying you can't do distributed space craft development, I'm just saying its a great way to waste money, blow schedules, and cripple the project with communication problems. Just because its the only way NASA has done development doesn't prove its right and its obviously gotten less right with the passage of each new decade.

"Remember, politics are not bad -- it is how large groups of people in a democracy make decisions."

In your post of five minutes ago you were pointing out what a great job the Shuttle team and that you had to give them allowances due to "the constraints they had to work within." Most of thost constraints were politically induced, between Presidents Congress, NASA, and the Air Force. To win DOD funding and support they had to make design changes that made the vehicle vastly more expensive and dangerous. As soon as Challenger blew up the DOD dropped the Shuttle like a rock, even though they were key contributors to making it the overpriced mess it is.

ISS was nothing but an exercise in politics and it is a complete disaster as a result. Politics doesn't belong anywhere near successful engineering. Good engineers do things becuase they are right not because they are politically correct.

If you are going to develop successful, complex spacecraft for a reasonable price, the politicians or corprate executives need to set the objective, insure an adequate funding steam, and then get out of the way and let engineers like Von Braun, Kelly Johnson or Burt Rutan figure out how. JFK mostly did that with Apollo. It hasn't been done that way since and NASA hasn't succeeded since.

"Kelly Johnson's "rules" are fine and dandy for single vehicle development efforts -- in fact they are fantastic. But the systems we are discussing are far beyond even the remarkable SR-71 and U-2."

Bullshit. The team is going to be bigger than the original skunkworks but his approach would work just as well for CEV as it did for SR-71. The key point is hiring a team half or a quarter the size of the one NASA would hire, and to be selective so you don't hire the worst fraction of the people.

Its not really about rules, its about an approach that is obviously superior to NASA's, unless you like bureaucracies, and no one in their right mind does.

"Finally, any successful team requires mutual respect."

Respect is something you earn. If you give it to people who don't deserve it it isn't respect, its pandering. Dude I don't know either of you, I haven't read any posts you've written that command respect. If you ever write one I'll consider it. Your concept of mutual respect sounds like modern NASA kind of politically correct mutual respect you practive during consenus building. Hire a bunch of people and "mutually respect" each other even if they're losers, and end up with a losing team with one failure after another. Respect is earned and the best way to earn it is to succeed.

Rutan commands respect because he's done two hard things no one else has done, Voyager and SpaceShipOne, on tiny budgets and with tiny teams, teams so small that teammebers can said I made that happen, versus NASA where the team is so large half of them can do nothing useful and you wont notice.

Re:Good for Science

[ThreeE]

Your concept of mutual respect sounds like modern NASA kind of politically correct mutual respect you practive during consenus building. Hire a bunch of people and "mutually respect" each other even if they're losers, and end up with a losing team with one failure after another.

You obviously don't know anyone at NASA.

Re:Good for Science

[demachina]

"Being right doesn't equate to being arrogant, and I for one am happy to keep foreigners out of the critical path and out of the militarily strategic high ground."

Well all you are is arrogant, and a xenophobe. Me I judge and respect people based on their ability and accomplishment and not on blind nationalism. The increasingly xenophobic American approach to the world creates a high probability of isolation. I have high hopes the ESA will partner with Russia on Kliper, give them much needed cash and the result is ESA and Russia will have a good man rated vehicle and the ESA will be free of NASA's petty tyrannies.

"Speaking of dissing, you should lay of the Shuttle. "

Stick it. The shuttle deserves a heavy dose of reality and the truth. Its managed to avoid it for way to long.

"It's humanity's best and most reliable (both in absolute and statistically significant) manned vehicle to LEO."

Bullshit again. Soyuz is by any definiton more reliable. The Shuttle has killed more astronauts than any space vehicle in history. Like I said the Soyuz kept the ISS going for the last 2 1/2 years. Don't think Soyuz has ever been ground for 2 1/2 years. That is not realiable especially when you have a space station that REQUIRES regular launches.

If the Shuttle were reliable it wouldn't be flying with the massive safety constraints its now flying with it.

"Yeah, it's expensive. So what -- we can afford it."

As for affording it that is OBVIOUSLY untrue. Griffin is struggling to scrape together the money for CEV because the Shuttle and ISS are bleeding NASA white. They've been draining NASA white for decades. You need to judge the cost based on lost opportunity. How many cool things could NASA have done that would have had real long term benefit but couldn't because they were pouring billions in to two vert dead ends.

Oh and again if you face reality in both budget deficit and current account deficit the U.S. can't afford it any more, for the most part your dreaded foreigners are paying for it.

Interesting irony you are so keen on "keep foreigners out of the critical path" but you are totally dependent on borrowing money from them to keep the U.S. afloat and to squander their money on NASA.

Re:Good for Science

[demachina]

"You obviously don't know anyone at NASA."

I developed this fine attitude towards NASA because I've known way to many people at NASA. There are some great people at NASA but they are shining stars in a bureaucratic wasteland. There is a sea of mediocre civil servants there building little empires and who can't be fired no matter how bad they are, like all government agencies. The true conservatives are right, the ever exanding and ever incompetent civil service is sucking the life out of America. And there is an army of contractors there who are looking for a paycheck, not to push back any frontiers, though its so cool to brag about working at NASA, ooooo. The number 1 priority for all of them is to maximize the quanity of our tax dollars they gain control over so they can squander them.

