Slashdot Mirror
Astronauts Hook Up Harmony in Lengthy Spacewalk
Tech.Luver writes "Astronauts spent seven hours in space to finish preparing the International Space Station for its next addition — Europe's first permanent space laboratory, the Columbus laboratory — which is sitting in the cargo bay of space shuttle Atlantis at Cape Canaveral, Florida launch pad — set to lift off on December 6."
Apparently, the facebook tracking system is getting ridiculous. It's even following me to slashdot, and predicting that I dislike facebook tracking and sending me to an AP article about it.
(If this was evidence editors don't RTFA before posting...) Or am I the only one to get an odd story when I click on the link?
-Ryan
AUWYHSTOT (Acronyms are Useless When You Have to Spell Them Out Too)
see subject
"Astronauts hook up"
The first space kiss?
-1 not first post
Possible intended link.
Good, now they won't need to have all those extra remote control's floating around the ISS, Harmonies are great.
How about one that actually works?
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/071124-expedition16-third-spacewalk.html
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
Here's what I believe to be the correct link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/24/AR2007112400458_2.html?hpid=moreheadlines
That's three consecutive stories with spelling and/or grammar errors.
My new blog
It looks like a mis-post got promoted to the front page, and the corrected post is under related stories. Here is the link:
:Astronaut's hooks up module in space.
:p
http://techluver.com/2007/11/25/astronauts-hooks-up-module-in-lengthy-spacewalk/
Looks like even the original story is missing that apostrophe
Ok ok, bad joke.
That's what they get for choosing evolution. Should have chosen intelligent design, which can't devolve!
Am I to assume that you meant ISS instead of IST? I don't mean to nitpick but I don't understand what you're referring to. And my thought, for the record, is that NASA is as "steely eyed" as ever.
Oh, for the days when sig's didn't have to be cute...hey, wait a sec.
if this is our best, lord help us
we should be building moonbase by now
From the articles other people have posted and this one, there doesn't seem to be much to report other than they did some prep work. The shavings are still a problem, the moon is pretty, and they did some cooling systems work.
Shuttles launch from NASA Kennedy Space Center Launch Complexes 39A and 39B, and not from Cape Canaveral, a geographical feature separated from KSC on Merritt Island (mostly) by the Banana River lagoon. The launch complxes on Cape Canaveral and the "Skid Strip" there are part of the Cape Canaveral Air Forse Station. Let's get it right. NASA can use the credit for what it has and does at KSC. - I used to work at KSC and still live nearby on Merritt Island.
Ok, so C.Taco comes in as anonymous, and tips a correction, pretending to be a 'Good Samaritan', then he quickly mods it up, so everyone can see it - not sure if this was what the board had in mind when they told Taco to 'improve transparency'.
...weak boys, very, very weak.
Why not just go and make the correction instead? Or is it true that the backend is so convoluted-ly broken that you can't, and we're just seeing another example of that particular Achilles heel?
I likes the LOLcats-style title. I was less pleased that my rss feed promised me a lengthy spa, and all I got to read about was a lengthy spacewalk. Ah well.
"Wow it's almost a full moon," said Whitson..."
"Yeah,...it's very close," said Tani..."
No wonder NASA's in no hurry to get to mars. Is Lover's Leap next?
I don't get it, what exactly is NASA doing wrong?
The question you want to ask is what are they doing right
Um, sustaining human life in space and robotic probes on mars? I'd say that's pretty significant.
They are doing what they have been tasked to do by Congress, with the monies provided to them by Congress.
They may not be doing it the way YOU want. Tough. Sucks to be you.
Why not run for Congress, win a seat, and work your way up to be the chair of the comittee that funds NASA.
Then they will have to do things YOUR way.
Forgive me if I don't hold my breath waiting for THAT to happen anytime soon.
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
And those things couldn't be done better, more efficiently and safer by a private company? Those are the significant things- and that's a sad note. We should be going to mars by now, not sending probes. We should be sustaining live on the moon- not just in temporary space stations. Again, what's been done right?
As a civilian agency they better not be following congressional orders. You can find the text of the act that created NASA here http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html#POLICY. They're purposed as a civilian agency with congessional oversight. They get money from congress- not orders.
Well, lets look at this. Bigelow has 2 space stations up there. So, I guess that you are correct. Oh, wait. They obtained the technology from NASA for next to nothing (for the amount that they had, it should have cost bigelow 100's of millions). In addition, with 7 years of work, they have 2 stations that are the size of large coffins up there. So, while I expect big things out of them, they are like NASA, having a LONG way to go.
