×

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!

Delta 4 Inaugural Launch A Success

chrisd posted more than 11 years ago | from the can-i-have-one-too dept.

Space 163

brandido writes "Space.com is reporting that the Delta 4 has lifted off from Cape Canaveral at 5:40 pm EST. According to the Article: 'Boeing's Delta 4 has lifted off from pad 37 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. Everything appeared to be working normally with the rocket as it made its initial climb out over the Atlantic Ocean during the first minute.' It will now take the two-stage rocket some 37 minutes to deliver the Eutelsat W5 spacecraft to orbit, so keep your fingers crossed all continues to go well.'" Looks like everything went swimmingly well.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

163 comments

First! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4720401)

First again! That's twice in one week. I'm so cool.

the big super secret coverup (-1, Troll)

kraksmoka (561333) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720405)

cancelling the new book on the (un?) mission to the moon musta paid for this thing, eh?

first post, hahahah!

cams? (4, Funny)

dirvish (574948) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720406)

Were there any mounted cameras for cool launch vids?

Re:cams? (3, Informative)

Alizarin Erythrosin (457981) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720807)

They had one mounted on the side of the rocket looking down. The local news station here (FOX News in Orlando) was playing the feed from NASA TV when it went up, but they cut it short after the rocket went supersonic... I was disappointed.

However, there's a night launch of the space shuttle on Friday, I'm looking forward to that. I'm thinking of visiting a friend who lives in Merritt Island.

dv? (5, Funny)

RalfM (10406) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720407)

but did they strap a video camera to it???

Re:dv? (2)

sohp (22984) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720656)

Yes, actually they did, and there was some awesome video closeup from just forward of the 2nd stage engine. Space Flight now has subscribers-only links at http://spaceflightnow.com/delta/delta4/video/. Or check back at Boeing's page in a couple of days: http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/delta/fl ash.htmlI

cheap satilites (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4720412)

mmmm time to launch me that cheap satilite

eat at Subway, tools! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4720415)

g to the oatse
c to the izzex
fo shizzle my nizzle Jared was over last night, and let me tell you, he brought his own Italian BMT. It was like sleep-over camp at michael jackson's all over again! Boy, when they say eat fresh, they aren't kidding.

WHAT DOES FO SHIZZLE MY NIZZLE MEAN? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4720888)

Please tell me.

All Looked good from a live view (3, Interesting)

PDG (100516) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720416)

I watched the event live on TV and they had a camera showing it from the rockets view.

You could watch each stage fire off. Pretty neat.

Real question I ask, is why are they back to using the Deltas? Didn't the older ones blow up enough or are the Shuttles THAT booked up?

Re:All Looked good from a live view (5, Interesting)

Cali Thalen (627449) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720455)

The Delta rockets have a pretty good (98%+?) success rate. I have a tendancy to get them confused with the larger Titan 4 series that seemed to want to blow up a little more frequently. I believe the Titan 4 has a failure rate under 10% now...not that that's a good number, but it's better than it used to be.

I was working for a company that did work on both, and I remember the huge disappointment when one of the Titan 4's exploded at launch...it seemed like the program would be declining rather quickly after that. Job security and all. The Delta program always seemed much more reliable in comarison.

Re:All Looked good from a live view (3, Insightful)

targo (409974) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720620)

The Delta rockets have a pretty good (98%+?) success rate

But imagine if the civilian airplanes had a 98% success rate, wouldn't call that good, huh?
Just illustrates the fact that our space technology has long ways to go before even thinking about cool stuff like colonization, space mining etc.

Re:All Looked good from a live view (5, Insightful)

Jeffrey Baker (6191) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720708)

Why? Do you think the Atlantic crossing had a 100% success rate before Europeans started colonizing North America? Why are people intolerable pussies these days? I'd like to return to the days when America was a nation full of people who had already done a lot of dangerous risky shit, and were sitting around thinking of how they could risk their hides one more time. I'd like to visit the age of space exploration when people thought astronauts were cool not because they grew earthworms in zero-gravity, but because they had the balls to climb up on top of a fucking rocket and light it.

Re:All Looked good from a live view (2, Funny)

soupdevil (587476) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720922)

Why are people intolerable pussies these days? Things like dentistry, cable TV and skepticism about the afterlife make us a bit less likely to "climb on top of a fucking rocket and light it."