NASA took a nation of young people who in 1969 reveled in Star Trek and Apollo dreams about space exploration, and pushing back frontiers, me included, and they completely crushed every one of those dreams. When I was younger I marvelled at Apollo and now it will be a miracle if anyone manages to get back to the Moon before I die. I have zero chance of ever making it out of Earth's gravity well now unless its on a Rutan spaceship. Back in 1969 me and Von Braun figured we would be on Mars by now, and pushing even further.

I had a roommate in college who worked at JPL and I kick myself for not having done anything to get my foot in there. They are one of the few places still living the dream, there and Scaled Composites.

Please stop being a whiny apologist for NASA's manned space ministry. Just face it, it hasn't worked in 30 years, anyone with a clue can see and state the obvious.

Re:Good for Science

[demachina]

Yay. It appears the Russian government has green lighted Kliper and hopefully other countries, especially ESA might chip in. My horse is off and running. Meanwhile NASA let some multimillion dollar contracts to Boeing and Lockheed to provide paper for a committee meeting.

I notice your current horse, the Shuttle, the one you said was so reliable, such a success and achievement, is for all practical purposes grounded indefinitely. Apparently there was yet another one of long running intermittent failures, this time in the ET fuel sensor they never fixed, one that could have either caused premature engine cut off or failure to cut off the engine when the tank empties and threatened another catastrophic failure.

We should have confidence that it will be fixed because now they have TWELVE, thats right TWELVE, different teams trying to fix it. I guess you can do TWELVE teams when you have 6,000 people working at your jobs program.

GO TEAM GO.

that hurricane dennis is a menace!

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr. Willllsonnnnnnnn.....
err...
Mr. Houstonnnnnnnnn we have a problemmmmmmm...

Wait...

[steelfood]

Currently it is estimated for a 70% chance of launch on Wednesday, with the chances lowering later in the week. Is that a fact or prediction?

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

estimated

I suspect that it is some kind of estimate.

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Its a prediction based on the fact that NASA believes there is a 30% chance of the shuttle exploding on the pad on wednesday and it gets significantly more likley to fail the longer it sits on the pad.

Re:Wait...

[yukio]

There's a tropical system currently at about 42W and south of 18N that some of the models forecast to be a threat to Florida later this week.

Specifically, the Canadian models have it crossing Florida from the Atlantic side and going into the Gulf.

Re:Wait...

[The_Wilschon]

Well, I know in the weather reports, 70% chance of rain actually means that 70% of a given area will get rain... So does that mean that 70% of the shuttle will launch on Wednesday?

Plug Time

[othiekan]

Since we've got a Shuttle launch post here on slashdot, i think its time to show you the Cheshire Catalyst's Space/Launch stuff that pertains to this. FAQ: http://space.launch.info/faq.html Launch Schedule: http://space.launch.info/launch.html He also has a page about "How to become an astronaut" Enjoy The Info! 73 DE KI4GMB

Re:Plug Time

[brilinux]

Yeah, I cannot wait to get on our club's TS2000, and see if we can hear anything from them. Plus, I have always wanted to transmit music...
73, KG4QXK/AG

Re:Plug Time

[othiekan]

cool! sounds like fun! and nice to meet another ham! 73 DE KI4GMB

Re:Plug Time

[Muad'Dave]

Hey Brian! Congrats on the upgrade! See you on the bands (maybe 2m - I'm in FM17fr.)

73 de k3det

Can someone please explain

[RickPartin]

What the "T" in "T Minus bla bla" means? Not knowing has always bugged me.

Re:Can someone please explain

[Anonymous Coward]

my bet is on "Time"

Re:Can someone please explain

[Detritus]

Time.

Re:Can someone please explain

[fussili]

T is simply an arbitrary fixed timescale for the launch, it could easily be "a, b, c" etc but it provides a time frame for how long certain activities ought to take.

Re:Can someone please explain

[battamer]

Time. As in liftoff time. Before the liftoff, the clock regesters as "T minus ..." after liftoff it regesters as "T plus..."

Re:Can someone please explain

[iamlucky13]

It makes more sense if you say the whole phrase:

T minus 43 hours = launch time minus 43 hours

Re:Can someone please explain

[Anonymous Coward]

What the "T" in "T Minus bla bla" means?

The Spanish Inquisition.

Re:Can someone please explain

[__aaclcg7560]

T means Texas, where Houston Control is located. It's just a guess that Lyndon Johnson put the T back into Texas during his years in the White House.

Re:Can someone please explain

[Kjella]

As others have said, T = Time. Note that they typically only use T if they are counting in hours or less. If we're talking days, it is typically D-3 = 3 days before. That is where D-Day comes from.

Kjella

Re:Can someone please explain

[MurphyZero]

Here at Cape Canaveral there are several letters that get used. L (only for minus count, up till coming out of the final hold point) is the actual time till planned launch time. L of course for launch. R has also been used for days prior to launch for Titans. All of these times are based on preparation actions. Some are based on time before launch. Some, you don't want to accomplish until you get past a milestone, which are what the built-in holds, and holdpoints are there for.

Re:Can someone please explain

[Cervantes]

Actually, the phrase "D-Day" came from the Normandy landings of WW2, where they had to code the possible landing dates to further confuse German spies. A, B, and C days were a wash because of bad weather, and D day was the lucky winner.

Re:Can someone please explain

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you make that up? Every landing in WWII had a D-Day and an H-Hour. North Africa, Sicily, Italy, every one of those Pacific islands ... it's just a designation for the actual day of the attack. Nothing to do with coding different dates as different letters.

Re:Can someone please explain

[thenewcloo]

Actually, I was pretty sure that the d in d-day stood for "disembarkment" as in "disembarkment day" when the allied forces were to land on french soil.