Then we have Spacex. They have launched 2x and are still not in orbit. The amazing thing is that ALL of their tech is a NASA derivative. That is, they did not do the research (though they are doing a bit of their own development). Currently, the payments for these 2 launches come from where? NASA. So, NASA is funding them. In fact, if you have been following the pace of COTS lately, you would realize that Spacex is putting pressure on NASA to give them a contract to service the ISS very quickly. In addition, NASA is likely to select SpaceDev for the second go of COTS2. They have also hinted that they want guarenteed sales to the ISS after they have launched. Considering that they are going to start by using deltas to launch their vehicle, they will have a good shot at 2010 flights.
So, what is the point? It is NASA that is helping to create the private business, not the other way around. If ISS had not been there, then spacex/bigelow would likely not be happening. Oh, BTW, you are aware that they feds have the ability to buy the first BA-330 from bigelow, yes? I am guessing that griffin will push for the first sundancer to be hooked up to the station. After all, it is a cheap way to expand the system, test a private space station, and perhaps ultimately get the funding to put the CAM on to the ISS as well. I am also guessing that Scaled as well as armadillo will get future funding from NASA (far beyond the xprize). What this should point out is that NASA is not hindering getting private enterprise into Space, They are their best partner for it.
Right now, I do not feel that NASA is doing everything correct, but they are finally moving forward again. Even now, I think that constellation the way it is being done, will be a mistake, but it will still get us a true heavy launcher (a delta V is not a heavy launcher; Saturn V, Energia were). In the end, the ASSORTMENT of launchers and finally launch technology (land based vs. airplane launch vs. rail launched vs. ladder) is what will strengthen the west's capabilities.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
OK which is it:
"Astronaut Hooks Up Harmony" or "Astronauts Hook Up Harmony"?
It can't be both.
Also, can you imagine the instruction pamphlets on those suckers?
"Insert rod C in slot F adhesive adding after pressure applied good."
Editors Dont Edits Slashdots Posts
Do they expect that it will detach itself from the space station in search of a new world...appoint itself govorner of said new world, then return in shackles to be made prisoner by the spitefull europeans?
"A gentleman never strikes a lady with his hat on." - Fred Allen
um, you're whining.
Just so you know.
If you're gonna whine, it might be better to use email and send it directly to the person(s) who can do something about it. That way, you don't come across as such as douche.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Editorializing (sarcastically, to be precise), but to someone w/their pointy little head up their scab riddled ass, everything sounds like whining, I suppose.
...(wait for it)... Z E R O!. Let me be the first to tell you that admins despise wanna-be admins more than any other bottom-feeding user types, so don't be at all surprised to see your karma drop before the weekend is over.
"it might be better to use email and send it directly to the person(s) who can do something about it."
And you, my dear Pope, are 'list-momming' - acting out a police fantasy, in public no less (-10 points). Ouch. Coupled with a not-so obscure attempt to kiss up to management (+10) makes you a
Yeah. Sure.
If NASA decided to do something of which Congress disapproved, how much longer would the NASA budget be funded?
Bush says, "YEEHAW! We's goin' to MARS!", NASA says, "Yassah, master George!" Bush tells Congress, "Yew boys don't spend too much on thishere Mars thing, hear?" and Congress says, "Yassah, master George!".
Or, more to the point. DOD told NASA EXACTLY what the dimensions of the cargo bay were going to be, and what the lift capacity of the Shuttle would be.
So much for being a civilian agancy.
I stand by my previous statement. They do what Congress tells them to do. Congress tells them what to do via the budget.
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
Back in the oven, jew.
Sorry, the name "Harmony" means "perpetual joke vampire character on Buffy" to me.
This sig, aah-ah, is comin' like a ghost-sig...
NASA's budget is a pittence. What would congress do cut it some more? Note that the DOD requirements are a part of the charter.
So much for their so-called "civilian" status and independence.
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
Isn't it the other way around? The ID crowd says only devolution can occur? Perhaps slashdot can be used as evidence for their cause?
Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
Funny. First you do realize that you and I have posted a lot on the space threads and I am generally defending the private space ventures. But in this case ....
Here's my take. Bigelow will get a six man space station up there at some point in the next 10-20 years. And it won't cost anywhere near $50 billion to do so.
