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 Lands Safely

CmdrTaco posted more than 9 years ago | from the congratulations-to-all dept.

NASA 668

Tuxedo Jack writes "CNN and NASA report that the space shuttle Discovery has landed safely at Edwards Air Force Base in California. Concerns for its safe return were raised when spacewalks were necessary to repair the vehicle when external components were damaged; however, the shuttle landed safely with Commander Eileen Collins at the control yoke."

cancel ×

668 comments

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

Well (-1, Flamebait)

silasthehobbit (626391) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277665)

At least it all landed at once this time...

Re:Well (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13277743)

The crew enjoyed ass-fucking in outerspace

Re:Well (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13277814)

Of all the negative moderations that could have been used, they had to choose "Flamebait" for that one.

Re:Well (1)

silasthehobbit (626391) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277849)

Ironic, huh. I wasn't even being flamebait in the original post, I was merely pointing out that it was nice that it had landed successfully, rather than doing that shooting stars thing like last time. This whole "getting into and back from space" thing really shouldn't be this difficult by now, should it?

fp (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13277668)

fp

Welcome home (3, Interesting)

timboc007 (664810) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277670)

Welcome home Discovery. Hmm... wonder if any of the crew are /.'ers?

Re:Welcome home (4, Interesting)

Randseed (132501) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277777)

Hmm... wonder if any of the crew are /.'ers?

Slashdot interview! (No, I'm serious. Good publicity for them among people who want to see the space program continue.)

woman driver lands shuttle safely (4, Funny)

Sonicboom (141577) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277672)

one small step for her - one giant step for womankind.

Re:woman driver lands shuttle safely (1)

dagny_dev_ (771050) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277712)

With a little help from male shuttle pilot James Kelly. How much does it cost to transport the shuttle back to Florida from Edwards?

Re:woman driver lands shuttle safely (2, Informative)

mbelly (827938) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277729)

I heard ~$1 million.

Re:woman driver lands shuttle safely (1)

shicklin (624057) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277744)

bbc state $1 million

Land the shuttle yourself (3, Interesting)

fruey (563914) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277753)

I love this page, and it seems to be an opportune moment.

Land the shuttle yourself [x-plane.com] you macho.

Re:woman driver lands shuttle safely (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13277765)

Typicall PC BS, 'woman at the yoke'. Duhh, the space shuttle falls like a rock and the computers guide it, not the 'woman at the yoke'.

UPDATE: Re:woman driver lands shuttle safely (-1, Troll)

maxbang (598632) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277772)

On backing up the shuttle, eight trash cans and a tabby were trampled. I blame the lipstick.

Re:UPDATE: Re:woman driver lands shuttle safely (4, Insightful)

TobyWong (168498) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277827)

I was going to crack a woman driver joke too then I realized in all likelyhood she has more driving/flying ability in her baby finger than I ever will have... =(

Re:woman driver lands shuttle safely (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13277823)

yeah but one of the grounds crew had to parallel park it for her.

Re:woman driver lands shuttle safely (1)

Lev13than (581686) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277834)

Umm... doesn't the pilot land the Shuttle? In that case it would have been James Kelly [nasa.gov] and not Eileen Collins who was "at the yolk".

Re:woman driver lands shuttle safely (2, Informative)

Fjornir (516960) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277870)

Negative. The pilot handles most of the banking maneuvers as the skycar glides in on approach leaving the commander free for any comms with Houston and to load the updated nav data then there is an exchange of flight controls and the commander handles the landing.

Re:woman driver lands shuttle safely (1)

MedManDC (536578) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277872)

A former shuttle astronaut explained on NPR this morning that the pilot flies until the last few hundred miles, then "hands over" the controls to commander, who actually lands the shuttle.

fhs (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13277679)

hooray.

woohoo (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13277680)

woohoo

Re:woohoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13277748)

Re:woohoo

What was that? (5, Interesting)

Fjornir (516960) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277681)

A quick question to any shuttle geeks who might be reading: I watched the landing and then found myself staring at an infrared shot of the aft end of Discovery on the ground. To the immediate left of the vertical stabilizer/rudder assembly there was a patch of air that kept lighting up and going dim, kind of like what you'd see if you light a bit of gas on fire. Any ideas what that might be? It didn't look rythmic enough to be a landing light or steady enough to be heat venting.

Just curious...

Re:What was that? (2, Informative)

nolesrule (152898) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277696)

It's the APU exhaust vent.

Re:What was that? (5, Informative)

TigerTale (414169) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277701)

It was exhaust from one of the hydraulic systems. The commentator on Fox News asked the same thing.

Re:What was that? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13277726)

WTF you watching Fox News for? What are you a brown shirt fascist asshole!?