Re:Can someone please explain

[dubious9]

From wikipedia.org on D-Day:

D-day for the invasion of Normandy was originally set for June 5, 1944, but bad weather caused Gen. Dwight Eisenhower to delay until June 6, and that date has been popularly referred to ever since by the short title "D-day". (In French, it is called jour-J.) Because of this, planners of later military operations sometimes avoided the term. For example, Douglas MacArthur's invasion of Leyte began on "A-day", and the invasion of Okinawa began on "L Day". MacArthur's proposed invasions of Japan would have begun on "X-Day" (Kyushu, scheduled for November 1945) and "Y-Day" (Honshu, scheduled for March 1946).

So, yes, in many instances D-Day was the set time of invasion. But not all invasions in WWII began on D-Day. You might want to look something up before to go making a fool of yourself.

I'm nervous

[kensavage]

I'll be watching the launch live. ANyone else around here?

Re:I'm nervous

[jacen_sunstrider]

God, I'd love to, it'd be quite awesome to see. I've always wanted to, but I've never been in the state at the right time.

Re:I'm nervous

[AlphaJoe]

Yup, I am here as well...just saw the shuttle on the pad this week out at the visitors complex.

Re:I'm nervous

[LVSlushdat]

Don't I know it.. I was in Orlando last October with the Red Cross, and got a chance to drive out to KSC for a couple of hours. Didn't even have time to take the visitors center tour.. Saw the VAB in the distance from the visitor center parking lot.. Now I'm back in Las Vegas, with no chance of getting back for the launch... Grrrrr....

*cough*

[mcc]

And, um, let's see.

Exactly how much did the NASA budget for unmanned probes increase by after the columbia disaster?

Hmm.

Re:*cough*

[Bios_Hakr]

Maybe it'd be better if they just cancel the manned missions for a while.

That's all I'm trying to say.

Re:*cough*

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like, say, the 2 1/2 years 'while' they've been cancelled? dumbass.

Re:*cough*

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the most enlightening things one who is interested in NASA budgets can do is to watch the Congressional hearings on space flight. Until you do this, you will not have a full understanding of how NASA's budget is approved.

Simply put, if NASA killed manned space flight, Congress would kill NASA. If the red states of Texas and Florida were to loose jobs in NASA, the Republicans would fire back by attacking JPL in the blue state of California. The Bush Moon Mars Mission has a lot of support in Congress because it will give money to both red and blue states. This is why there is no significant debate over the increasing budget of NASA. If the Moon Mars Mission were to only help manned spaceflight, there would be debate. If the Moon Mars Mission were to only build robotic spacecraft, there would be debate. Since it does both, there is no debate.

Link to the actual TV Schedule

[OverlordQ]

Linkeh.

Information about tuning in to NASA TV can be found here as well.

13 isn't really a good number for NASA

[Somegeek]

Is no one else surprised that they are possibly launching this mission on a 13th? I know that there is no real reason to the bad luck that NASA has had with that number, but I wonder about the possible affects of people on the project worrying about bad luck, and that causing a problem?

A self-fulfilling bad luck prophecy, something going wrong because they are worried about bad luck?

Re:13 isn't really a good number for NASA

[bsytko]

Well, if something does go wrong, they can go to the backup backup plan and thats blame it on the fact they launched on the 13th.

Re:13 isn't really a good number for NASA

[__aaclcg7560]

Since it's not Friday the 13th, no one is expecting another Apollo 13. However, it wouldn't be the first time that NASA overlooked something so obvious.

Re:13 isn't really a good number for NASA

[lpontiac]

Is no one else surprised that they are possibly launching this mission on a 13th? I know that there is no real reason to the bad luck that NASA has had with that number, but I wonder about the possible affects of people on the project worrying about bad luck, and that causing a problem?

If someone at NASA is seriously stupid enough to worry about launching on the 13th then NASA does indeed have a problem - hiring stupid people.

Re:13 isn't really a good number for NASA

[MurphyZero]

I have talked with some NASA folks and trust me they do know it's launching on the 13t, but it is, as you said, not a Friday. However, if you look at NASA's history with the Shuttle, I'd be more worried about a January launch. I'll be watching it live, I give it at least a 99% chance of making it to orbit, at least 98% of making it back.

Re:13 isn't really a good number for NASA

[greylion3]

Tell that to Intel.
Intel didn't want to release Celeron/P3 666 MHz processors, so they were announced as 667 MHz parts, although they ran at 666 MHz.
A lot of Bios'es had to be rewritten to announce them as 667..
(I'm guessing it was because of 666 = number of the Beast).

Superstition in numbers is stupidity on steroids.

Re:13 isn't really a good number for NASA

[lpontiac]

That's a bit different. I don't think that's Intel being stupid. I think that's Intel being perceptive enough to recognise the stupidity of others :)

Re:13 isn't really a good number for NASA

[Anonymous Coward]

It comes after 12.

Re:13 isn't really a good number for NASA

[jandrese]

I doubt it was Intels engineers that were complaining about the 666Mhz clock speed. I'm sure it was the marketing guys going nuts knowing that a sizable chunk of the population will never buy anything with "666" on it. No need to cut out a segement of your userbase needlessly.

Re:13 isn't really a good number for NASA

[Anonymous Coward]

It's bad luck to be superstitious.

Realplayer Stream not working

[QBasicer]

Is anybody else having a problem with the Real Media stream? I get:

Unable to locate server. The server does not have a DNS entry. Please check the server name in the URL and try again.
rtsp://rmbcast.nasa-us1e.speedera.net/alias_ashbur n1_btn/encoder/rmbcast.nasa-us1e/rmbcast_nasa-us1e _jan022004_1034_92105.rm

However the Windows Media Player stream works just fine, but crappy quality (thought maybe the "Real" one might be better.

