Slashdot Mirror


Shuttle Atlantis Finally In Orbit

Klaidas writes "After delays, the shuttle Atlantis has finally been launched today as expected. NASA reports: 'The shuttle Atlantis is in orbit, headed for a challenging new phase in the construction of the International Space Station. Commander Brent Jett and his five crewmates will install a new 17-ton segment of the station's truss backbone, adding a new set of giant solar panels and batteries to the complex. Three spacewalks are planned.'"

96 comments

  1. Penguins! by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 5, Funny
    The nickname for Atlantis is the Penguin - "What's black and white and never flies"...

    Look it up!

    ...ducks...

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:Penguins! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...ducks..."

      Uhmm.. I think Ducks do fly.

      ...ducks...

  2. space station work by Desolator144 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Solar panels are good and all but if I were them, I'd install the bathrooms, internet connection, and Dance Dance Revolution cuz that would be awesome in space. I just hope someone doesn't appear inside the part they're working on saying that the new part will destroy his universe with exotic particles that don't obey the laws of physics (what? that joke was worth another whirl)

    --
    now stop reading and go play Dance Dance Revolution!
    1. Re:space station work by segfault7375 · · Score: 4, Funny


      ...internet connection...

      Silly, they don't make tubes long enough to reach into space.

    2. Re:space station work by Desolator144 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I just checked eBay and if you bought almost all the repeaters, batteries, wires, and ethernet cables, you could reach it. And then they could sign up for SBC so when they call about it constantly disconnecting, their stupid vans will have to blast off to check the line...but at least they won't be blocking off a busy city intersection to stare and point at the ground every other week.

      --
      now stop reading and go play Dance Dance Revolution!
    3. Re:space station work by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 1

      yeah, but the space station orbits around the earth. Won't the tubes wind around the planet like a giant yo-yo, eventually pulling it back to the surface?

    4. Re:space station work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not with the amazing power of MAGNETS!

    5. Re:space station work by MBC1977 · · Score: 1

      "I just hope someone doesn't appear inside the part they're working on saying that the new part will destroy his universe with exotic particles that don't obey the laws of physics (what? that joke was worth another whirl)"

      LOL thanks for the laugh, I actually made home to watch that episode.

      Regards,

      MBC1977,
      (US Marine, College Student, and Good Guy!)

      --
      Regards,

      MBC1977,
    6. Re:space station work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We maybe thinking only two dimensional here. Who needs tubes? I think we will have to wait for 802.11zzz to be released before we can wifi the spacestation from an access point on Earth. Then the spacemen can multiplayer Halo 2 on Xbox Live!

  3. heh - it's true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative
    See this

    Moderators who call it a "troll" obviously can't read the standard admonishment that it is better to mod up than down...

  4. Delays... of the Slashdot kind... by strredwolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It really says something when the "It's scheduled to go up" post appears when it's launching, and the "It's in orbit" post is 12 hours late, after all the comments in the former post say "It's in orbit already. Had your coffee yet?"

    I was watching MSNBC's shuttle coverage with 2 minutes left on the clock until launch when Cowboy Neal's "scheduled" post hit the front page. As Richard Hammond of BBC's Top Gear would say, "Oh no this is bad..."

    May I propose a "This is going to happen within X hours/in the future" option for the submit on logged-in users, sorta like what Pud does for F*ed Company? That way they can get more priority, those who abuse it get banned from using it, and makes things work better.

    --

    --
    # Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
    $Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
    1. Re:Delays... of the Slashdot kind... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either MSNBC was delayed by 9 minutes or Slashdot needs to sync clocks on the servers. The post time of the previous story was "8:22 Saturday 09 September 2006" (in PDT). The launch time was 8:15 AM PDT.

  5. Just waiting to see if it is undamaged ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Does anyone else find it odd that we all now hold our breath after take off to find out if it is irreperably damaged? Seems like a bad thing to me ... Kind of like building a bridge and then inspecting it after each car drives over. Time for a new model.

    1. Re:Just waiting to see if it is undamaged ... by Marty200 · · Score: 1



      The difference being that we have thousands of years of experience building bridges, and maybe 70 years of experience sending stuff into space.

      MG

      --

      Randomly distributing Karma whenever possible.

    2. Re:Just waiting to see if it is undamaged ... by Millenniumman · · Score: 1

      Name 1 person with thousands of years of experience building bridges. It would be hard to find someone with 70.

      --
      Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
    3. Re:Just waiting to see if it is undamaged ... by Marty200 · · Score: 1

      Name 1 person with thousands of years of experience building bridges. It would be hard to find someone with 70.

