Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Shuttle Discovery Docks With Space Station

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the hey-buds-let's-party dept.

ISS 77

Velcroman1 writes "The space shuttle Discovery has docked with the International Space Station for the final time at 2:15 p.m. EST, where it will make a last delivery to the orbiting space lab — before parking ultimately at a museum. With Discovery's presence, the ISS becomes a truly 'international' space station. This is the first time spacecraft from the United States, Russia, Europe and Japan have all docked simultaneously, NASA said. The station also hosts the Leonardo Multipurpose Module built by the Italian Space Agency and recently gained Dextre, the Canadian Space Agency's robotic handyman."

cancel ×

77 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

fliirst plsllost (1, Redundant)

SpokeBot (884906) | more than 3 years ago | (#35326070)

oh yheah I love docking!

Wasn't tetter source than Fox? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35326096)

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/main/index.html

Re:Wasn't tetter source than Fox? (-1, Troll)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#35326190)

Look, I just have to say, I'm *VERY* gassy. I mean explosively gassy. Seriously, you don't want to smoke in my car. I'm gassy. Do I care? Not really, because I like the smell. OH YEAH! I'm gassy.

Re:Wasn't tetter source than Fox? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35326220)

STS-133 [nasa.gov]

Re:Wasn't tetter source than Fox? (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#35339392)

Thanks, was tetter source.

Last time "insert activity here". (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35326136)

I don't care about the Discovery being done with its trips. It falls under the huge expensive military budget that desperately needs to be cut back. Tell me when it breaks faster than light travel and then I'll be wowed. Mod me down for going against the hive mind, I don't care.

Re:Last time "insert activity here". (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35326164)

If you don't care; then don't post about it. Some of us like to watch/learn/talk about history as it happens, not years after we sober up from our blind youth.

signed: former blind youth

Re:Last time "insert activity here". (3, Interesting)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#35326398)

btw, could someone tell us a bit about the other spacecrafts docking at the ISS. With all the talk about the shuttles, I know nothing about what the Russians, Japanese and Europeans use.
Anyone?

Re:Last time "insert activity here". (3, Informative)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | more than 3 years ago | (#35327172)

btw, could someone tell us a bit about the other spacecrafts docking at the ISS

Here you go:

http://markosun.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/space-traffic-jam-up-at-international-space-station-iss/ [wordpress.com]

From TFA:

With all this action the following spacecraft will all be docked at the ISS at the same time: the Space Shuttle Discovery, The European Space Agency Kepler ATV, Russian Progress supply vehicle, Russian Soyuz-TMA capsule and Japan H-II Transfer Vehicle.

Re:Last time "insert activity here". (1)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328190)

Thanks, it was an interesting read. As I understand it, only 2 of those are manned: the space shuttle and the Russian Soyuz-TMA. Which soon will leaves only the Soyuz.

Re:Last time "insert activity here". (1)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | more than 3 years ago | (#35330406)

Correct - Once the Shuttles are grounded, the only nations with manned space programs will be Russia and China.

Re:Last time "insert activity here". (4, Insightful)

MachDelta (704883) | more than 3 years ago | (#35326238)

If your threshold for amazement is violating the known laws of the universe, I fear you are destined to live a very, VERY boring life.
People seem to forget that in the last ~100 years we've gone from thinking nothing heavier than air could ever fly, to landing robots on other freaking planets.
The fact that a manned craft going to outer space elicits nothing more than a yawn from most people is both frightening and humbling.

C'est la vie.

Re:Last time "insert activity here". (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 3 years ago | (#35326602)

in the last ~100 years we've gone from thinking nothing heavier than air could ever fly

I'm pretty sure people knew before 1911 that birds weren't filled with helium.

(I agree with the overall point of your post, but it bugs me when people assume our ancestors were stupid.)

Last Discovery dock (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35326144)

Now the space is in European and Asian hands.

Yeah! things are going to change! (4, Funny)

fantomas (94850) | more than 3 years ago | (#35326198)

yeah! we'll make you drive sub-compact sized space shuttles and swap your V8 rockets for 1.1litre ones! we'll make you leave your guns at home! You'll have to eat proper cheese for breakfast and noodles for lunch every day, and drink vodka instead of water! All the movies will be art-house in strange languages and you'll have to read the subtitles (but the upside is there will be naked good looking people in them, if less explosions and machine guns)! The controls will all be in Russian and Japanese and French, and the measurements will all be in metric! It'll be crazy, you'll love it!