Re:Realplayer Stream not working

[Tezkah]

However the Windows Media Player stream works just fine, but crappy quality (thought maybe the "Real" one might be better.

You thought that the realplayer stream might be better quality?

Could I please have some of whatever you're smoking? It sounds like really good stuff.

Re:Realplayer Stream not working

[mog007]

He's... buffering... smoking... buffering... a ne...buffering...w kind of...

CONNECTION LOST

Re:Realplayer Stream not working

[Tezkah]

He's... buffering... smoking... buffering... a ne...buffering...w kind of...

CONNECTION LOST

Noooo! WELSHIEEEEE!

Visit Policy

[Comatose51]

Anyone know what the policy is for watching a shuttle launch? I wouldn't mind making a trip out there to see it before the shuttles get the axe in the future. It might be 80s technology but it was definitely a first and a workhorse. A lot of things were done with the shuttles and their crews.

Re:Visit Policy

[othiekan]

Basically, its come to somewhere nearby, and watch. If you dont want to spend a whole lot of time or money, i suggest Titusville (where I live) This place is right across the Indian River Lagoon from the Island NASA is on. There are many parks, and space-related memorial sites to view the launch from. While you're here, you can also visit the Space Museum, and take a trip out to the KSC Visitor's Center for a day. 73 DE KI4GMB

Re:Visit Policy

[Yardboy]

I believe you have to request a (free) pass ahead of time. 3 days might be cutting it a little short - I know that most night launches are 'sold out' well in advance. The NASA site should have all the info you need on requesting a pass.

I was given a pass from a friend who lived in Titusville at the time, back in 91 or 92. It was awesome watching the launch. Even from several miles away where you are allowed to be, the ground shook and the air crackled.

c.

Re:Visit Policy

[Comatose51]

I'm planning a later visit but thanks for the info. Someone once told me that a shuttle launch sounds like a string of dynamites going off. I can't wait to experience it. It's very beautiful and awesome in a very nerdy way.

Re:Visit Policy

[DiveX]

Any particularly good spots that you can recommend for your fellow Slashdot brethren? I plan to go Wed and want to get a good spot. I might drive up Tuesday night and car camp if it ensures my getting a good spot. I figure tickets are gone by now. I'd even kayak (outside restricted space of course) if it ensured a good sight.

Re:Visit Policy

[QuantumG]

Can we stay at your place? Do you have spare beds? Does your Mom make good tuna salad?

Re:Visit Policy

[othiekan]

Well now, she makes chicken salad, and i would say that you want to go anywhere from Titusville to Merrit island..... just go up and down US-1... if you want to see ME, well.. go to spaceview park, i'll be one of the ones with the Cheshire Catalyst walking around in green shirts with official looking names and what-not on them. Hope to see all of you in town to watch this! And if people need places to stay..... i guess i'd be willing to give up my bed for a night and sleep in the living room, even though the house is already over-filled.. :)

Re:Visit Policy

[wolrahnaes]

Personally, the family and I just happened to be in the area on the day of launch, heading back north from the Keys. I was channel-surfing on the radio, stumbled upon the station that NASA was broadcasting on, and noticed that we were just close enough to barely make it on time.

We got off at the exit, drove until we heard T -5 announced on the radio, and then just pulled off the road. I grabbed the video camera, we all climbed up on to the roof of the motorhome, and watched the launch.

Total planning time: 30 seconds (hear countdown on radio, turn to family, say "that sounds cool", check map for the right exit number)

Re:Visit Policy

[Mozk]

That's cool that you'd let visitors you don't even know in your house. :) Nice people.

Re:Visit Policy

[MurphyZero]

It is a northerly launch so it may good viewing all the way up to Daytona Beach. Titusville along US 1 will likely be packed, so get your spot early. Not sure how KSC handles the tickets and all that but the KSC Visitor Center will have decent viewing and a few thousand people. KSC plans to allow about 10,000 on the causeway (they used to allow much more) If you know the right people at KSC, you might even get invited to the Banana Creek Viewing site, about 3-4 miles west of the pad. Jetty Park will probably be packed too. Even the Beeline (Beachline) will be lined full with viewers.

Re:Visit Policy

[QuantumG]

Yep, he must be the Ned Flanders of Slashdot.

Re:Visit Policy

[vrioux]

You lucky americans! Up here in Canada, I'll have to fallback to that damn Windows Media stream :(

Oh well, at least we have good beer!

Re:Visit Policy

[Yardboy]

Found some info for you.

yb.

Re:Visit Policy

[Udo Schmitz]

" might be 80s technology [...]"

More 70s technology, with preparations even in the 60s.

Re:Visit Policy

[Da Fokka]

It might be 80s technology but it was definitely a first and a workhorse.

With the recent cuts in the space budget (except for military programs), 80s tech is actually cutting edge.

Re:Visit Policy

[Anonymous Coward]

>>" might be 80s technology [...]"
>
>More like 70s technology, with preparations
>even in the 60s.

More like 1940s technology with big svastikas painted all over the place. Remember it was von Braun who always wanted and propagandized the spaceplane. He wanted a winged fly to the moon in his book.

hey, at least

[Anonymous Coward]

...this one doesn't have a thousand people making comments about how they'd like to kill slashdoter

T-19 Hours...

[Yardboy]

T-19 hours and holding This built-in hold typically lasts four hours. * Demate the orbiter's midbody umbilical unit I don't have any idea what this means, but it sounds really sexy. yb.