      Maybe you should pick up a book sometime. You'll find that you can learn from lots of other peoples experience with out having to experience it all yourself.

      I'm sure our current bridge builders didn't start by throwing logs across streams.

      --

      Randomly distributing Karma whenever possible.

    4. Re:Just waiting to see if it is undamaged ... by Millenniumman · · Score: 1

      Name 1 thousand year old book on bridge building.

      --
      Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
    5. Re:Just waiting to see if it is undamaged ... by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      umm i don't know about books persay but i do know that some brides have survived for thousands of years (natural bridges and roman ones to start with)
      bridges are something that you can learn about by looking at "currently installed" ones.

      besides some books qoute older books that quote older books ... that quote scrolls by "Saulus of cyprus"

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    6. Re:Just waiting to see if it is undamaged ... by Millenniumman · · Score: 1

      So if you know nothing about computers, looking at the ENIAC can tell you how to make a Mac Pro, completely from raw materials?

      Name one book about bridge building that quotes another that quotes another ... that quotes another that is 1000 years old.

      --
      Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
    7. Re:Just waiting to see if it is undamaged ... by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Name 1 person with thousands of years of experience building bridges.
      An engineering student with a few good textbooks based on thousands of years of experience. Remember the Aztecs were screwed becuase Cortez used methods he had read that worked for Roman Generals and the Aztecs had no written history.
    8. Re:Just waiting to see if it is undamaged ... by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Name one book about bridge building that quotes another that quotes another ... that quotes another that is 1000 years old.
      You can go furthur than that - there were guys named Archimedes and Pythagorus whose ideas turn up in a lot of places.
    9. Re:Just waiting to see if it is undamaged ... by solitas · · Score: 1

      Is it now SOP to do that 'flip-over-fly-by'-thing to try to look for damage?

      --
      "It's time to take life by the cans." ~ Bender ("Bendin' in the Wind", ep. 3-13)
  6. Its been a while since I complained about stories. by AtariDatacenter · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...but isn't 10:36pm a little late for a story called, "Shuttle Atlantis Finally in Orbit"? You'd think it took 12 hours to get up there or something!

  7. tag = pointless by isaac · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Exqueeze me, but why are we still spending gigabucks on the Shuttle and ISS programs? The ISS, notwithstanding the fact that it's still under construction, is rapidly approaching the end of its design life. We won't even talk about the gruesome hack that is the modern shuttle program.

    More pointless than war in Iraq, and more deadly if you're an American. (Something like 7% of astronauts have died on the job, a significantly higher death rate than the US military.)

    -Isaac

    --
    I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
    1. Re:tag = pointless by DDLKermit007 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We really aren't spending all that much cash on the ISS. The ISS was meant to be finished LONG ago, but politics, things like iraq, and budget cuts all got in the way. They've gotten as much done as they have so far so why not finish the job? When the ISS is finaly obsolete and ready to be junked they'll stop spending any money on it. To continue it's usefullness they must do what? Spend more money (UH DUH!).

      And 7% is a fairly good rate for something that we still aren't really good at (why were doing it!). Also it's not like...you know...these people that go up have absolutely no idea what the dangers are. They accept the risks, we learn when the project succeeds or fails, and the human knoledgebase progresses just a little more. Maybe we should just ground all shuttles for the next 100 years while we work on more theories before we send the next shuttle up. Surely it would be safer! You can come up with ideas all day, but they mean shit until you try them out.

      Goes to show a low UID really doesn't mean shit when it comes to brains.

    2. Re:tag = pointless by ThreeE · · Score: 1

      Please explain to me how the war in Iraq has in any way impacted the ISS assembly schedule.

    3. Re:tag = pointless by EvanED · · Score: 1

      The ISS was meant to be finished LONG ago, but politics, things like iraq, and budget cuts all got in the way

      Don't forget Columbia's disintegration and the subsequent shuttle program delays. That probably cost a couple years.

    4. Re:tag = pointless by DrKyle · · Score: 3, Insightful
      More pointless than war in Iraq, and more deadly if you're an American. (Something like 7% of astronauts have died on the job, a significantly higher death rate than the US military.)

