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.'"

Comments

Delays... of the Slashdot kind...

[strredwolf]

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.

tag = pointless

[isaac]

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

Re:tag = pointless

[DDLKermit007]

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.

Re:tag = pointless

[DrKyle]

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?

Anything fall off?

[Che Guevarra]

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?

Re:Anything fall off?

[cyclone96]

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.

Reverse space race?

[Will_Malverson]

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.

Re:Reverse space race?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Purpose of it all?

[Otter]

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.

The job of the astronaut sucks.

[Animats]

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?

Re:Purpose of it all?

[Free_Meson]

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.

Re:Astronauts

[Rei]

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.