Re:T-19 Hours...

[richdun]

lol...

Umbilicals provide power and such to the shuttle while it is on the pad. The shuttle's batteries/fuel cells provide enough power for the mission, but they like to run it on Earth-based power for as long as possible before setting it on its own power.

Just think of "Demate the orbiter's midbody umbilical unit" as "Unplug laptop" before taking it off your desk. I know, not so sexy, but just imagine the laptop is a Powerbook G5 or an Alienware Media Center laptop that is liquid cooled, overclocked, and only 1" thin/5 lbs., whichever daydream is your preference.

Re:T-19 Hours...

[csnydermvpsoft]

but just imagine the laptop is a Powerbook G5 or an Alienware Media Center laptop that is liquid cooled, overclocked, and only 1" thin/5 lbs. ...but with an 8088 processor inside.

Re:T-19 Hours...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Demate" is just cable-speak for unplug. Parent describes umbilicals well, with one caveat:

It's not only that they prefer to run on Earth-based power for as long as possible (which is true) - they have to. They use thermal batteries in additional to rechargeable NiCd batteries which, once squibbed (told to turn on), 'fire' until they completely discharge.

Re:T-19 Hours...

[Yardboy]

So what's the shuttle equivalent of "trip over power cord as you walk out of cube, yanking laptop off desk and bouncing it off chair and onto floor."?

Muchas appreciation for the info.

Re:T-19 Hours...

[DerekLyons]

Umbilicals provide power and such to the shuttle while it is on the pad. The shuttle's batteries/fuel cells provide enough power for the mission, but they like to run it on Earth-based power for as long as possible before setting it on its own power.

Just think of "Demate the orbiter's midbody umbilical unit" as "Unplug laptop" before taking it off your desk.

Mostly correct. Power to the Shuttle systems comes in via the tail service masts (the big white boxes on either side of the rudder when the Shuttle is on the pad). The midbody umbilical probably applies power and support to payloads prior to the payloads being shifted to the Shuttle's systems.

Re:T-19 Hours...

[chawly]

Positively pornogaphic, I say

Glimpse inside mission control

[Andy Gardner]

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/64568main_ffs_g allery_mcc_image2.jpg

Assistant: Sir, the TV ratings for the launch are the highest in ten years.

Everyone: Yay!

Controller: And how's the spacecraft doing?
Assistant: I dunno. All this equipment is just used to measure TV ratings.

Re:Glimpse inside mission control

[Anonymous Coward]

SHALL WE PLAY A GAME?

Re:Glimpse inside mission control

[Anonymous Coward]

"what's the computer doing?"
"it's using Munga Bunga to brute force the nuclear launch codes"

Good viewing place for 'ya

[xmas2003]

The locals already know this, but for those /.'ers that happen to be in the area, one easy and decent place to see the launch is from Cocoa Beach since it is just across the water from the launch pad. I saw a pre-dawn launch a while back from the Hilton that was pretty darn awesome. They have a big parking lot and you can simply walk through the lobby, grab a drink, check out the bikini's - maybe the Coppertone Girl will be there - and then watch the sky light up ... although won't be quite as awesome as a night launch.

/.'ers will be checking their watches to measure the delay from seeing engine ignition to when you hear it and the dividing by 5 to get the distance in miles! ;-)

Re:Good viewing place for 'ya

[fraudrogic]

Jetty Park isn't bad either, although a small entry fee is required.

Re:Good viewing place for 'ya

[RobertLTux]

/.'ers will be checking their watches to measure the delay from seeing engine ignition to when you hear it and the dividing by 5 to get the distance in miles! ;-) ----- after consulting How to Play In Traffic i found out it would be 3.7 miles and the Nasa version of Comedy timing would be 17.505 seconds HTH HAND

quicktime formats?

[v1]

Strange, at nasa's nasatv page they list links for flash, realplayer, wmp, and quicktime. I can't see any use for the quicktime, as the nasatv appears to only be on realplayer and wmp. Is there really a quicktime link buried somewhere, or is that quicktime download link irrelevent?

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html

Re:quicktime formats?

[Anonymous Coward]

Get mplayer, download the ASX file, and hand mplayer the mms://yada URL.

T... as in WTF?

[RobertF]

Wait, so, T minus 43 hours is NOT in fact 43 hours before the launch. May I ask WTF? Dude, I've got this crazy idea, I know it's radical, just follow me here!

Let's have a countdown. Right? Only it shows the actual time until countdown. Crazy right? A timer that gives useful information?

Re:T... as in WTF?

[heypete]

That would work...except for the built-in holds where they do various checks. If a check fails, they have to keep the countdown timer paused until the problem is resolved.

Also, even without the built-in holds, what would happen if during the countdown a problem is detected and they need to repair it? Stop the clock? Keep it running?

I would much rather have NASA and their scientists/engineers do things right, rather than be pressed for time. If they have to hold for a few hours at T-43 hours, so be it.

T0 is launch time, period. They don't launch at T+5 hours because there was an issue and they kept the clock running.

It's just the way it works. I guess when one is launching a multi-billion dollar spacecraft on top of hundreds of thousands of gallons/pounds/whatever of rather volitile fuels, strapped to Big Beefy Missiles, carrying a multi-million/billion dollar payload, I'm pretty sure one doesn't want something to go wrong, and thus take every practical measure to ensure that the launch goes off without a hitch.

Flight plan?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Clear the blast danger area of all nonessential personnel" What kind of flight plan is that? Shouldn't they leave the nonessential people in the blast danger area, and the essential people get to spare their lives???

