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!

Space Shuttles Discovery and Atlantis Meet One Last Time

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the at-least-until-bruce-willis-needs-to-deflect-an-asteroid dept.

NASA 52

longacre writes "One dull morning last week, two teams of NASA technicians simultaneously gathered at two iconic buildings — the 525-foot Vehicle Assembly Building and the shorter, but equally important Orbital Processing Facility 1 at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, tasked with moving a space shuttle orbiter from one building to the other. The 'shuttle shuffle' would have Space Shuttle Discovery (the oldest and most flown orbiter surviving in the three-ship fleet) in OPF-1 swapping places with her sister ship, Atlantis, the second oldest and second most flown orbiter. Fleet leader Discovery would emerge from OPF-1 as a preserved spacecraft, gutted and mummified for museum display."

cancel ×

52 comments

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

SOUNDS SEXY !! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39382263)

The two of them, together finally !!

Re:SOUNDS SEXY !! (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 2 years ago | (#39382285)

I'm not interested unless there's hot grits involved.

Re:SOUNDS SEXY !! (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 2 years ago | (#39383087)

no hot grits but plenty of tight straps.

Re:SOUNDS SEXY !! (1)

game kid (805301) | more than 2 years ago | (#39382365)

It would actually be a blast for them were it not for those damn vertical stabilizers.

Re:SOUNDS SEXY !! (1)

cadeon (977561) | more than 2 years ago | (#39382545)

It's not a problem. Space shuttles typically... rendezvous... in space, where they can be in any position they like.

Re:SOUNDS SEXY !! (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 2 years ago | (#39383069)

In space, nobody hears you moan....

Re:SOUNDS SEXY !! (Rule #34) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39383135)

Does Rule # 34 apply here?

Re:SOUNDS SEXY !! (Rule #34) (1)

Jesse_vd (821123) | more than 2 years ago | (#39387123)

Re:SOUNDS SEXY !! (Rule #34) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39387207)

Urgh. I knew what was going to happen and I clicked on those anyway :/

Re:SOUNDS SEXY !! (1)

kurt555gs (309278) | more than 2 years ago | (#39383193)

Reminds me of an Edsel convention.

Re:SOUNDS SEXY !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39384895)

...and they were left alone for one final attempt to produce a viable X-37B baby shuttle.

Re:SOUNDS SEXY !! (1)

cavreader (1903280) | more than 2 years ago | (#39386835)

The X-37 and X-40 programs started in 1999 as a test platforms.and have been very successful since then. And Boeing is also working on a manned version of the X-37 as well. Most of the capabilities and mission profiles are classified due to military capabilities. Air Force has has been using them for over 2 years without any widespread information regarding it's eventual uses, It is very similar to the security precautions that was used in the F-117 program. The US is terrible of keeping secrets but somehow they did manage to keep the F-117 program details from being uncovered by he public or foreign intelligence operations. China and Russia have been voicing their concerns because of the ability to militarize space operations. Every major country in the world relies on satellites and if you have the means to neutralize a countries satellites you can make a huge difference in in a countries communication and military related satellites.. All the talk of the US abandoning space capabilities wrong. Just because the shuttles were abandoned doesn't mean the US isn't developing and improving their space capabilities. Now they need to use what they have learned by the ISS program to build an orbital docking station for these types of machines.

Why talk about them as people? (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39382399)

TFS refers to the shuttles almost like they were living creatures, lovers who are being separated by cruel fate. Puh-leez. Why is this garbage here?

Re:Why talk about them as people? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39384023)

And they say romance is dead. I guess they're right.

I still say you're jealous because those orbiters have now officially gotten closer to getting some than you ever have. I'm just sayin'.

Re:Why talk about them as people? (3, Informative)

Picass0 (147474) | more than 2 years ago | (#39384539)

Ships and aircraft are commonly reffered to as 'she'. It's a long standing tradition. Don't get your panties in a wad.

One Last Time? (1)

rush,overlord,rush! (1995452) | more than 2 years ago | (#39382473)

So... Which one will be the Ark?

It was nice, it was short (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#39382577)

Goodbye, and thank you for the fish.