Re:All Looked good from a live view (5, Informative)

Gogo Dodo (129808) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720459)

Real question I ask, is why are they back to using the Deltas? Didn't the older ones blow up enough or are the Shuttles THAT booked up?

Most satellites are put up with rockets, not the Shuttle.

This is the Ritz Space Shuttle... we are booked... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4720477)

Additionally, shuttle missions were limited to 4 per year according to new budget proposals by NASA, I think for 2003 and most of them were slated for the International Space Station. So, yes... they're that booked.

Re:This is the Ritz Space Shuttle... we are booked (1)

PDG (100516) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720551)

Great!

Astronauts used to be pilots, and daredevils. Then they slowly phased into glorified cable men. Now they're construction workers.

I'm glad I didn't want to be an astronaust when I was a kid, I'd have to change my background profession every 10 years to keep up with NASA's purpose. :D

shuttle (1)

djupedal (584558) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720842)

If you check the Shuttle manifests, you'll see that the DOD has most dates. My imagination tells me most of the lifts for DOD are satellites. ...therefore, most domestic satelites are lifted by Shuttle, me thinks.

Re:All Looked good from a live view (2)

reallocate (142797) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720872)

The Delta 4 is a new vehicle, with a core component using the first new rocket engine in the U.S. fleet since the Shuttle was designed in the '70's. It has about as much in common with earlier Delta's as Lockheed's Atlas 5 has in common with the vehicle that put the Mercury astronauts in orbit.

Cost and reliability (5, Informative)

chazR (41002) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720564)

It's about cost, reliability and payload.
{Note - this goes off-topic because I googled a bit and was stunned by modern launch capability. Sorry}

A Space Shuttle can throw about thirteen tonnes into low earth orbit. That's a huge chunk of satellite. Unfortunately, NASA will charge you in excess of $500 million for the service. The reliability is excellent. One failure in over 110 launches. Probably the most reliable launcher in history. Use the Space Shuttle if it's very heavy, cost is no problem and it absolutely, certainly, definitely must get there.

Delta is an old, proven, excellent technology. It used to be considered a 'light' launcher. Delta IV, however, can smack a meaty Thirteen tonnes [boeing.com] to orbit. Yowza. I only found that out now. OK, that vehicle hasn't been built yet.

Whoo-Hoo! I just read that page again. The Delta Heavy (not built yet, but all technology in place) can stuff 13 tonnes into Geosynchronous transfer orbit. It can throw (and this is astonishing) twenty-three humungous tonnes to low earth orbit. What the hell can compete with that?

Well, Ariane 5 ECS-B [space-technology.com] can do twelve tonnes to Geosynchronous orbit. No payload assist required for orbit transfer.

The Russian Proton [spaceandtech.com]
can do about 23 tonnes to low earth orbit. This is the only one I know the cost for. You want twenty-three thousand kilogrammes orbiting at 350 kilometers? 75 million dollars. Cash up front, go talk to your insurers. (The Proton is almost as insanely reliable as the shuttle, actually - certainly comparable with Delta)

Right. That's it. I'm going to become a rocket engineer. It's got to beat the hell out of managing telecoms networks for a living.

Re:All Looked good from a live view (5, Interesting)

WolfWithoutAClause (162946) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720638)

Well, the Shuttle is booked for ISS, but the military hate using it anyway ever since the Challenger fiasco. If a Delta fails then their black projects don't get held up for years on end.

Also, they can't buy services elsewhere (the Russians have comparable or larger vehicles, for maybe 1/10 the cost), but a lot of these space programs, pretty much, are job creation programs for American citizens so they try to keep the tax dollars in America (quite apart from any security issues).

Re:All Looked good from a live view (3, Interesting)

zorgon (66258) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720828)

It was the Delta 3 that had an abysmal debut. 2 out of 3 launches failed. Delta 2s have been around for 25-30 years and are quite reliable but are muuuuuch smaller than the 4s. The 4's first stage (the Common Booster Core) is all new technology.

Re:All Looked good from a live view (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720878)

Real question I ask, is why are they back to using the Deltas? Didn't the older ones blow up enough or are the Shuttles THAT booked up?