      The main difference is that they need to use the same astronauts over and over again because they are highly trained, and they either have a safe mission or a deadly catastrophe. Soldiers on the other hand are easily replaced (it's not like there are only 10 people in the world to do the job) and way more likely to get non-lethally injured. It is stupid to make the comparison looking at a sample of a couple hundred astronauts to millions of soldiers. If you want ridiculous comparisons, 8 Presidents out of 43 have died in office, that is a nearly 20% chance you will die if you become President, now who would be stupid enough to want to take that risk?
    5. Re:tag = pointless by daeg · · Score: 1

      I think te GP was trying to make a point that NASA has faced budget crunches. During the race to the moon and for a while after, NASA had massive funding. When Hubble went up and the public was routinely wowed by images from the far reaches of space, politicians felt comfortable in fully funding NASA. But when massive budgetary items come up like Iraq or 9/11 domestic security spending, things like NASA got pinched.

      I really don't think NASA cuts have really impacted IIS construction, though. Columbia was the biggest delay (years) as well as other technical problems. Most of NASA's cuts have been in other, smaller programs such as probes and such.

    6. Re:tag = pointless by kgruscho · · Score: 1

      I can't believe no one is biting on the "who would be stupid enough" ?

    7. Re:tag = pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't getting rid of our nation's overacheivers the whole point of NASA?

    8. Re:tag = pointless by lordperditor · · Score: 0, Troll

      Are you saying the American President is stupid? nah... did you work that out on your own ;-)

    9. Re:tag = pointless by ThreeE · · Score: 0, Troll

      NASA hasn't had a budget cut in ages. In fact, it is one of the only agencies that has seen an increase in recent years.

    10. Re:tag = pointless by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In general, ISS's lifespan is more dependent on funds to maintain it than on the actual lifespan of its parts. We're looking at reboost costs, crew and supply delivery/waste removal costs, etc . Some parts will wear out, but in general, ISS is not expected to structurally fail until we let it reenter the atmosphere. I believe it is expected to be 1.3B$/yr, and we've only budgetted $13B (ten years). Many of the modules have lifespans of 30+ years, and as we see on (still operating) Spirit and Opportunity (and many other probes), the real, physical lifespan may well be much longer.

      I really hope we don't do the whole Skylab thing again. "Okay, we've burned a ton of money and fixed all of the glitches. Lets let it burn up now!"

      --
      "If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
    11. Re:tag = pointless by dclatfel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I wouldn't call it more pointless than the war in Iraq. That's pretty damn pointless. But clearly - the value in the space station, and probably the space program in general isn't from it's direct research value, but from the spinoff from it. Here's what I think the indirect benefits are:

      1) Pumping large amounts of money into defense contractors - particularly important for those contractors during peacetime. FWIW - I say take the 100's of billions of dollars we're pumping into Iraq, and divert it to NASA. Then you'd see one heck of a manned space program.
      2) All of the spinoff technology that come from doing such innovative things. Need I mention integrated circuits, advances in lightweight composites, Tang or the Nintendo Powerglove? Come on, where would we be without our Tang?
      3) National pride. Critics will argue the ephemerality of this one, but I would argue that it has real measurable effect. National pride is a factor in both the perception of America in the eyes of the rest of the world and maybe even our own perception of ourselves. Both of these are ultimately, in my eyes, good for America doing business in a world economy.
      4) Finally, the longest range effect (but maybe most important) is the increase in students pursuing science and engineering education. In fact, it probably translates to great numbers of students pursuing higher education in general. And this, I would argue, has the potential to be the biggest and most lasting effect for our economy.

      Anyway - just IMHO.

      --
      Share data. Share code. Share ideas. Share the wealth.
      http://stockfilter.org
    12. Re:tag = pointless by cptgrudge · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why aren't they investing our tax dollars into an endowment and let congress just spend the interest? That would make a lot more sense than just borrow, borrow, borrow.

      IANA accountant, but...

      The current US government budget is $2.77 trillion USD. Assuming an annual return rate estimate of 15%, we would need about $18.46 trillion USD in an endowment just to keep the same. To account for an annual inflation rate of about 3.2% and to allow for a real annual growth of 4% (to account for possible bad years, rainy day funds, etc) we need to adjust our figures. Now, we need an endowment size of $35.51 trillion USD.

      The latest M3 numbers (broadest level of measuring circulating currency) for the US dollar were estimated at $10.34 trillion USD. Even if we cleared our National Debt (somehow) of just under $9 trillion USD and returned that currency to circulation, we'd still be short by over $16 trillion USD. The GDP of the US is around $11.6 trillion USD. Sorry, we just don't have enough money to do it. Even doing something unthinkable like reducing the budget to 25% of its size now wouldn't work. We'd need around $8.8 trillion USD, and the damage done by taking that much out of circulation and the quick reduction in government size (thus increasing unemployment) would be devastating to our economy.