OB Simpsons Quotes

[Anonymous Coward]

Tom: It's a lovely day for a launch, here, live at Cape Canaveral, at the lower end of the Florida Peninsula, and the purpose of today's mission is truly, really electrifying.

Man 2: That's correct, Tom. The lion's share of this flight will be devoted to the study of the effects of weightlessness on tiny screws.

Tom: Unbelievable, and just imagine the logistics of weightlessness. And of course, this could have literally millions of applications here on Earth -- everything from watchmaking to watch repair.

Homer: Boring.

[tries to switch channels, but the batteries fall from the remote control]

Homer: No! The batteries!

Tom: Now let's look at the crew a little.

Man 2: They're a colorful bunch. They've been dubbed "the Three Musketeers". Heh heh heh --

Tom: And we laugh legitimately. There's a mathematician, a different kind of mathematician, and a statistician.

Homer: Make it stop! [panics]

Bart: Oh no, not another boring space launch. Change the channel. Change the channel!

Homer: I can't! I can't!

[Bart dives for the plug and tears it from the wall]
[He and Homer both sigh]

Meanwhile, at Mission Control...

Assistant: Sir, we've run into a serious problem with the mission. These Nielsen ratings are the lowest ever.

[holds a piece of paper]

Scientist: Oh my God...we've been beaten by "A Connie Chung Christmas!"

space program

[Anonymous Coward]

The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. -- Larry Niven

We really have to get off of this hunk of rock.

Re:space program

[Erbo]

Amen.

I've got to try and get Helix Player working on my FC2 box...I want to watch this launch, at least from T-9:00 up through MECO. (And, of course, I'll still be holding my breath from "Go at throttle up" through SRB SEP.)

designed for commercial tv coverage

[weighn]

"we're at T-20 minutes and holding, we'll be back after these messages"

Countdown 101 Nitpick

[Baricom]

Here's a quick nitpick about the linked Countdown 101 from the summary - the clock in the picture reads +00:00:05, yet the caption says it was taken "before a Space Shuttle launch."

I enjoy bloopers, and hopefully somebody else will too. :)

Re:Countdown 101 Nitpick

[Anonymous Coward]

Image to left: Spectators gather on the grounds in front of the countdown clock before a Space Shuttle launch. Credit: NASA

Better to gather before the launch than after.

So.. What does..

[ozzmosis]

What does T- stand for anyway?

Re:So.. What does..

[some guy I know]

The origin of "T" is lost in the mists of time.
However, many eminent scholars have various informed opinions as to what it stands for:

• Stephen J. Cannell - Sgt. Bosco "B.A." Baracus>.
• My Plumber - A right-angle junction between the end of one pipe and somewhere other than the end of another.
• Julie Andrews - A drink with jam and bread.
• Sitting Bull - A kind of pee.
• George W. Bush - One of those letters in the back of the alphabet, somewhere near "Z", or 17, or maybe Chicago, I think. It's too hard. What do you think, Dick? Has anybody seen my pretzels?

Re:So.. What does..

[lommer]

T- stands for "Time minus". "Time" is when the main event occurs (the shuttle liftoff). All other times are specified as relative to this event. Thus, T minus 3 minutes is (theoretically) three minutes before the shuttle lifts off, and T plus 6 hours is 6 hours after the shuttle lifts off. The military uses this convention for operations too (e.g. D-Day plus 6 is 6 days after D-Day). This system is good because it allows things to be scheduled without knowing exactly when the main event is going to occur (the launch could be delayed by weather, etc).

The system isn't perfect though, which is why you have "holds" for some things. These "holds" allow time for activities whose duration is really difficult to predict.

Re:So.. What does..

[propus]

T stands for "Time Until Launch". Check out http://space.launch.info/countdown.html for a nice overview about a launch countdown.

No wonder!

[Cervantes]

Sheesh, no wonder every time you guys get something from a foreign provider you always screw up the conversion... it's bad enough you have feet instead of meters, gallons instead of liters..... but, come on man, you guys just have to have your own special, unique number of hours in 3 days?!? It was all fine and good that you started spelling things differently after the War of Independance, but that's just wrong!

Re:No wonder!

[Enigma2175]

It was all fine and good that you started spelling things differently after the War of Independance

Yep, we started spelling it independence.

Re:No wonder!

[Cervantes]

You forgot to capitalize the "I" when you blithly ignored my witty pun. ;)

Anyone Seen a Launch in Person?

[Mr. Maestro]

I live in Tampa and the wife and I are thinking of taking our baby to see the launch. How early do you need to arrive?
Oh, and yes, some of us here at slashdot have spouses and even (gasp) offspring!
(sarcastic comment overload)

Re:Anyone Seen a Launch in Person?

[othiekan]

if you'd like to see the launch from the ground, get here a couple hours ahead... i suggest stopping at my workplace (Krystal) and grabbing some burgers to whittle the time away. If you go to the right place, there might even be someone with a direct link to the count down. Hope to see you, and good luck! 73 DE KI4GMB

Re:Anyone Seen a Launch in Person?

[chawly]

Yes, and why not ? But does the spouse (to say nothing of the offspring) run Linux ?

Still confused ...

[dougmc]

If you are confused on how T-43 hours equals almost 3 days, perhaps you should read Countdown 101."

I had to read Countdown 101 a few times before I realized what I was missing. It's the ... and holding periods that make up the difference. I guess when they start working on those things, the clock stops. Which seems very odd, but I guess they're just not sure how long they'll take.

But NASA uses their own metrics

[einhverfr]

It is supposed to be Time minus 43 hours, but it comes out to be roughly sixty-five hours until launch.