Couple problems. First, the shuttle is a bit more expensive per kilogram. Second, since the shuttle carries people, you need to meet more stringent safety standards than you would with a Delta. As I understand it, the US government has been providing most of the payloads for the Space Shuttle.

why so many launch pads? (4, Interesting)

NeMon'ess (160583) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720417)

What use can there be for at least 37 launch pads on one base?

Re:why so many launch pads? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4720438)

  • What use can there be for at least 37 pads on one base?
Well, your mom's bloody pussy for one. She bleeds like no man when she's on the rag.

Oh. Right. Launch pads.

Beats me.

Re:why so many launch pads? (5, Informative)

Chairboy (88841) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720467)

Not all the pads are active. For example, the launch pads they used to fire off Snarks and V2s captured from Germany in the 1940 are of limited use when launching vehicles that are literally hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of lbs heavier.

A shuttle launch pad (there are two active) has a very different set of requirements from a Titan V or Atlas launch pad, for example, because of the SRBs, the launch escape system, and more.

Additionally, newer pads are getting simpler and simpler to lower costs and increase reliability.

DON'T SAY THAT!!! (5, Funny)

fmaxwell (249001) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720427)

Looks like everything went swimmingly well.

Don't say "swimmingly" when there is a rocket flying over the ocean with a satellite payload. Swimming is the last thing we want the satellite to do.

Re:DON'T SAY THAT!!! (1)

mlk (18543) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720733)

No, we want it to hit land!

Re:DON'T SAY THAT!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4720859)

No, we want you to SHUT UP!

Re:DON'T SAY THAT!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4720785)

oh yes old chap, t'was a smashing launch what

Should be interesting (-1)

datsclark (46380) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720436)

From what i have read about this launch, it looks like it will be interesting. There are 2 or 3 Russians going up with them. Anyone know if thats a first or what?

This mission is just to install some girders on the space station, and leave 3 of them in the International Space Station as well.

Re:Should be interesting (1)

essell (446524) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720460)

Uhh, spread the FUD love around. This rocket is carrying a satellite. Not humans.

Re:Should be interesting (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4720524)

Yeah I heard N'Sync and Lance Bass are finally going to space on this one.

no crash (5, Funny)

pyr0 (120990) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720437)

Heh...I'm guessing they *didn't* get John Carmack to design the onboard computer :)

New update: It crashes into Bagdad. (5, Funny)

heldlikesound (132717) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720444)

Rueters:

The Delta 4 swerved suddenly of course at 5:45pm today and headed for Iraq with uncanny precsion eventually crashing into Saddam Hussein's secret, undergroud, booby trap filled hideout. A Pentagon spokesperson said "Our plan is working wonderfully, uh, I mean... to bad about the whole rocket foul-up."

FIRST TO/TOO TROLL (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4720503)

Hey there, sport! I'm pretty certain you meant "too bad" up there. Because 'to' and 'too' are 'two' different words, LOLZ. Love you, keep an eye out for motherfuckers.

FRIST RUETERS/REUTERS TROLL (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4720540)

i got it!

Re:FRIST TROLL/DICKHEAD TROLL (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4720779)

you make me wanna wretch

FRIST WRETCH/RETCH TROOL (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4720830)

Oh, forget it.

Re:FRIST RUETERS/REUTERS TROLL (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4720903)

Nicely done, my man, but you forgot the obvious explanation. You can't just catch them and then leave it at that.

went well? (0, Redundant)

loconet (415875) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720445)

Looks like everything went swimmingly well...

It can't be well if its swimming :(

Actually yes. Re:went well? (2)

WolfWithoutAClause (162946) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720568)

First stage should be swimming anyway; they ditch in mid-atlantic. If it's not- that's bad- it means it hit the mainland, it could have taken out Disneyland or something. So you've got it backwards in fact but I knew what you meant ;-)

THC (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4720470)

i wish it was delta-9 blasting off, o my brothers !!

Here's hoping. (4, Funny)

FreeLinux (555387) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720484)

Here's hoping that Boeing doesn't acquire Armadillo Aerospace. I'd hate to see what would happen if John was launching a Delta 4.