      Governments use debt to control the currency from inflating out of control by issing treasury bonds and such, thus taking money out of circulation and cooling the economy. Amounts of money in those sizes are completely different than you or I getting a home mortgage or buying a car, and they have different effects. Check up on it here. I do agree that the national debt is out of control and needs to be drastically reduced, but I don't think we'll get out of it in time. The time will soon come to pay the piper, perhaps in a decade, and I fear the result will be an as yet unmatched global recession.

      I hope I'm wrong.

      --
      Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
    13. Re:tag = pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, there is a pretty much 100% chance that you will die if you become President. Only four of them haven't (yet).

    14. Re:tag = pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      There are many programs that are extremely wasteful and stupid in the federal budget: NASA, AmTrak, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Endowment for the Arts, Foreign Aid, UN dues, Department of Education, Medicaid, unnecessary weapons systems like the Comanche and the F-22, rebuilding iraq, etc

      Jeez, while I was asleep, Patrick Buchanan started reading slashdot. Just wow.

    15. Re:tag = pointless by Millenniumman · · Score: 1

      George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford

      I count 5.

      What kind of math are you using?

      --
      Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
    16. Re:tag = pointless by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      This type if the link works.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    17. Re:tag = pointless by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      Jeez, while I was asleep, Patrick Buchanan started reading slashdot. Just wow.

      Read the wikipedia entry on Reductio_ad_Hitlerum. You've made the same kind of attack except using Pat Buchanan instead of Hitler.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    18. Re:tag = pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you take the ISS and the shuttle out of the budget, the rest of NASA has been flat or losing money for years. Start here and compare the numbers to prior years. Look at the numbers for basically everything but Space Station, Space Shuttle, and Space Flight Support, and you'll see what I mean.

    19. Re:tag = pointless by ThreeE · · Score: 0

      Well that is different isn't it? You said NASA, not some portion of NASA. The Science budget at NASA is basically flat -- hardly being cut.

    20. Re:tag = pointless by fmobus · · Score: 1

      You know, Department of Education is a really good thing to invest. Or you'd rather give no access to education for the poorer?

  8. Good luck and Godspeed! by andrewman327 · · Score: 1
    Good luck and Godspeed to the crew on their current mission.


    Being an astronaut is an incredibly hard job and I salute the brave men and women who risk their lives (and sanity) in the name of science. There's a reason something NASA related is a recurring theme in PopSci's "Worst Jobs in Science."

    --
    Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
    1. Re:Good luck and Godspeed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm...since when did the SST program have anything to so with advancing science?

  9. Anything fall off? by Che+Guevarra · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seriously, did anything go wrong? It almost always does. Near misses, falling foam, inspections ... Hate to troll, but everytime I watch a launch now my heart races and I break out in a cold sweat whenever I see a thruster flare or a t.v. screen artifact near the shuttle. NASA tries to project confidence, but don't we/they really want a next gen orbiter without all the worries?

    1. Re:Anything fall off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      don't we/they really want a next gen orbiter without all the worries?

      And they're getting it with Constellation. The Orion crew module is going to be more like an Apollo capsule. It will sit on top so nothing can fall on it, and it will have traditional escape rockets to get out of danger in an emergency launch situation. I mean space-gliders are awesome, but part of me thinks they made them mostly to show off. I mean, how else are you supposed to top the Saturn-V?

      I think the current estimate is 2012 for test flights, but don't quote me on that. It still puts it years after the end of the shuttle program in 2010, so they need to keep getting flights up to finish as much of ISS as possible.

    2. Re:Anything fall off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      I think the current estimate is 2012 for test flights, but don't quote me on that. It still puts it years after the end of the shuttle program in 2010, so they need to keep getting flights up to finish as much of ISS as possible.
      I've heard that they are going to test a 5 segment SRB (with one stage being a dummy stage) with a dummy second stage and a dummy Orion spacecraft unit in early 2009. This will be the first of 4 test flights. It doesn't use all 5 segments because the manufacturer ATK won't have a 5 segment SRB ready until late 2009. I think the tests you were thinking about were for the Ares V (~2012-2014 for tests).

      Additionally, NASA is considering shutting down pad 39A or 39B early and perhaps retiring Discovery early (late 2008?). The pads are within the design specifications for the Ares I and Ares V rocket thrust, but will need some modifications to suport the new spacecraft. We'll have to see once one or more of the pads are down whether they decide to upgrade the pads to support one of the Ares V modification options (i.e. 3 or more SRBs with a modified 1st and 2nd stages--note: SRBs are considered stage 0). While the Ares V will have the most powerful thrust of any rocket ever built (even greater than the N-1), the 2 SRB design won't need a pad rework. Three or more SRBs would rip up the pads on launch. But the benefits of having 3 or more SRBs with modified 1st and 2nd rocket stages would be that you could launch up to 200 tonnes (greater than the mass of the current ISS). This would be extremely useful if you wanted to build a Moon base (because going to lunar orbit will cut off >50% of you LEO value).
    3. Re:Anything fall off? by cyclone96 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      NASA tries to project confidence, but don't we/they really want a next gen orbiter without all the worries?