So what did the have to say to each other? (0)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 2 years ago | (#39382741)

Did they get along? Were they friendly?
How did this "meeting" go?

Look -- they are pieces of equipment they are not people or even animals for that matter. This is taking anthropomorphism way too far. It's one thing to refer to them as "she" and even to grow fond of them and revere them with the same affection you'd give a pet -- but to somehow imply they have consciousness is just silly.

Re:So what did the have to say to each other? (2)

pnewhook (788591) | more than 2 years ago | (#39384015)

Look -- they are pieces of equipment they are not people or even animals for that matter. This is taking anthropomorphism way too far.

Yes, the shuttles hate that.

Re:So what did the have to say to each other? (1)

LinuxIsGarbage (1658307) | more than 2 years ago | (#39388167)

Look -- they are pieces of equipment they are not people or even animals for that matter. This is taking anthropomorphism way too far.

Yes, the shuttles hate that.

Did they at least put the eyes in the right place?

http://jalopnik.com/5870976/how-pixar-screwed-up-cartoon-cars-for-a-generation-of-kids [jalopnik.com]

I hate it when museums do this (4, Insightful)

dslbrian (318993) | more than 2 years ago | (#39382875)

I hate it when museums do this kind of thing to aircraft (or in this case spacecraft). Nothing is more uninteresting than a hollow shell body. Once the problematic liquids are drained there is no reason they can't leave the engines in place. The parts that make things like this interesting are all the mechanical components and displays that make up the actual vehicle. Every time I see this done to an aircraft, I can't help but think of how much of an utterly boring display it makes. They might as well erect a cardboard cutout equivalent, it's nauseating.

Re:I hate it when museums do this (4, Informative)

cadeon (977561) | more than 2 years ago | (#39383067)

The engines, in this case, are due to be used by the Space Launch System. They are planning on using 15 SSMEs from the shuttle program in the first launches of SLS. I'm sure a lot of the other components have similar fates, since the SLS is shuttle derived.

Aside from that, yes, I am totally with you. Seeing the Enterprise in DC was a rather empty experience. It looked like plywood.

The danger of distributed 3D printed museums (1)

wreakyhavoc (1045750) | more than 2 years ago | (#39384597)

If/when civilization collapses, we're going to need examples of past technology. Everything from the butter churn on up. What if you were trying to recreate a movie projector and found that only the casing was preserved, with no internal workings? I understand the health issue for the public, but they should mothball one of those intact.

One function of museums is to be a repository of knowledge, art, and technology, for future generations. It's not the only function, but I would argue that it's the most important function. It's not just a display that you look at for entertainment.

Cory Doctorow has a book, Makers, from 2009 (available for DRM free download http://craphound.com/makers/download/ [craphound.com] ) that talks about distributed open source museum spaces. Three years later the Smithsonian announces they're going to offer a part of the collection for worldwide printing.> [slashdot.org]

That's great. It will serve the surface educational mission of museums. Multimedia exhibition. But if you're at a post sea-rise far inland Argentinian coast trying to figure out how to make a steam engine, how are you going to make use of a rotting polymer copy?

Re:The danger of distributed 3D printed museums (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#39386415)

It's a nice idea, but museums aren't fortified places. If civilisation collapses the museums will be among the first buildings to be looted (cf. in Iraq). It would be a lot better to put the artefacts in a Fort Knox, replacing the gold.

However, by far the most effective way to preserve knowledge for the future is distributing it far and wide, ie copies in private houses, freely shared and duplicated, today.

Re:The danger of distributed 3D printed museums (1)

wreakyhavoc (1045750) | more than 2 years ago | (#39392767)

Point taken about looting. Also, a distinction needs to be made between a duplication technique that actually reproduces a functioning item through molecular deposition of different elements, and what on the other hand is basically simply a plastic model.

The first possibility seems pretty far off in the future. Probably not for giant laboratories with force tunneling microscopes and inert atmosphere or vacuum facilities. But for the home? The economies of having the space for the equipment, buying the equipment, and getting feedstocks of pure elements is going to probably be accessible only to the super-rich for a long time to come. Not to mention the need for tech support, probably in the way of a dedicated position for an employee. A private size model with attendant equipment and storage is still going to be size of an entire large room, at least.