Re:Here's hoping. (2)

WolfWithoutAClause (162946) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720710)

Yeah, well John Carmack knocked up the rocket that crashed in a couple of months. Boeing have been working on theirs for maybe 5 years. And Johns rocket nearly worked, and I'm expecting Johns next rocket to work fully, although Delta IV's will go a bit higher I rather suspect.

Full success (5, Informative)

ajakk (29927) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720486)

Space.com is now reporting [space.com] that the entire launch was a success. It made it through the last 37 minutes and deployed the satellite.

launching objects into space is against god (2, Funny)

GoatPigSheep (525460) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720487)

How can people so viciously attack the heaven with these 'rockets'. Hasn't anyone learned anything from the bible? God lives in those skies and we best not be attacking his realm for he may wreck havoc on us for this obvious contempt over His will.

When will people learn?

Re:launching objects into space is against god (1)

MrP- (45616) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720497)

Don't you watched Southpark? Saddam is building biological weapons in heaven.. WE MUST BOMB HEAVEN!!

Re:launching objects into space is against god (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4720513)

you = insane

Re:launching objects into space is against god (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4720534)

flamebait?

that moderation is against God!

Meanwhile... (3, Funny)

fenix down (206580) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720739)

*FWHOOOOOOMMM*
"SON OF A BITCH!!!"
"Uh oh. I think they hit Azrael..."
...
"Why the fuck is the can always a launch window for these people?! I swear, if I hadn't gotten up just then, those little bastards would've been in such a world of shit..."
"Heheh. I bet they're trying to get you back for Soddom! Get it? Soddom? Heh."
"Do you have to use that one every chance you get, Michael?"
"Yes. Wait... World of shit! Ha! I missed that one!! You're hilarious, man... angel... whatever."
"RrrrrAHHH! WHERE'S MY FLAMING SWORD? I will bust some DIVINE JUSTICE on ALL YOUR ASSES!"
...
"Come on, Enoch, that was pretty funny. Asses. Ha."
"Michael, you are such a dork. Why didn't he read the note He put on the door?"
"You're the only one who can ever read His handwriting."
"Oh, right. I wish He's use that label maker we got him..."
"Who writes 7-dimensional "E"s anyway?"

Some more info about the actual satellite (5, Informative)

linux_student (581144) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720489)

Unfortunately space.com's article doesn't say much about the actual satellite, a few more details here: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/satellite-biz-02zc. html

range (1, Funny)

Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS- (624050) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720492)

So can one of these puppies actually break orbit. I mean we DO need something capable of delivering a thermonuclear warhead to Mars to preemtively stop those Martians from developing nuclear weapons...

Re:range (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4720504)

Mars is uninhabited you moron.

Re:range (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4720519)

I think the grandparent is suppossed to be a joke. Its a little too dry for my taste.

Yes, it could. Re:range (5, Informative)

WolfWithoutAClause (162946) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720593)

Actually, surprisingly, yes it could send a few tonnes to Mars. It turns out that the 'delta-v' to get to Mars is only slightly more than the delta-v to get to Geostationary orbit; so the payload would be a bit less that launched today, but it could make it; although you'd probably need to modify the guidance system.

There's a list of 'delta-v's here [caltech.edu] .

Re:Yes, it could. Re:range (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4720825)

Just to be a little more informative, it's not just a matter of decreasing the payload a little bit and aiming the rocket at Mars. It would be more accurate to say that this launch vehicle is capable of pushing up an orbital vehicle, which is capable of reaching Mars orbit. Once the orbital vehicle is up, depending on the mission plan, it may orbit for months awaiting the best window for the interplanetary burn, or enter a different orbit altogether to set up a gravity assist. Also, bear in mind that lesser rockets such as certain configurations of Delta IIs have already been used to lift orbital vehicles which went to Mars. Of course, the really big problem in terms of delta-v isn't getting there; we've demonstrated success at that multiple times. It's getting there with enough juice to get back; do you want to volunteer to be onboard the first manned one-way mission to Mars?

Re:Yes, it could. Re:range (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720897)

Of course, the really big problem in terms of delta-v isn't getting there; we've demonstrated success at that multiple times. It's getting there with enough juice to get back; do you want to volunteer to be onboard the first manned one-way mission to Mars?

In case you missed it, the discussion was over how to nuke Martians. No return necessary. For the children, of course.