So if we really want to be honest about the count-down, we should say T-65 and then only hold when there is a real delay rather than having four or twelve hour holds which aren't counted.

Re:But NASA uses their own metrics

[1u3hr]

So if we really want to be honest about the count-down,

In some parliaments, (eg, Australia, UK) sometimes a piece of legislation is absolutely required to be passed on a certain date. But when midnight approaces debate is still continuing, so then an official will ceremonially physically stop the clock in the hall until the motion has passed, and it is recorded as passing at the time on the clock.

Re:But NASA uses their own metrics

[dubious9]

So if we really want to be honest about the count-down, we should say T-65 and then only hold when there is a real delay rather than having four or twelve hour holds which aren't counted.

Why would we want to be honest about the count-down? Is that more important than the shuttle?

All that would achieve is to raise the bar as to when a stoppage was put on. There's more pressure to get it done in 5 min 4 seconds rather than when the check is done. Which would you rather have?

Also, I'm guessing NASA put a little bit more thought into it than you. A countdown with planned stopages for critical steps, processes and checkes sounds a lot safer than a "65-hours or bust!" timer. Who cares if it's 65 real hours or 43? Nobody really cares until T-1 minute anyway.

Too bad it won't launch on Harry Potter Day

[davidwr]

Now that would be magic.

I wonder if any of the astronauts were allowed to bring the new book aboard, on the condition they not open it until 12:01 Houston time Saturday.

Re:Too bad it won't launch on Harry Potter Day

[chawly]

I bet they each have a copy ready for 12:01 time on Saturday. They're just shy about the news getting out.

MOD PARENT UP!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this marked "Flamebait" ?

This is a good question, what does T- stand for anyway??

I'll see this one, if it happens on Wednesday

[Anonymous Coward]

I scheduled my vacation down there in late May when this launch was originally scheduled, in hopes of seeing it. I took the trip anyway even after the launch was bumped back, and spent four days seeing basically everything possible at Kennedy Space Center-- so it wasn't a total loss.

Months ago when they first announced a launch date, I bought a launch observation ticket to the KSC Visitor Complex to see it-- and until that showed up this past week I had completely forgotten about it. I was mulling over just eating the cost (~$50), but then I decided to take a look at flights and see if I could get the day off. I'm catching an 8am flight from Philadelphia to Orlando, and taking a return flight from Orlando at 8:30pm. Hopefully they'll get the thing in the air between the stated 3:51pm launch time and the time I have to get on the road back to the airport.

I did some research before my May trip, and one of the best spots to view a launch is reported to be Space View Park in Titusville. As for how early you need to arrive, most of the web pages I found said to get there as early as possible to get a decent spot, be prepared for a very long wait, and don't expect to go anywhere very quickly immediately after the launch because of traffic. I expect that to go double for this launch. I'm cutting it close with my return flight, but it's the

Re:I'll see this one, if it happens on Wednesday

[othiekan]

Yes sir. that is VERY true. get there early, and unless you're walking, dont think about going anywhere. If you make it to spaceview park, look for people in green shirts with white letters on them.. The acne ridden fat guy will be me, i'd be very happy to meet you! 73 DE KI4GMB

these double digit hour countdowns are stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

I forget who said it, but to sum up -> "countdowns are for the audience."

I feel it should be like this.

Flight - "Everything ready to go?"

If flights gets all yes'.

Flight - "Launch in 3,2,1" *press big red launch button*

Just me. :-)

What are the odds?

[gadzook33]

Currently it is estimated for a 70% chance of launch on Wednesday, with the chances lowering later in the week

Yeah, this makes no sense at all. Eighty percent of the time, it's guaranteed to work every time.

Re:What are the odds?

[Detritus]

There's this thing called "weather", you might have heard of it.

Re:What are the odds?

[gadzook33]

Weather is expressed in terms of complex probability functions, as are many systems. But, at the end of the day, you're summing over all future possibilities. To say that a 70% chance will lower later on is, to me, very strange. I suppose it is equivelent to saying "Well, we're not able to calculate what the odds are of it lowering, but it will". However, since we are talking about what you so aptly named "weather", it seems strange that there wouldn't be a probabilty associated with it. Especially since I assume the original 70% is derived from the same sorts of models. Savvy?

Re:What are the odds?

[Phaedrus420]

If you figure 70% on wednesday, than that only leaves 30% for the rest of the week. So, maybe 15% chance on thursday, 9% for friday, with the remainder getting the weekend to relax.

I modded it.

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't LiveJournal.

Wrong...

[redfenix]

Actually I worked with a bunch of meteorologists.

Anytime you see "70% chance of rain" it means that of all the noted times that similar weather conditions occurred, 70% of those times the weather conditions resulted in rain.

Re:Wrong...

[PhoenixPath]

I could have sworn it was based on viewing area. (20% of the viewing area will get rain, etc..) Especially considering that the radar is showing rain... (I figure that'd be 100% chance of rain for that specific area, eh? Or using your method, conditions in which rain is already present leads to a 100% chance of rain?)

Re:Wrong...

[redfenix]

Or using your method, conditions in which rain is already present leads to a 100% chance of rain?

Well, if the rain is already present, it isn't much of a prediction, is it?

Re:Wrong...

[The_Wilschon]

70% of those times the weather conditions resulted in rain.

Rain where? In Bombay? how about Antarctica? The reason for the "70% of (area)" type of forecast is that everyone who is watching the weather wants to know whether it will rain on them. So, in that case, a prediction of "70% chance of rain" in my specific location is essentially the same as a prediction that 70% of a wider area that includes my specific location will get rain.