Ah no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35326234)

Drinking Vodka? Hell yeah!

...the upside is there will be naked good looking people in them, if less explosions and machine guns...

Uh, I don't know. Here in America, we prefer gratuitous violence and bloodshed instead of nudity and sex.

Sex, nudity and love is offensive, disgusting and has to be kept from children; whereas, violence, death, bloodshed, shooting, and car chases is good American Family Fun!

Re:Yeah! things are going to change! (2)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328916)

Ya see, that is what we get for being nice to foreigners. We should have /gets on soapbox with 100 foot American flag behind/ listened to the great General Patton, loaded them krauts up with American tanks and guns and pointed their ass right at Moscow! Hell we could have had the whole ball of wax by late 46, early 47 tops.

Then we could have tossed that girly metric system in the trash and made everyone use imperial units like God intended, put burger joints and AMERICAN theaters on every corner, and as far as the eye could see would be lovely billboards in the gorgeous red, white, and blue that said in 50 foot letters "SPEAK ENGLISH DAMMIT!"

Oh what a wonderful world it would have been, instead you got a space station with gassy cabbage eating Ruskies, stinky Frenchies with their stinkier cheeses, and the Japs will probably use the thing as a testing ground for their latest contestant in their "WTF keep that walking corpse away from me" drive to create the creepiest android evar! No thanks, let 'em have the thing I say.

Re:Yeah! things are going to change! (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35340248)

I just hope they don't make me eat none of them damn fish eggs.

Re:Last Discovery dock (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35327396)

Don't forget about US-based commercial space ventures such as Armadillo Aerospace and others, and also non-US, non-European, and non-Asian STS [space transport systems], those in development and already in active use: Middle-Eastern, Indian, Russian, Aussie, Peruvian, Antarctic, Atlantean, Lunar, etc.

docking! (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35326216)

That's a lot of docking [urbandictionary.com] !

Why not leave shuttle up there? (5, Interesting)

Big_Breaker (190457) | more than 3 years ago | (#35326298)

The crew could take a Soyuz down.

It seems like the shuttle would make meaningful addition to the usable to the ISS with its arm, cargo bay and pressurized quarters. What a shame to deorbit all that useful stuff and mothball it in a museum.

Re:Why not leave shuttle up there? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35326348)

A) The Space Station already has an Arm, one far more flexible than the Space Shuttles
B) What is the point of a cargo bay if you have nothing to put in there (or take out after the current manifest is removed) and nowhere for it to go once that nonexistant cargo is removed
C) The Space Station has about as much pressurized quarters as a 747 right now, so what exactly is the small compartment on the shuttle going to do to improve that?

In addition, the equipment on the shuttle is not designed to remain in orbit for long periods of time, as well wings don't do much in orbit.

Re:Why not leave shuttle up there? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35328634)

but you are forgetting that "On April 29, 2002, NASA announced that it was cancelling the Crew Return Vehicle (CRV) and X-38 programs, due to budget pressures associated with other elements of the ISS. The CRV, sometimes referred to as the Assured Crew Return Vehicle (ACRV), is the proposed lifeboat or escape module for the International Space Station (ISS)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Return_Vehicle
Why not use the Space Shuttle as such vehicle's replacement ?

Re:Why not leave shuttle up there? (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328850)

The shuttle was not designed to stay in space for long periods of time. It's not like parking a car. The shuttle needs to remain powered on the entire time. All the time it is powered on it is "burning" fuel (actually, converting hydrogen and oxygen to water in a fuel cell). The longest duration mission on a standard configuration shuttle is ten days. With extended tanks for the fuel cells, they have gotten up to about seventeen days. Without power, the electronics freeze, the hydraulics freeze, the landing gear freezes. What good would the shuttle be in a month when you can't close the payload bay doors? You can't survive re-entry with the doors open. You can't run your fly-by-wire controls to control your re-entry without three functioning and agreeing computers. And what shape are the tires on the landing gear be like after a month of 500 degree temperature swings? All this pre-supposes there hasn't been significant micrometeorite damage to the thermal protection tiles while the shuttle's been on orbit.

Re:Why not leave shuttle up there? (2)

gblackwo (1087063) | more than 3 years ago | (#35326352)

It wasn't built for that. Among other things- it leaks atmosphere.