All this technology available... (5, Funny)

soulctcher (581951) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720495)

...and we still don't use flying cars.

Re:All this technology available... (5, Insightful)

linux_student (581144) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720516)

Look at how most people drive; would you really like to deal with that at any kind of altitude?
Not me buddy! I'll continue using normal roads until they actually give real driving(or flying)
examinations before putting some kid behind the wheel of a flying car.

Re:All this technology available... (1)

PyroMosh (287149) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720664)

Did someone say 'flying car [viewaskew.com] '?

Re:All this technology available... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4720674)

no, but ill put you to sleep and have sex with you.

flying cars (2)

lingqi (577227) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720912)

...and we still don't use flying cars.

you are right that we as public cannot buy them yet. but that does not mean it's not there.

moller international [moller.com] has been working on flying cars for a while now and it's very near completion [moller.com] . I would recommend reading more about it here [zzz.com.ru] (about middle of page) at zzz [zzz.com.ru] .

You can also invest in his company. stock symbol is MLER or something.

Can I see too? (2, Interesting)

Trevalyx (627273) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720521)

Does anyone else really wish they could go see a launch live? I've had a fascination with space and rockets since I was a child (geek, what? JUST because I have glowwy-glowwy rounded uv-sensitive cables inside my computer, DOESN'T MEAN...) but have never had the fortune to see a launch in person.. Sure, watching on TV is nice and all, but it cannot begin to compare to the joy of seeing a rocket claw it's way into the sky (mmmmmm.... fiiiirrrre) and become it's own star for a while..
-Trev

Re:Can I see too? (2)

pyr0 (120990) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720556)

The problem with going to see a launch, especially if it's a long trip, is that you don't know whether or not it will be cancelled due to weather or other problems. For example, my dad was selected from a drawing of Boeing employees (formerly McDonnell Douglass) that had done work on the development of the Space Shuttle to go see a launch. They flew him and my mom down to Florida, but the launch got cancelled because the weather wasn't right. I also have a friend that tried to go see a shuttle launch that got cancelled by weather.

Re:Can I see too? (1)

Trevalyx (627273) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720575)

Guess I'll just have to go down to Florida and live near Cape Canaveral for a while.. Maybe I could do my co-op for a there...
Anyone in south florida need a roomate? Must enjoy raves, computers, coffee, and the occasional beach romp @3AM...
(failing that)Anyone in south florida need an employee? I'm good with computers (Naw, I'm just here because I enjoy the trolls) and I speak spanish fluently...
*Ahem* Realistically speaking, the only rocket launches I've seen are the ones I've launched myself, of the back yard variety.. Lots of fun though....

Re:Can I see too? (5, Funny)

oaklybonn (600250) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720622)

When I was about 14, my parents moved to Jacksonville, FL. I came home from boarding school (ahem, military school) to visit there. We drove down to the cape and did the normal touristy tours of the facilities. They spent a bit of time talking about lightening detectors. Then they announced that there would be a launch today! Gosh was I excited!

But you know what? My iron bitch mother decided that we had best drive back home *now* before the launch because she didn't want to get caught in traffic. Much whining and pouting later found me crying in the back of the station wagon as we drove away without seeing the launch. (No, I didn't do very well at military school.)

But you know what? That launch vehicle was hit by lightning and exploded shortly after takeoff.

And I missed that too. Fuck you, mom.

Re:Can I see too? (1)

theflea (585612) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720650)

I saw a few Delta launches during the late 80's at Vandenberg AFB in California. Some were classified launches due to the payloads. I'd highly recommend seeing one if you get the chance. You can feel the rumble in your chest! I really didn't think it would be such a big deal, but when I actually saw one, my first response was "holy shit!"