      We (I'm a NASA engineer, and I work on manned systems) absolutely do. The Orion vehicle will be a lot safer since it will have realistic abort options through all phases of flight, not have the complications of a winged vehicle, and will have an escape rocket. The crew will be on top of the vehicle away from falling debris (where, as Mike Griffin said, God intended them to be).

      That being said, human spaceflight is never going to be "worry free", at least not for awhile. Riding rockets to orbit is still a very dangerous business, with even the most reliable launchers in the world turning in a 1% failure rate (imagine if aircraft had that...). Most rockets (including the shuttle) carry explosive charges to terminate the flight. The requirement to have those range safety packages are a reflection of the relative immaturity of the launch business.

      While great strides have been made in the nearly 50 years orbital launches have been occuring, once or twice a year we have an explosion or failure to reach orbit that reminds everyone it's tough to get into space. Everyone I know in this business (whether their payloads are robots or humans) spends a great deal of time worrying about the ride uphill.

      --
      Worst...sig...ever!
    4. Re:Anything fall off? by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1
      The Orion vehicle will be a lot safer
      But will it have drones?
      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  10. I read it on /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a year ago.

  11. Purpose of it all? by tubapro12 · · Score: 2

    I'm going to step back and argue from the opposing side of this issue (from my opinin, as I support the ISS).

    What is the purpose of the ISS?
    1. No major scientific gains have come from this project except from the few things we have learned about biology in space (while here I aside that this alone is valuable information and will be useful over the next few decades).

    2. There is no economic value of such a object at current time (aside: I agree, but see my last aside; science doesn't always have immediate economic uses: anyone think Gregor Mendel would have thought he was pioneering a multi-billion dollar industry with those peas?).

    1. Re:Purpose of it all? by Otter · · Score: 2, Insightful
      anyone think Gregor Mendel would have thought he was pioneering a multi-billion dollar industry with those peas?

      Sure, but Mendel's work proceeded from a clear scientific question about the nature of heredity. He wan't just casting around for an experiment to do to justify the expense of a super-cool high-tech pea patch.

    2. Re:Purpose of it all? by Free_Meson · · Score: 4, Insightful
      2. There is no economic value of such a object at current time (aside: I agree, but see my last aside; science doesn't always have immediate economic uses: anyone think Gregor Mendel would have thought he was pioneering a multi-billion dollar industry with those peas?).


      If there was immediate economic value to the ISS, the government wouldn't (and shouldn't) be doing it -- private industry would be doing it instead.

      For whatever reason, a lot of people complain when the government "wastes" their money on projects unlikely to be profitable in the short term. That's clearly the only thing the government should be spending money on, as anything likely to be profitable in the short term will be accomplished by private industry, likely more quickly and more cheaply. If you are mad about high taxes being spent on botched, potentially profitable ventures, blame the $400Bn pork barrel project also known as the Department of Defense.
    3. Re:Purpose of it all? by tubapro12 · · Score: 1

      Good points, exactly how I would have argued 2 if I had had the time to put down my own opinions.

    4. Re:Purpose of it all? by EvilSuggestions · · Score: 1
      If there was immediate economic value to the ISS, the government wouldn't (and shouldn't) be doing it -- private industry would be doing it instead.

      So, by parallel reasoning: If there was immediate economic value to the Interstate Highway System, the government wouldn't (and shouldn't) be doing it -- private industry would be doing it instead?

      ...come to think of it, the ISS is kind of like a highway rest area (and hotel, restaurant, lab, etc) in the sky.

      And for comparison, someone above quoted ~$1.3 billion/yr for the ISS. That's still shy of the amount California spends on highway patrol alone (http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/StateAgencyBudgets/2000 /2660/department.html). Their DofT budget (e.g. road maintenance and construction, etc), is over 10x that amount! Or put another way, it costs about $4.33 per US citizen. If one latte a year keeps that thing flying, I'm cool with it.

      --
      "There is a thin line between ignorance and arrogance, and only I have managed to erase that line." - Dr. Science
  12. Reverse space race? by Will_Malverson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1960's: We sent people to the moon
    1970's: We put a space station into low earth orbit
    1980's: We had frequent flights to LEO with a reusable craft.
    1990's: We had occasional flights to LEO with a reusable craft.
    2000's: We managed to get people into orbit with a craft that might get used two more times before the end of its life.