First, I trust that you are not saying that the ba-330 is a six man station the way that bigelow claims. Keep in mind that the skylap was 368 m3. IOW, it was bigger than the ba-330. Did it support 6 ppl? Just 3 (though it was expected to support up to 4). So, it will require the full system config to support say 6-10 ppl (2 ba-330, 1 sundancer and the node). Now, will that cost 50 B? No, it might cost all of 1 B in the future. But of course, what was the RD cost for it? The guts of this was paid for by NASA. In fact, had NASA not been doing the ISS, it is doubtful that transhab would have been developed and by same line, that bigelow would not have this. A big part of the 50 b is not the actual placing of items in space, but the RD work on it. In addition, to compare the ISS to even the full bigelow station is also a joke. The bigelow will not have any where near the capabilities of the ISS (for instance power). In addition, it is almost certain that the life support system will be some modified version of what NASA has going into ISS. IOW, again, bigelow will use NASA dollars to do their work. So, to compare these is a real apple/orange situation. ISS was about getting a number of nations to cooperate in putting up a large system and learning to survive in space. Bigelow is about taking others technology and then lowering the costs.
WHile I agree with you that Spacex had earlier funding from DOD, and some support esp in launch facilities, DOD is NOT paying for the development. That apparently is pure Musk.They paid for falcon 1, which cost them 5.9 million. Since it failed, musk has had access to the same facility, but all launches are on their dime. I am sure that you remember Spacex's old launch schedule. Do you remember that a few were on there but disappeared? Musk points out that spacex has not lost any planned launches, but that they might change schedule and mission. Read that how you want. NASA, jumped in late with support, but cots has already brought more money to spacex than DOD has. In fact, musk has indicated that COTS paid for much of his development costs. That has allowed Spacex to be able to do more launches.
NASA has been schizoid WRT to private launchers. And yes, griffin will probably be gone with the next pres. But I doubt that cots will disappear. In fact, I suspect that constellation will be more in trouble. Dem Congress seems to want to push small private space as well as robotics. WRT to armadillo/blue shepard, I think that NASA will fund these, because both systems can be converted to landers for the moon, esp. if the companies will convert those to trucks i.e. have the ability to drop a load and take off again. Right now, most of the space designs have the launchers being used for 1 landing and launch. Will NASA willingly give it to them? Nope. But they will because 1 or both of these 2 will be used by the private groups for landing on the moon. NASA will throw their lot in with those that are working. As to NASA getting rid of these systems, well, Ares I will not be available until 2011 at the very earliest (and that is with major money right now), and more likely 2013. NASA may not like these private systems, but they dislike having to deal with a nation that they kept alive for more than 13 years, only to be snubbed and played with. It is in America's interest as well as NASA's to help the private systems.
Finally, a true heavy launcher. Yes, if we are only launching 3-4 a year, then yes, these are too expensive. But Spacex has said that they can do many more than that. They base it on the fact that not only are we shooting for the moon, b
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Yes, there are provisions for DOD requirements to take precedence. This does not make them somehow less independent as DOD requests are fully integrated into the charter. Also note that the DOD spec you mention was simply on how small the bay could be- not how large. There was also nothing stopping NASA from building a smaller one first had they so desired.
"There was also nothing stopping NASA from building a smaller one first had they so desired."
"Hello, Congress, NASA here. Hey, look. We're gonna go ahead and build a smaller Shuttle than what DOD wants and use the money appropriated for the bigger Shuttle to do that. That's cool with you guys, right? You're cool with that, right?"
Yeah, I can see that happening.
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
Keep in mind what I said above. A number of DOD launches disappeared from Spacex site. But Musk has said several times that spacex has NOT lost a single launch. The money will be coming to spacex. Spacex never wanted a free handout (unlike others such as kistler). They simply want the ability to land launches. I expect that Spacex, combined with Spacedev (who I think will win the COTs 2 award) will handle America's earth orbit launches for the 5 years after the shuttle retires. Somewhere around 2011, then Scaled will come on-line. I am curious to see what their costs will be like. I really think that they will be the new winner. Personally, I have always thought that using a rail or an aircraft to start was the right way to go. The reason is that using rockets for that initial speed boost does not make sense. It seems that future aircrafts will be designed to carry rockets up to 60-80K and doing mach 2-3, will be much cheaper than using full rockets.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.