And why would most people bother when they can take advantage of the economy of scale and low prices of traditional industries, and the often low-waged labor used to produce it?

You'd only bother, likely, if you were trying to produce something that was illegal or banned from possession by the general populace. Which, given the ever intrusive nature of government will probably become more of an issue as time goes on. Again, however, why would you build up something like, say, a personal sidearm atom by atom, when it can be so easily created with a lathe and traditional metal working tools?

Lastly, the items most likely to be produced in the home would be commonplace modern banalities like toasters, smartphones, and toothbrushes. Not exactly a treasure trove for future garbage miners.

The "Diamond Age" vision of a replicator in every home with subscription to a "Feed" of raw materials is just not going to happen anytime soon. I could see a hacker collective maintaining one, but as soon as they run afoul of law enforcement, boom, single point of failure.

Re:I hate it when museums do this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39390351)

The Enterprise was just a big glider anyways, never had most of the shuttle systems installed in the first place

Re:I hate it when museums do this (3, Interesting)

DudemanX (44606) | more than 2 years ago | (#39383081)

Can't agree more. The most damning part from the article...

She was no longer an operational machine or even capable of ever returning to operational status due the grievous wounds inflicted. Her innards were gutted in irreversible ways as part of the preservation efforts.

WTF are they preserving then? Why not just make a replica hull out of paper mache and put that in a museum if they're throwing away all of the shit that makes it work?

Re:I hate it when museums do this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39383415)

They're preserving ticket sales. Many museums are amusement parks with very little or zero investment in real historical preservation or research.

They're a pox, in my view. That said, dealing with all the non-simple materials that make up vehicles is an enormous headache. You think pulp-paper books dissolving is a problem? Check out dealing with rubbers and synthetics from the first half of the 1900s. And that's setting aside the OSHA problem of asbestos and radium.

But you know, it can't hurt to write these museums. They do want public opinion. Tell them who you are (education, tech job) and that you really like and visit the museums that put effort into displaying the mechanically interesting bits. A nice, polite, straightforward, short letter that is the type useful to read out in meetings, when the staff that sympathizes you is trying to carry their point. A stack of those can be very useful.

Don't send emails. Those get caught in the PR filter. Send mail. On letterhead if you have it. Mail needs to be carried around and can be physically waved in meetings. Look up the museum websites and look for the name of a curator to send to, or just use Curator. Otherwise again there's the PR filter problem.

(Yup. Need to go AC on this one.)

Re:I hate it when museums do this (2)

Mercano (826132) | more than 2 years ago | (#39383091)

The main engines and associated plumbing were removed at NASA's behest, not the museums. NASA plans on reusing the them (and, unfortunately, disposing of them) on the first three flights of the new SLS rocket.

I believe they removed most of the tanks and plumbing from the RCS and OMS systems because the fuel they use is particularly nasty (they have to wear heavy-duty hazmat suits when working on them), and they were worried that the equipment would still be contaminated, even after it was purged, and most museums don't toxic self-igniting chemicals in their exhibit halls anyway, so it was safer just to completely remove all the interior components. It's not like they'd be on display anyway, unless you went crawling around in the interior, or the museum did a cut away (which, in this case, just makes me shudder).

Re:I hate it when museums do this (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#39383141)

...most museums don't toxic self-igniting chemicals in their exhibit halls anyway...

And why the hell not?!?!?!?!

Re:I hate it when museums do this (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39384513)

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If they were leaving them intact, then the tax whiners would crawl out to complain about NASA wasting money by not reusing their equipment.

This leads me to an interesting question... (1)

eternaldoctorwho (2563923) | more than 2 years ago | (#39382997)

When they were still being flown, did NASA ever coordinate a rendezvous between two or more shuttles? Or did they only keep one in the air at any given time? I don't seem to remember seeing any pictures of shuttles docked with one another.