    1. Re:Reverse space race? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Not quite reverse, but perhaps cyclic:
      2010: Project Constellation comes online with a >130 t heavy lift rocket. Dates on internal documents are adjusted to -48 years for consistency. Man returns to the Moon.
      2020?: A nuclear rocket is designed (Prometheus?): Surviving NERVA and the original Project Orion designers go on a killing spree in their nursing homes.

    2. Re:Reverse space race? by Shadyman · · Score: 1

      Not really, just aging equipment that they don't want to trust worth a damn.

      Ok, it's a given that the Apollo missions were with a different rocket, but after that...

    3. Re:Reverse space race? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      2010's: Where are those f#$%$#@ Apollo tapes that showed how we made to the moon 50 years ago?

    4. Re:Reverse space race? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      You forgot: "1991: Cold War and Space Race over."

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  13. Downloadable recorded launch video. by antdude · · Score: 4, Informative

    For those who hates streaming video and want to see the launch, here is a 14 MB MP4 file that can be downloaded.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    1. Re:Downloadable recorded launch video. by The+Real+Nem · · Score: 2, Informative

      A complete video from launch to orbit (9 minutes) can be found on YouTube.

    2. Re:Downloadable recorded launch video. by antdude · · Score: 1

      I wonder why NASA didn't include the orbit part from today/yesterday's launch. :(

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    3. Re:Downloadable recorded launch video. by AaronLawrence · · Score: 1

      Thanks a lot, very nice.
      Love those rockets starting ... incomparable

      --
      For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
  14. Great by gregTheBald · · Score: 2, Funny

    Great, They get it in orbit just before the ZPM gets completely drained

  15. Foam Fell off this one too by queenb**ch · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    After being tagged a troll on my last post for hoping that they had fixed the foam problem, NASA annouced today that two pieces of foam came off during the launch this time.

    *sticks tongue out*

    Take that, you small minded moderators!

    2 cents,

    QueenB

    --
    HDGary secures my bank :/
    1. Re:Foam Fell off this one too by 6Yankee · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sure, you mentioned the foam, but I bet you didn't find a way to blame SCO and/or Microsoft... MOD PARENT DOWN! :)

    2. Re:Foam Fell off this one too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't speak to the wisdom of down-modding the other post, having not read it, but NASA fully expected foam to come off during this flight, as well as during STS-121 with Discovery. There was no indication, however, that any of it caused any problems. The foam problem isn't 100% fixed, but it does not appear to currently present an excessive threat to the orbiters.

  16. What's that giant sucking noise I hear? by SuperBanana · · Score: 2, Funny

    Good luck and Godspeed to the crew on their current mission. Being an astronaut is an incredibly hard job and I salute the brave men and women who risk their lives (and sanity) in the name of science.

    Easy, chief. Don't hurt your flag-waving hand too much.

  17. Re:Does anyone else care? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well, if there was a "-1 Persecution Complex", I'm sure you'd get that instead.

  18. Re:Its been a while since I complained about stori by antifoidulus · · Score: 2, Funny

    They had to stop in the ionosphere off of exit 50 on Space Highway 7 to go to a Bob Evans because Joseph Tanner forgot to pee and were getting kind of hungry. And you know how the ionosphere Bob Evans is, it takes FOREVER to get going again.

  19. In other news ... by InMSWeAntitrust · · Score: 1

    ... The researchers at the Inquirer reveal that Nostradamus actually predicted the flight of both the craft and the continent. We have yet to find out where the continent went.

    1. Re:In other news ... by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      That one's easy. The Pegasus Galaxy, of course. Don't you watch any Stargate?

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  20. The job of the astronaut sucks. by Animats · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Being an astronaut is an incredibly hard job and I salute the brave men and women who risk their lives (and sanity) in the name of science.

    As a job, being an astronaut today is not that great. The guys who go up on the ISS are being worked really hard for their whole tour, because it's now so hard to get people up there. The workload has increased substantially since the number of flights declined. There's a good chance the tour of duty in space may be longer than expected, due to problems on the ground. (The Soviet-era cosmonauts had it even worse; one guy was up on Mir for 438 days, being unfortunate enough to be up during the collapse of the Soviet Union.)

    But that's not the worst part. NASA has too many people for the flight slots, so many of the "astronauts" will never fly. Right now, there are 100 flight-eligible astronauts, most of whom are doing mid-level management jobs. (NASA's phrase is "will serve in technical assignments until assigned to a space flight.") Or worse, filling the daily "lunch with an astronaut" slot. NASA is no longer training new astronauts.