Re:Why not leave shuttle up there? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35327450)

Not to be pedantic, but it's fucking called air. A shuttle isn't a celestial body to have *spheres.

Re:Why not leave shuttle up there? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35328122)

I think his word choice was trying to avoid the inevitable fart jokes.

Re:Why not leave shuttle up there? (5, Informative)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 3 years ago | (#35326372)

It's been mentioned before it's not perfectly pressurized and can't remain in space indefinitely. Even if it was perfectly pressurized it'd still need to get supplies from somewhere. So it would become useless pretty fast.

Also, the ISS is in an unstable orbit and must be re-boosted periodically. The shuttle would need to do the same as well, or eventually decay and burn up in the atmosphere.

I think ending up in a museum is a much better fate than that of Columbia.

Re:Why not leave shuttle up there? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35326562)

As an emergency escape. It's not like there's a parking meter to be fed.

Re:Why not leave shuttle up there? (1)

Random Destruction (866027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35326582)

Actually, in terms of cost to keep it functional for that purpsose, there would be a sort of parking meter.

Re:Why not leave shuttle up there? (1)

flex941 (521675) | more than 3 years ago | (#35326588)

You think so?

Re:Why not leave shuttle up there? (1)

Nerull (586485) | more than 3 years ago | (#35326916)

That's an even worse idea. You might be able to keep a shuttle up there if you just shut everything down and let the rest of the ISS take care of power and oxygen, but if you want to keep it capable of flying again there is no way it can stay up there for more than a couple weeks.

Re:Why not leave shuttle up there? (1)

mrbcs (737902) | more than 3 years ago | (#35326828)

It's not back yet.

Re:Why not leave shuttle up there? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35334774)

It would be useless pretty much instantly... most of its mass and drag-creating structure is determined byt airplane-like reentry.

Re:Why not leave shuttle up there? (1)

Nerull (586485) | more than 3 years ago | (#35326392)

The orbiters are not capable of staying in space for longer than about two weeks.

Re:Why not leave shuttle up there? (2)

Nerull (586485) | more than 3 years ago | (#35326396)

It's also hard to fit 6 people in a three person soyuz.

Re:Why not leave shuttle up there? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35329386)

Especially if they're American.

Re:Why not leave shuttle up there? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35331784)

In two three person Soyuz OTOH...

Re:Why not leave shuttle up there? (1)

Nerull (586485) | more than 3 years ago | (#35336144)

It's going to make it pretty hard for the rest of the crew to get down when there are no spacecraft there after the shuttle crew takes them all.

Re:Why not leave shuttle up there? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35469560)

Well, I guess it might boil down to who gets first to Makarovs (last time I checked) in Soyuz descent modules... ;)

Re:Why not leave shuttle up there? (1)

ChucktheMan (1991030) | more than 3 years ago | (#35326394)

The station has to be reboosted regularly to stay in orbit. extra weight means more propellant to stay up. Since current costs are ~$5k/pound, it is a budget thing. Plus the usable space in the shuttle is a compromise to allow it to fly, not optimized for on-orbit operations.

Re:Why not leave shuttle up there? (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328854)

The crew could take a Soyuz down.

Not *a* Soyuz, but rather *six* of them because a Soyuz can only take one passenger at a time. Given the current production and flight rate that means it'll take two and a half to three years to return all the Shuttle crew to Earth - and in the meantime, you're reducing the Station's effective crew from three to two. (As you can't boost a crewman for which there is no downbound seat and none of the Shuttle's crew is qualified to fly the Soyuz.)

Re:Why not leave shuttle up there? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35331828)

Well, the new ("digital") Soyuz apparently requires only "one and a half" crew members for operation - one full time, one with fairly limited role and relatively basic training. I imagine the latter could be done on the ISS... especially considering the background & experience of ~half of Shuttle crew.

(I'm not saying leaving the Shuttle like that isn't stupid; just throwing in a small factoid)

Re:Why not leave shuttle up there? (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335138)

That still doesn't things that much - because it still takes two crew to fly *up*. Even if you fly two Shuttle crew down, you still leave one extra behind for a net gain of only one down. The station crew rotation is still hosed.

Re:Why not leave shuttle up there? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35469610)

Not sure why I drew a blank on that... Oh well, it's not quite so bad, it should take half the time you suggested & Valeri Polyakov might still hold to his record; Soyuz flies on average around every 3 months (and it would reduce the Station's effective crew from six to four... but not quite, since there would be plenty of closely-enough qualified personnel at hand ;p )

At least we know it shouldn't be too hard with four Shuttle crew members, considering that's the size for last mission (and, hm, in a given time frame it should be trivial to make a Soyuz fly up unmanned, like Progress...)