Re:This leads me to an interesting question... (1)

Trecares (416205) | more than 2 years ago | (#39383125)

No, but a sister shuttle was always kept on ready as a backup to be sent up if the other shuttle needed to be rescued.

Re:This leads me to an interesting question... (3, Informative)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | more than 2 years ago | (#39383309)

a sister shuttle was always kept on ready as a backup to be sent up if the other shuttle needed to be rescued.

Only after the Columbia disaster. Prior to that, no.

Re:This leads me to an interesting question... (2)

justinmikehunt (872382) | more than 2 years ago | (#39383685)

And only when they weren't docking at the ISS. Basically if they were headed to the station, and something went wrong and they couldn't hook up, sending another shuttle up wasn't going to help. One time in recent memory that they had two shuttles sitting on the launchpad, was when one was going to service the Hubble. So in this instance, they had a backup, as they would not be docking with the ISS. Looked it up to find a picture, and found this article with a little more info. Two shuttles were only every visible on launch pads at the same time 4 times. And there was only ever 2 shuttles on launch pads (but not both visible at the same time) 18 times in history. http://www.space.com/6597-rare-sight-twin-shuttles-launch-pad-time.html [space.com]

Re:This leads me to an interesting question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39386693)

And that was only for the Hubble servicing mission. All other post Columbia missions were ISS.

Re:This leads me to an interesting question... (2)

kimvette (919543) | more than 2 years ago | (#39383601)

Only since Columbia, and only because we've grown so weak that we as a nation have become afraid of our own shadows that we only accept a 0% risk in any endeavor now. That's why China, Russia, and India will beat us back to the moon and beat us to Mars by decades.

We just threw away our only viable spacecraft, and now pay Russia to haul personnel to the ISS.What is the point in participating in ISS any more, if we're cutting NASA's budget to the bone? We just eliminated the only (publicly-acknowledged) viable solution for servicing satellites or for safely returning large loads from ISS. No one else has/had that tech before, and now nobody does. What a waste.

Plus one more thing I'll mention: gutting the shuttles is tremendously stupid. Think of future generations who would love to look at the engine, avionics, and other systems decades or centuries in the future; it would be like purposely burning books, leaving only the covers intact for future generations to see. Why bother putting the fuselage on display at all? It's a damned shame. There are only three shuttles in exsistence - they should keep them intact. Tear them down and decontaminate them to remove all traces of Hydrazine if you must mothball them, but for goodness sake keep them intact for future historians and archeologists!

Re:This leads me to an interesting question... (1)

the gnat (153162) | more than 2 years ago | (#39383869)

Only since Columbia, and only because we've grown so weak that we as a nation have become afraid of our own shadows that we only accept a 0% risk in any endeavor now. That's why China, Russia, and India will beat us back to the moon and beat us to Mars by decades.

The shuttle wasn't retired because the US is too risk-averse - there were plenty of other good reasons:

  • - it was a complete failure with regard to its original purpose, making orbital travel routine and inexpensive
  • - it was a spectacularly inefficient tool for what it was actually used for
  • - what it was actually used for wasn't very interesting either: the ISS has not been a good investment compared to the unmanned programs
  • - it was incapable of going anywhere more interesting than low orbit, let alone the moon or Mars
  • - it was sucking the life out of the manned space program anyway, and often crippling the unmanned programs because they were designed around the shuttle

In the meantime, no other nation has come anywhere close to the US's success in planetary exploration, including some potentially risky missions (Mars rovers, for example) which so far have had a relatively good failure rate and zero deaths. If China beats us to Mars by decades it won't be because the US is too risk-averse, but because their government can get away with spending a large fraction of their GDP on a propaganda exercise, and we're currently crippled by a colossal national debt and a democratically accountable government. I would be utterly shocked if Russia or India were to make it there at all, certainly not before the US does.

Re:This leads me to an interesting question... (1)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | more than 2 years ago | (#39386137)

Not entirely accurate, but close.

- it was a complete failure with regard to its original purpose, making orbital travel routine and inexpensive

I think they definitely succeeded in the first part--making orbital travel routine. The inexpensive part, they didn't succeed but the method they were using to make it inexpensive was more of an accounting trick than some sort of new technology. The idea was to block people from using anything except the Shuttle to put things into orbit. The idea was that the Shuttle is going to go up anyway, so you load it up with a bunch of paying customers' satellites and they end up paying for the launch.