Re:Can I see too? (5, Interesting)

mcd7756 (628070) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720775)

I grew up on Merritt Island in the 50s thru 70's. The space shots were just a fact of life. I don't remember the Gemini's, but the Apollo's were awesome. I saw all of them. We lived about 25 miles south of the Cape. When a Saturn V went up, the windows rattled, the ground shook...even the leaves on the trees vibrated. You could feel it shaking your body. Then you'd see this monster flame slowly going up into the sky, with this teeny, tiny white speck at the top. They say those at the press stands could see the shock waves rippling across the ground toward them Even saw Apollo 17, which was a night shot. Sat out on Courtenay Parkway near Jefferson Jr. High School. Listening to the radio I could hear the countdown. At 7 seconds, the engines would cut on, (Took 7 secs at full power before it lifted off) and the whole north sky lit up like the sun coming up. A few seconds later this awesome flaming sword thing started rising up into the sky. The stars weren't visible and my shadow behind me rapidly shrank as the spacecraft ascended. It was way cool. And, it was an incredible demonstration of what flawed humanity can do when they work together. -Mike

Moon Unit (1)

cranos (592602) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720535)

As I read of another stunted shot into space, another symbol of our aborted attempts to get man into the void, I can but shed a tear and say "WHERES MY FLYING CAR!?!?!"

Eat your Heart out Carmack! (5, Funny)

Liquidity (62369) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720545)

Boeing:1
Carmack:0

Re:Eat your Heart out Carmack! (3, Funny)

Docrates (148350) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720786)

Actually, if you follow HIS rules, it's more like:
Boeing:1
Carmack:-1

Re:Eat your Heart out Carmack! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4720848)

Only joke in this entire page that deserves the +5 funny.

I would not really call it successful until (4, Funny)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720567)

Lance Bass, Bill Gates, John Ashcroft, and the PanIP bastard all have a meeting underneath it at launch time.

Re:I would not really call it successful until (2)

dpilot (134227) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720629)

Add Jack Valenti and what's-her-name from the RIAA, and it's a deal.

Feel free to add your own nominations for the Launch Pad Party.

Re:I would not really call it successful until (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4720697)

Hillary Rosen

Re:I would not really call it successful until (1)

jdkincad (576359) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720690)

Lance Bass, Bill Gates, John Ashcroft, and the PanIP bastard all have a meeting underneath it at launch time.

Personally, I be happy with just one of them.

Re:I would not really call it successful until (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4720850)

Ya bekase Bill Gate$ is evil !!@!

I kinda like the Delta III better (4, Funny)

Burgundy Advocate (313960) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720573)

Well, purely from an aesthetic standpoint.

There's just something about a liquid fueled center surrounded by a bunch of boosters [boeing.com] .

The whole thing just looks beefy.

Re:I kinda like the Delta III better (2, Funny)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720604)

here's just something about a liquid fueled center surrounded by a bunch of boosters [boeing.com].

<homer>

mmmmmm..... nougat

</homer>

Delta what? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4720576)

The space.com story said that a "rocket" is putting a "satellite" into orbit. Forgive me for being a complete ignoramus, but what's so special about that? Hasn't this been going on for decades? Somebody explain this to me like I'm six.

Re:Delta what? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4720692)

Phlas (Dick) shaped object turns /. trolls on.

Re:Delta what? (3, Insightful)

Penguinoflight (517245) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720767)

Well son, you see... The engineers have to work for hours and hours and it costs a lot, and they launch up a sattilite with a big rocket. The satillite is how you get to see spiderman on TV.

False marketing (2)

Cheese Cracker (615402) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720866)

The satillite is how you get to see spiderman on TV.

Damn, I thought I watched Spiderman on cable TV... I'll call my cable operator and ask them to rename their service to satellite TV. Maybe I can sue them for lying to me all these years?

Re:Delta what? (3, Funny)

PortWineBoy (587071) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720788)

It was a NEWER rocket that can put BIGGER things into SPACE. BIG things in space are IMPORTANT to adults.

This was the FIRST time this type of rocket had been launched. SOMETIMES rockets blow up when they are launched, instead of going into space.

An UNTESTED version of this rocket will be able to lift almost as much as the SPACE SHUTTLE, at a LOWER cost. This was an important MILESTONE in space technology.

hey (-1)

YourMissionForToday (556292) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720586)

Why do I only get one post a day now, instead of 2 posts? Am I that naughty? If not, please tell me what I can do to be even more naughtier.

Sincerely yours,

A Sweet Valley High fan

My period.. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4720589)

My period is going swimmingly as well, Stan. Really.