Re:Why not leave shuttle up there? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35331756)

The Shuttle is mostly an airframe, by mass / volume (mass which needs to be reboosted and surface which creates drag).

I'll repeat that - the Shuttle is mostly an airframe.

Re:Why not leave shuttle up there? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35332332)

just send it to mars on autopilot..

Re:Why not leave shuttle up there? (1)

landofcleve (1959610) | more than 3 years ago | (#35337416)

The crew could take a Soyuz down.

Each Astronaut/Cosmonaut needs to have their own personal seat custom ?injection? molded to them, for safe re-entry and landing in a Soyuz capsule, if this hasn't been done previous to them going up, they are not going down.

Fox News for a story about science? (2, Funny)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 3 years ago | (#35326304)

Really? That's like going to Hooters for the food.

Re:Fox News for a story about science? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35326934)

Really? That's like going to Hooters for the food.

Your comment was a real hoot. Shame some useless tit had to mark it troll, though. What a boner.

Re:Fox News for a story about science? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35327082)

We need a +1 Troll mod.

tek parÃa film indir (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35326322)

Thank you for informing us. maà Ãzeti izle [blogspot.com] film indir [blogspot.com]

What if all on earth died right now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35326502)

This sounds like the perfect way to start an Apocalypse survival Sci-Fi novel.

Re:What if all on earth died right now? (2)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 3 years ago | (#35326622)

Had to check if there was a female on the ISS now. Lucky, there are two now STS113 has docked.

better idea is that we don't have the funds to sen (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#35326698)

better idea is that we don't have the funds to send any more stuff to them and we can't pay the Russians more then cost to get 1 person home.

Re:What if all on earth died right now? (1)

Jon Abbott (723) | more than 3 years ago | (#35326820)

...or Bob & Doug McKenzie's Mutants of 2051 A.D. [youtube.com] .

Re:What if all on earth died right now? (1)

Nerull (586485) | more than 3 years ago | (#35326932)

Wasn't there a Sci-Fi TV series (or at least a pilot) about something like this?

Re:What if all on earth died right now? (1)

u17 (1730558) | more than 3 years ago | (#35327490)

You must be thinking of Odyssey 5 [wikipedia.org] . It wasn't bad, a pity they only filmed one season.

ISS and Discovery Flybys (2)

Jon Abbott (723) | more than 3 years ago | (#35326774)

Be sure to check out Space Weather's Flybys [spaceweather.com] page or Heavens Above [heavens-above.com] to see if the ISS and Discovery are viewable overhead in your neighborhood. I tried a few zip codes and it looks like the NYC area will get to see a very bright ISS and Discovery pair on March 5th. This will be the day that Discovery undocks [wikimedia.org] so you may get to see two bright dots moving across the sky from that area. I had the opportunity to see the ISS with Atlantis recently undocked on STS-129 and it was an impressive sight.

Re:ISS and Discovery Flybys (1)

Coren22 (1625475) | more than 3 years ago | (#35339906)

I thought about doing this with my telescope, but my understanding is that the ISS crosses the sky pretty damn quickly. How do you get a telescope to track it at those speeds?

Or, is the only way to do this to use binoculars?

Re:ISS and Discovery Flybys (1)

Jon Abbott (723) | more than 3 years ago | (#35348072)

Yes, it does transit rather quickly, usually over a couple/few minutes. I typically just watch it with the naked eye, although this week I am interested in using binoculars. I would attempt to get photos or video of it but I don't have an accurate way to lock in a precise az/el/RA/dec. That and my telescope doesn't have a computerized equatorial mount. One thing you can do if the ISS is bright enough (I'd say -1 apparent magnitude or lower) would be to use a wide angle lens and capture a bulb exposure of the entire sky. Then you'll have a photo of the path the ISS took across the sky. Depending on where the ISS passes, you may be able to get a cityscape in the photo as well, although that will add light pollution. The Heavens-Above site shows where in the sky the ISS will transit. There are some other websites out there that explain what exposure time to use (you can always use trial and error as well, practicing exposures before the ISS shows up). Then if you have cloudless skies you are in luck.