    Being an astronaut doesn't make you famous any more. Here's the list of active astronauts. How many have you heard of?

    1. Re:The job of the astronaut sucks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There's a good chance the tour of duty in space may be longer than expected, due to problems on the ground.

      So the Iraqui stop-loss program has been extended to space, huh? More government planning in action.

    2. Re:The job of the astronaut sucks. by DrKyle · · Score: 2, Funny

      From your link: There are two astronauts, Gregory C. Johnson and Gregory H. Johnson. Both are pilots, both started in 1998. Did NASA get some help from aliens to make a clone or something?

    3. Re:The job of the astronaut sucks. by stevesliva · · Score: 1
      But that's not the worst part. NASA has too many people for the flight slots, so many of the "astronauts" will never fly.
      Never say never. Many of the younger astronauts from the Apollo and Manned Orbiting Labrotory programs waited 10 or 15 years to fly on the Shuttle. What will the manned spaceflight program look like in 15 years, and who will be first in line?
      --
      Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
  21. Astronauts by pipingguy · · Score: 1, Troll

    The main difference is that they need to use the same astronauts over and over again because they are highly trained

    I call bullshit. How many PhDs does one have to have in order to push a button (which is essentially all they do)? Is optimum physical fitness required for working in weightless space? "Astronauts" are just technicians that have been idolized and aggrandized by the myth and hero-making marketing machine. Yes, the original guys (who were actually test pilots - true daring and fearless men) were pioneers, but these days it's just a job. It's an exclusive job to be sure (the only way I'll ever get into space is if Chuck Norris kicks me) but the fact remains that all those brains in space are performing tasks that a similarly-trained 8 year old could do.

    1. Re:Astronauts by cyclone96 · · Score: 2

      It's unfortunate that you were modded as a troll, because I think you bring up some good points.

      The parent argued that astronauts were "reused" because of the amount of training they received. You replied:

      How many PhDs does one have to have in order to push a button (which is essentially all they do)?

      A decent sized chunk of astronauts do not have PhDs. Having a PhD is simply used as a measure of what an astronaut candidate has already accomplished and their ability to learn. Most astronauts don't really even use their PhD.

      They do go through 2 years of training by NASA after they are selected in things like space systems, EVA, flight training, etc. They also typically do a few years of work in jobs which could be generally considered engineering support (such as working rendezvous procedures, or whatever) before they are flown. By the time an astronaut flies, there is several million dollars with of training invested in them - that's the point the parent was attempting to make. This isn't unique to NASA...the level of investment is similar to that a, say, Air Force Colonel has.

      I wouldn't quite classify astronauts as technicians, but they aren't some sort of God either. The best description is either "Reseach Pilot/Engineer" (for the Pilot types) or "Systems Engineer" (for the Mission Specialists). There job is a lot more than button pushing, they are deeply involved in the development of procedures, techniques, and space equipment.

      --
      Worst...sig...ever!
    2. Re:Astronauts by Rei · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is optimum physical fitness required for working in weightless space?

      Why yes, it is.

      1) On ascent, you face the launch G-forces.
      2) In space, your body starts breaking down. If you're weak when you go up, and you stay for a long time, you might well be wheelchair or even bed-bound when you return.
      3) To minimize this effect as much as possible, astronauts spend long periods of time in space every day exercising. ISS astronauts burn about 3,000 calories per day every day, despite being in a zero-G environment.
      4) After descent, you need to be back to normal shape as soon as possible.

      The average astronaut who spends a few months on the ISS loses 5-10% of their body weight in the process.

      --
      "If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
  22. Re:Does anyone else care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shot, bro.

  23. The Nazis Who Ran The USA Space Program by cannuck · · Score: 0

    Just a couple of comments about the USA intentions in space:

    a)" In 1969, Americans cheered as our astronauts took their first steps onto the moon. The giant rocket that blasted them into space was Arthur Rudolph's crowning achievement as NASA's project director for Saturn V.