Ok let me explain. In an episode of South Park, a colon infection gets a couple of the kids, and they start bleeding out their asses. The four boys mistake this for having a period, and so Cartman and Kenny start their own club for those who are "maturing". In this club meeting, after Stan BSes that he got his period, he says his period is going "swimmingly". That's where it comes from.

Finally... (4, Interesting)

pla (258480) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720607)

Does this mean we've gone back to the "sane" method of launching satellites, and can stop wasting the shuttles (which cost WAY more to send up than a "disposable" launch vehicle) on such mundane tasks?

I hope so. While I totally support "real" space exploration, the shuttles have, for the past few decades, scammed the US out of billions (trillions, yet?) of dollars. We use them for nothing even remotely interesting, yet pay a fortune to maintain and occasionally launch them.

Re:Finally... (1)

Chrispy1000000 the 2 (624021) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720636)

Hmm... I wasn't aware things like artificial diamonds, biological medicens and other stuff that would boggle your mind were uninteresting

Re:Finally... (2)

pla (258480) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720784)

All those things did indeed come about as byproducts of the US space program (well, "better" artifical diamonds, I think we had some variety before NASA)...

But none of those have anything to do with the vast majority of shuttle missions - namely, launching satellites for 10x the cost of a disposable launch vehicle...

Like I said, I TOTALLY support the space program (although it seems to have gotten a bit crufty and needs an overhaul). But use the shuttles to do real science, not as a military transport or a commercial cargo-ship.

Re:Finally... (1)

cbdavis (114685) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720671)

I agree. We have wasted 2 decades of space travel
sending up shuttles with hokey experiments. The
ISS should have started 10 years ago, using the
shuttle as, hey, a "shuttle". But satellites and
such are best launched using disposable hardware.
We need people to stay in space, for months and
even years, so we can learn about extended living
in space. The ISS is that. Going to Mars?
We couldnt go to the moon now if we tried. Forget
Mars for 50 years. How about putting up space
stations and living centers, get 10-100 people
living in space. We can do hokey experiments from
space stations. We can send scientists and such
to REALLY do experiments and see some results.

Re:Finally... (1)

B3Geek (313588) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720863)

... We use them for nothing even remotely interesting, yet pay a fortune to maintain and occasionally launch them.

Some of the missions seem to have lacked, shall we say, hard science?

  • What are the politico-economic effects to NASA of launching a Brevard County, FL US Representative into space as member of the shuttle crew [senate.gov] ?
  • What are the politico-economic effects to NASA of launching a US Senator [nasa.gov] into space as a member of the shuttle crew?
  • Experimentation into the adhesive properties of Post-It-Notes (tm) in weightlessness. (okay so I made that one up - I hope).

VICTORIA'S SECRET LINGERIE ON CBS!!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4720654)

why are you still reading this!?!?!

Wow first new US rocket in 20+ years (1)

trikster2 (23745) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720765)


For some reason that just totaly blows my mind:

And that fact that the new Atlas V is based on a russian engine?????

That just depresses the heck out of me......

They didn't mean Russian -- (1)

mtec (572168) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720810)

They just meant fast you know - rushin!

OW! hey! hey! quit throwin things ....

Please! please! Settle down folks, I'm here all week, tip your waiter and ... try the fish!

But... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4720769)

Can it run linux?

Meanwhile, off the coast of Canaveral... (0, Funny)

mtec (572168) | more than 11 years ago | (#4720792)

Chinese Radar Operator: Comrade Colonel, you better have a look at this radar.
Comrade Colonel: What is it, son?
Chinese Radar Operator: I don't know, sir, but it looks like a giant--

American Jet Pilot on patrol: Dick! Dick, take a look out of starboard.
Co-Pilot: Oh my God, it looks like a huge--

Woman on Cruise Ship: Pecker!
Man on Cruise Ship: [raising binoculars] Where?
Woman on Cruise Ship: Over there. What sort of bird is that? Oh goodness, it's not a bird, it's--

Uninformed Canaveral Sergeant: Privates! We have reports of an Unidentified Flying Object. It has a long, smooth shaft, complete with--

Baseball Umpire near Kennedy: Two balls! [looking up from game] What is that? It looks just like an enormous--

Comrade Colonel: Wang!
Chinese Radar Operator: Yes, sir?
Comrade Colonel: Get on the horn to Wu and let him know about this.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...