- it was a spectacularly inefficient tool for what it was actually used for

Well, that depends. Through the 80s and 90s, it was mostly used as a launchable space station, keeping a crew of 7 alive in a shirt-sleeve environment doing research. The problem is that the Shuttle could only stay up for a few weeks--experiments that needed longer were out-of-luck. Of course, the solution was a space station [wikipedia.org] but NASA didn't have the money to build one. That said, once the ISS was online, the Shuttle did become a very inefficient tool for delivering people to the ISS.

- what it was actually used for wasn't very interesting either: the ISS has not been a good investment compared to the unmanned programs

That depends. Lots of interesting research happens on ISS. The problem is that it's all boring sciency stuff [nasa.gov] --it isn't exploring the great unknown out there. As an aside, I'm seeing the "No Bucks, No Buck Rogers" POV here--it's just that Buck has been replaced by a robot. Go take pictures of rocks on Titan? Hell yeah! Actually try to figure out the differences between the rocks on Titan and Earth and why those differences exist? Snoooooooze. I'd rather see pictures of the rocks on Triton!

- it was incapable of going anywhere more interesting than low orbit, let alone the moon or Mars

Now you're conflicting with your first point: "it was a complete failure with regard to its original purpose, making orbital travel routine and inexpensive." It wasn't supposed to go anywhere interesting.

- it was sucking the life out of the manned space program anyway, and often crippling the unmanned programs because they were designed around the shuttle

This one, I agree with wholeheartedly and that was the best reason to end the Shuttle program.

As I mentioned above, the ISS was basically the nail in the Shuttle's coffin. The whole raison d'etre for the Shuttle was to do experiments in space. Now we have ISS for that. So the Shuttle is just a really expensive way to get some people up to the ISS--the equivalent of driving your huge gas guzzling SUV to the corner grocery store to pick up a coke. I wholeheartedly agree with NASA shutting it down. Personally, I don't even think they should waste time building a rocket to get them back there--give that task to some contractor and promise that, if successful, they'll pay for x flights. There are various companies already working in that direction--let them ferry scientists up to the ISS. Personally, I'd consider moving ISS management over to the National Science Foundation or some other group and get it completely out of NASA, but that might be going a bit far.

Shuttle history (1)

DragonHawk (21256) | more than 2 years ago | (#39386803)

You may want to look up some of the shuttle history. Carrying out experiments in space was not the original idea. That was what the space station was for.

The original concept was a smaller vehicle, intended to move people and small cargo back and forth between a permanent manned space station. It was truly intended as a *shuttle*. It was intended for frequent launches; hence the interest in a reusable vehicle. Heavier payloads were intended for conventional rocket designs (some kind of Saturn evolution).

But then funding was cut. Getting a new heavy lift booster, a space station, *and* a shuttle was not going to happen.

At the same time, the Air Force got involved. The AF needs the ability to launch spy satellites in to polar orbits. By working together, the thought was that STS could be kept alive. But polar orbits are harder to reach, and spy satellites are big and heavy. That meant a much larger vehicle. So the shuttle design evolved into what it is today.

But then the Air Force realized that the compromise design was lousy, and decided to stick with conventional rockets. SLC-6 was never used.

As a result, NASA was stuck with something of a white elephant. The shuttle was trying to be too many things at once. It wasn't the small, cheap "bus" that was originally conceived, but it also wasn't a cost-effective heavy launcher.

It's a shame; some really brilliant technology and engineering went into the program. But when the design goals are conflicting and ever-changing, no amount of engineering skill can compensate.

Re:This leads me to an interesting question... (1)

the gnat (153162) | more than 2 years ago | (#39389337)

Lots of interesting research happens on ISS. The problem is that it's all boring sciency stuff

Actually, I work in one of the fields that was studied on the ISS (protein crystallography), and being familiar with the results that came out of there, I can attest to the spectacular inefficiency of that endeavor too. I don't have the expertise to comment on any of the other experiments, but the fact that protein crystallization research was a major justification for building the ISS is a red flag. I love boring science-y stuff, but when playing with other people's money it behooves us to spend it as efficiently as possible, not just buy a lot of cool toys with it.