If it is "70% of the times we noted these weather conditions, rain occured", then that 70% is a much higher percentage than the actual probability that it will rain on me. This is because (probably) most of those "70%" of times did not see rain falling on every square meter of the prediction area. So, suppose that the area coverage for each of those recorded times that it did rain was 50%. Then, the chance it will rain on me would be 35% (.7 * .5 + .3 * 0). The chance it will rain on me would have to be the average rain area coverage over every time that those similar weather conditions occured.

Admittedly, IANAM, but I have heard, from TV meteorologists, that the area coverage method is the one they report, and furthermore, the area coverage method is much more informative to individual people watching/listening to/reading the weather forecast.

Re:Wrong...

[The_Wilschon]

Here's a reference, from NOAA's site. It's a .doc file (why? I don't know), but whatever.

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jan/hazards/HazardousWeath erProbabilities.doc

The relevant portion occurs at the end of the second paragraph:

So, if we say there is an 80% chance of dense fog, this means that there is an 80% chance of dense fog occurring right at your location.

This seems to back up what I have heard and understood about the nature of the forecasts. However, I could be wrong. In fact, it is entirely possible that there are two systems being used, with no clear distinction as to which is being used in any given forecast.

Re:Wrong...

[redfenix]

Weather is measured by single data points called "Weather Stations." NOAA with their "gridpoint forecast" may average statistics between these stations to give a custom forecast between the two. However, at this point, we've moved farther from the data statistics that help to give us accuracy. i.e. it's highly speculative--and likely doesn't account for geographical features and cannot account for the highly unpredictable nature of weather. Especially for "scattered showers" and such.

So...

If it is "70% of the times we noted these weather conditions, rain occured", then that 70% is a much higher percentage than the actual probability that it will rain on me. This is because (probably) most of those "70%" of times did not see rain falling on every square meter of the prediction area.

The meteorologists do not have instruments on every square meter of the prediction area. They've got instruments at one or more weather stations. And the 70% is for how many times the rain occurred at that station under similar conditions (temperature, pressure, humidity, etc.) In all ways, a weather reading is a single datapoint, and since these statistics are derived from a single datapoint, they are singular as well. However, as I mentioned above, these things can be averaged between stations.

I'm guessing your "area coverage method" is some kind of averaging of these weather stations calculated statistics.

I found this explanation as well:
http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/284/

The interesting parts:

When referring to POP it is most accurate to say, "There is a ___% POP that any particular measurement station in the viewing area will get precipitation". For example, when averaged over many 30% POP days, a particular station should have precipitation 30% of the time if the forecaster or computer model is accurate.

and

All to often, people assume a 20% chance of rain means 20% of forecast area will get rain on that one day. This is often not the case for any one day. Often no precipitation occurs at all in the forecast area on days with a 20% POP since one component of POP is the chance that any precipitation will develop.

Hold Times

[redfenix]

I'd LOVE to have planned hold-times in my software development schedule!

Re:D-Day

[soundman32]

D-Day was the fourth date available for the British sojourn to France in 1944.
Before it were A-Day, B-Day and C-Day, all of which were cancelled due to bad weather.

Do you Americans no nothing about WWII except the big bomb bit?

and they cant make less sense

[Anonymous Coward]

ok so they build in mile stones. that's fine. would it hurt them so much to simply have their T- count be estimated totat time? so that mabie T-70 or however long would be an estimated time to launch? That way if they get their act to gether they can call to whomever to get help and it makes more sense than this T-43is about equil to 3 days thing. Only if their some how acounting for a days worth of work or some overly logiced something a mucky-muck came up with.

Re:D-Day

[Floody]

D-Day was the fourth date available for the British sojourn to France in 1944. Before it were A-Day, B-Day and C-Day, all of which were cancelled due to bad weather.

Do you Americans no nothing about WWII except the big bomb bit?

Well, WWII aside, I'm pretty sure some of us under-educated ignorant redneck Americans have learned how to spell know .

I, Robot

[guet]

It is the destiny of the US to lead the exploration of space. Whether you like it or not, Congress will see to it that this is always true. If China, Japan, ESA, etc. ever appear to be surpassing us in space technology, there will be a boost to NASA's budget so that we don't loose national prestige. Accept it. Robotic spacecraft will supplement human spaceflight, but never replace it.

Heh heh, perhaps the supporter of the mighty empire should learn to spell 'lose' : ) Perhaps the US will lead space exploration in the next few centuries, but all the evidence points to China, India and an expanded EU being the economic growth areas in the next century, and thus the technological leaders. To be blunt though, who cares? Why all the jingoism? Personally I hope we get over personal rivalries and all contribute a little more together to complementary efforts (not using the ISS as an example : ).

Re Robotic versus human space-flight, while you are correct to point out that humans *prefer* to see other humans exploring, it may be that robots are our first emissaries to the stars for more practical reasons.

They are after all eminently suited to the long periods of boredom and repetitive tasks such trips would entail. The only problem they currently have is reproduction/repairs, but we probably will create robots who can create copies of themselves given the right workshops to do it, at which point they're just as useful as humans, and more reliable, though not as flexible in unforseen situations.

The shuttle is really just a drain on NASA's resources now and is clearly not the future of space-flight, however it's impossible to cancel because of national pride. It's just helping to contribute to the huge US deficit.

Re:D-Day

[reidbold]

Canadians know how to look things up.

In military parlance, D-Day is a term often used to denote the day on which a combat attack or operation is to be initiated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-day

So a new IBM laptop warrants a /. story now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn those google adwords :)