Truly International? (1)

T-Bone-T (1048702) | more than 3 years ago | (#35327126)

I understand this is a US-centric site but to say something isn't truly international without the US is just dumb.

Re:Truly International? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35327426)

International means that more than one nation is involved. any two involved nations will do. Perhaps OP intended to say "multinational dockings at highest level" or "my bladder is full and I can't think clearly enough to word my submission correctly".

Re:Truly International? (1)

whereiswaldo (459052) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328150)

Well, being on a different continent can't hurt.

Not Truly International till the US is there? (1)

KWTm (808824) | more than 3 years ago | (#35329128)

I understand this is a US-centric site but to say something isn't truly international without the US is just dumb.

My thoughts exactly. When it said

With Discovery's presence, the ISS becomes a truly 'international' space station. This is the first time spacecraft from the United States, Russia, Europe and Japan have all docked simultaneously, NASA said.

I thought, "Yeah, when it was just Russia, Europe and Japan, that wasn't international at all. They were just different states within the large country of non-USA. </sarcasm>

This is in contrast to when I visited the USA when I was younger, when I'd hear that some sports team or engineering design team was "truly international" meaning that there was a Canadian or two on the otherwise American team.

Re:Not Truly International till the US is there? (1)

moogaloonie (955355) | more than 3 years ago | (#35329396)

You're just mad that the World Series is always won by an American team.

Taking it personal, are you not? (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 3 years ago | (#35329264)

Look, this is the first time that all partners have had crafts up there. Historically, only 2 nations have had crafts up there at the same time. But when you have all participants up there, then the write gets excited. Personally, I would argue that you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Italy Built Much More Than Leonardo (1)

GrayNimic (1051532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35329698)

the Leonardo Multipurpose Module built by the Italian Space Agency

The Italian Space Agency built most of the 'US' segments. I know they built Node 1 (Unity), Node 2 (Harmony), and Node 3 (Tranquility); I believe they built the US Lab (Destiny) as well. So while they did build the MPLM modules (including Leonardo), it's hardly their largest product on the station ;)

(Italy built the US segments due to US budget cuts; in return for eating some of the cost, they gained infrastructure and expertise. One way that paid off was with Columbus, the European lab - the same number of storage/science racks as the Nodes, but smaller and lighter, so it cost the European Space Agency less of its bartered 'upmass' to send it to orbit, allowing them to send it with several of its racks pre-installed, unlike most other segments of the station which arrived empty)

Was the passenger still on board? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35329844)

You know, the BLACK passenger, who is only there to 'increase diversity' in NASA, because after all, we can't have those damned white people having their OWN LIVING SPACE, can we!

I mean, white people simply wanting to live with their own kind, and mind their own business, is the worst atrocity imaginable! It's "racist"! As the T.V. keeps on telling you, time after time after time, every single day of your lives. White people simply wanting to be around their own kind, and not have to hear the word "racist" being thrown at them every day? How 'evil' of them!

Never heard of 'freedom of association'? That means, the ability to get AWAY from people who you don't want to live around.

Any of you care to explain why we shouldn't be allowed to do that?

I wonder what percentage of the people who actually built the Space Shuttle were Africans?

Ignorant troll, mod down please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35329982)

Mod parent down. Stupid racist troll.

Needs to read some history.

Re:Was the passenger still on board? (1)

Nerull (586485) | more than 3 years ago | (#35348522)

It is pretty safe to say that not a single one of the all veteran and highly experienced shuttle crew would want to freely associate with you.

What now? (1)

DSP-9 (2000392) | more than 3 years ago | (#35329860)

Sure, US took down their manned-reusable space vehicle, but before deciding what its replacement should be. Looks like they're going to have to depend upon the Russians (Soyuz).

Fox News? (1)

cvtan (752695) | more than 3 years ago | (#35330192)

Fox News? For a story about something other than Paris Hilton or Anna Nicole Whatever? Please...

Cute, ignoramous troll, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35331170)

the Fox News link clearly is listed under the "sci-tech" section of the Website. Dumbfuck.

"Parking ultimately at a museum"? (2)

unassimilatible (225662) | more than 3 years ago | (#35331180)

I knew these astronauts were badass pilots, but this is just ridiculous.

No more US in space? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35340568)

I must say that it is ridiculous to think of the other ways the US government is spending money instead of continuing the space program. It is a sad day indeed.

http://www.tunetransfers.com/Home.shtml

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>