Re:This leads me to an interesting question... (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 2 years ago | (#39385965)

We just threw away our only viable spacecraft

Guess we'll have to get SpaceX's Dragon working then. Too bad that SLS money won't help a bit.

Re:This leads me to an interesting question... (1)

Shadowmist (57488) | more than 2 years ago | (#39515585)

We just threw away our only viable spacecraft

Guess we'll have to get SpaceX's Dragon working then. Too bad that SLS money won't help a bit.

We didn't throw away "our only viable spacecraft" We shut down and put the mercy killing to an absolute failure of a manned system that wasn't ever going to deliver on it's promise on cheap and frequent access to Earth Orbit. Keeping it around because it's the only system we have is not a good enough reason to throw good money after bad.

Re:This leads me to an interesting question... (1)

Shadowmist (57488) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393971)

We just eliminated the only (publicly-acknowledged) viable solution for servicing satellites or for safely returning large loads from ISS. No one else has/had that tech before, and now nobody does. What a waste.

Plus one more thing I'll mention: gutting the shuttles is tremendously stupid. Think of future generations who would love to look at the engine, avionics, and other systems decades or centuries in the future; it would be like purposely burning books, leaving only the covers intact for future generations to see. Why bother putting the fuselage on display at all? It's a damned shame. There are only three shuttles in exsistence - they should keep them intact. Tear them down and decontaminate them to remove all traces of Hydrazine if you must mothball them, but for goodness sake keep them intact for future historians and archeologists!

Gutting museum ships is standard practice for various reasons. 1 of them is safety. Leaving many of them would be a long term fire or chemical hazard. 2. It simplified long-term maintenance which is not a trivial detail for museum exhibits. Another thing is that most of the parts removed would not be visible to musuem goers anyway unless the entire ship was cut up. Given that there's no way to make these craft flyable anway, making an issue of this is really stirring a tempest in a teapot. Also many of the shuttle components are being taken out because NASA is going to USE them... which is what they were made for anyway. With the exception of the Hubble Space telescope and satellites of similar size, using the shuttle to service them would cost more than just replacing the damm satellite in the first place. It never was a practical way of servicing them, more a test bed of techniques.

Stop Anthropomorphizing the Shuttles,... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39383629)

...the shuttles *really* hate that.

sad (1)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 2 years ago | (#39383823)

I'm watching the "From Earth to the Moon" series right now, and t made me pretty sad to see the one shuttle with its guts all removed, and the other moving in to share the same fate. I wonder if the U.S. will ever have a manned space program again. If NASA is like a lot of other government agencies, there is a large percentage of the workforce that is getting ready to retire and without a program to enable hiring younger people, I imagine that manned U.S. space flight will be done.

Re:sad (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39384527)

Don't worry, I've been told that the free market will fund it!

Re:sad (1)

Shadowmist (57488) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393985)

I'm watching the "From Earth to the Moon" series right now, and t made me pretty sad to see the one shuttle with its guts all removed, and the other moving in to share the same fate. I wonder if the U.S. will ever have a manned space program again. If NASA is like a lot of other government agencies, there is a large percentage of the workforce that is getting ready to retire and without a program to enable hiring younger people, I imagine that manned U.S. space flight will be done.

Posts like this almost make me split my sides. For DECADES, I've been reading posts from legions of verbal Slashdotters who've been crying for the end of NASA's manned space program. And now that they've actually gotten their desire, they're just as frothing mad as ever.

What did they have to say to each other? (1)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 2 years ago | (#39385027)

Nothing. They're MACHINES people! They're JUST machines....

really (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39385895)

WGAF?

Sounds like the ending of "Great Expectations" (1)

ishmalius (153450) | more than 2 years ago | (#39386157)

In more ways than one.

"I don't believe we ever had a shuttle program." (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39386339)

Give it time, someone will argue it.

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>