    Fifteen years later, Rudolph relinquished his U.S. citizenship and left the country rather than face Justice Department charges that he had committed war crimes while working in an underground factory that had used Dora concentration camp prisoners as slave labor. The charges stemmed from Rudolph's "complicity in the abuse and persecution of concentration camp inmates who were employed by the thousands as slave laborers under his direct supervision," according to former Justice prosecutor Eli Rosenbaum, who directed the Rudolph case. Dora played a significant role not only in Hitler's efforts to win the war, but in the lives of Rudolph, Wernher von Braun, and other German rocket scientists who are now touted as American heroes in our history books. "

    b) Having Nazis running the USA's space program clearly identifies the purpose of the program. World domination from space. Don't like someone? Just pop in the GPS co-ordinates at the space station - launch missile and goodbye! How long will it take USA voters to figure it out? USA voters seem to be awakening from their slumber now. Gee... Bush is a liar. (WOW) Bush hates Blacks ... Katrina (WOW). Hopefully voters will now figure out what the space program is all about and then demand that the money being spent on the space program be switched to - spending on scientific education in elementary and secondary classrooms. ( I.D. geezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    c) If anyone actually wanted to study other planets - little robots designed by bright people not by the dummies at NASA (where are those Nazis when we need them?!) - fired off into space in little rockets is all that is necessary - at a fraction of the cost.

  24. snark by Sunburnt · · Score: 2, Funny

    "WTF is up with "rebuilding iraq"? Why do we want to rebuild it for? We should just smash it up real good and then leave so that the arabs know not to fuck with us."

    Donald Rumsfeld? Posting on /.? Who can say now that the Bush administration doesn't try to be open and forthcoming with the American people?

    /snark

    --
    Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
  25. Harry Caray by mr100percent · · Score: 1

    Harry Carey: Hey! So they shot the shuttle Discovery up into space!

    Linda Ham (NASA flight director): Yes.

    Harry Carey: Is that thing ever coming back?

    Linda Ham: Uh, it landed a week ago.

    Harry Carey: How many survivors?

    Linda Ham: Everyone survived, Harry.

    Harry Carey: Oh. That's a relief. [ long pause ] Hey, Linda! What was it like inventing the space shuttle?

    Linda Ham: Uh.. I didn't invent the shuttle.

    Harry Carey: Well, I wonder, whoever did, made a lot of money! And then, I bet he tried to invent something else. But it wasn't as good. Life can sometimes turn your greatest successes into your most crushing defeats!

    Linda Ham: [ not sure how to respond ] Yeah.. I guess that's right..

    Harry Carey: Linda Ham! Linda Ham! Linda Ham! Does your name ever make you hungry?

    Linda Ham: No. No.

    Harry Carey: Well, it makes me hungry! One time, I named a sandwich "Linda". It was a beautiful sandwich! And guess what kind of sandwich it was.

    Linda Ham: I don't know. Ham?

    Harry Carey: I guess. I don't know. Hey, Linda! When are we finally going to get over to Mars?

    Linda Ham: Well, there is a manned expedition being discussed..

    Harry Carey: No! I mean you and me! We could make an evening of it. We'll head over to Mars, and I'll bring my sandwich "Linda". And we can make sloppy Martian love in the back of my dunebuggy. So, what do you say? Is it a date? It's a simple question: Do you want to go to Mars with a dead guy and a sandwich? Yes or no?

    Linda Ham: Uh.. no..

    Harry Carey: Yeah, you're right.. it probably wouldn't work out. But it doesn't hurt to be a dreamer! If we didn't dream, we wouldn't have the space shuttle.

    Linda Ham: That's right, Harry. That's a very good point.

    Harry Carey: Also, if we didn't dream, our brains would devour themselves, in madness and paranoia. The Viet Cong knew that. That's why they used sleep deprivation as a form of torture! [ long drawn-out pause ] Anyway, that's all the time we have! Hey! Join us next week at nine o'clock Eastern time, and watch me eat an entire planet! [ stagehand whispers in Harry's ear ] Oh! Thanks, Pete! That's actually eight o'clock Eastern time. I'm still going to eat a planet! See you then! Cubs win! Cubs win!
    [ fade out ]

  26. Not yet, but soon! by papaTango · · Score: 1
    they don't make tubes long enough to reach into space.

    Weeelll, then again, maybe they will!

  27. Vance Brand by wgadmin · · Score: 1

    I was happy to see Vance Brand, of Apollo Soyuz fame as well as the backup CMP for Apollo 15, listed as active. I was hoping to find John Young but I forgot that he retired 2 years ago.

  28. Astronauts at work by Animats · · Score: 1

    Driving the truck. That's what the job looks like. Those guys even look like truck drivers.

    Then when they get there, they have to unload the truck. ""There's an awful lot going on, and it's going to be non-stop work from start to finish ... with virtually no time for breaks."

    That's the reality of the job.

  29. Re:Foam Fell off this/Small Minded Moderators Ha h by cannuck · · Score: 0

    Small minded moderators? Meaning mindless moderators?