Re:What was that? (5, Informative)

dukeblue219 (212029) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277713)

According to the astronaut on Fox News:

It was one of the Auxilliary Power Units (APUs) that power Discovery's systems during re-entry and landing. These generators are powered by rocket fuel, so what you saw (and I saw as well) was the steady pulsing of exhaust from one of the APUs. They power things like the ailerons, rudder, and other vital systems for the orbiter.

Re:What was that? (1)

confusion (14388) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277715)

There was definitely a rotating light on the top of the shuttle that was illuminating the vertical stablizer. Otherwise, it may have been hot gas from the friction of the ship moving at a few thousand miles per hour.

Jerry
http://www.cyvin.org/ [cyvin.org]

Re:What was that? (1)

Fjornir (516960) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277762)

Ram pressure != friction. Very little of the heat from re-entry is from friction. The insertion into the atmosphere is made very carefully to minimize friction.

Re:What was that? (1)

confusion (14388) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277805)

This was long after reentry. They outline of the ship was very visible from a ground camera at for what I'm talking about. But, I recall that it was still going >3000mph at about 100,000ft.

Jerry
http://www.cyvin.org/ [cyvin.org]

First Post! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13277682)

Neeerr!

Good to hear they are safe (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13277683)

Thats good news but what about the future of the shuttles, given all the problems?

Who cares. I wished they had died. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13277685)

Who cares. I wished they had died.

Good. (2, Funny)

42Penguins (861511) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277689)

They finally decided to land after I woke up at both 4am Eastern yesterday and 5am today to watch it land, to no avail. I suppose they HAD to land sometime.

Re:Good. (4, Funny)

It doesn't come easy (695416) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277775)

NASA engineers were having a decidedly difficult job picking a landing time that didn't correlate to your waking schedule...

Waste (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13277692)

Perfectly good waste of Tax payer's money. Think how many people the odd $200 million per launch could help feed /cloth / educate our own citizens that are in dispair and financial ruin, etc.

Re:Waste (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13277745)

Only thing that's a waste is that we're still flying the shuttle and piddling around in LEO.

I'm all for wasting some major cash on the space elevator and going to Mars.

Gotta spend some cash if you want to get anywhere and reap the future benefits.

More money is wasted on food that we throw away, don't eat and let spoil than we have ever wasted on the space program. Same with fancy shit or cheap garbage that just sits around and does nothing. Start bitching about all the money "wasted" on pricy art, or shitty movies if you want to get all moral about the hungry and needy. Space exploration isn't as "wasteful" as pretty much all our other side pursuits and stupidity.

Re:Waste (-1, Flamebait)

tobybuk (633332) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277764)

Mode parent up. Really with people starving in this world it's just immoral to be spending such huge sums of money or basically worthless trips to space.

Re:Waste (0, Offtopic)

spurtle15 (899792) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277824)

I'd take spending $200 million for a project than a couple of billion a day for killing people in the Middle East.

Re:Waste (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13277853)

Ever bought a DVD or CD? Or a plate of food that you couldn't finish? Or a piece of art or a book of limited educational value? Fancy clothes? A ticket to a sporting event? Anything at all that was not really "needed"?

Wouldn't your money have been better spent if you gave it to the poor starving people? Isn't it immoral that you might be living a life of ridiculous luxury full of "wasteful" pursuits while people are starving?

I'd bet that starting on the path towards the eventual colonization of the solar system and beyond is a much more worthy pursuit, than the numerous wasteful activities that the majority of us gain some pleasure from. Make sure to clean your plate tonight.

Re:Waste (4, Insightful)

Cat_Byte (621676) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277874)

Great idea. We'll stop the space program, let all the satellites fall out of the sky, do without phones, tv, weather forecasts, etc and send the 200 million to some dictator who keeps it all for himself and the people still starve. Shuttle launches aren't a waste IMO. The ISS is a huge waste though. We would be better off with one outside of LEO or between the earth and the moon.

Re:Waste (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13277828)

Yes, imagine how many bullets you could fire in Iraq... I am MUCH happier seeing money spent on Science rather than a war.

Re:Waste (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13277846)

Wah wah. If everyone in the country stopped eating meat, the amount of biomass saved in the conversion just in this country would be enough for us to 1.) make sure everyone in this country knew where their next meal was coming from, and 2.) take a large dent out of global world hunger.

Tiles... (5, Insightful)

aztec1430 (242755) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277698)

It'll be interesting to see what damage has ocurred...

If the damaged areas they noticed in orbit, are worse after re-entry...

Cheers,
Richard

Re:Tiles... (4, Insightful)

Deinhard (644412) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277730)

There was a lengthy discussion about that this morning. Every shuttle is damaged in one way or another but until this trip, when they scanned every inch of the orbiter, they couldn't tell if the damage came from launch, orbit or reentry.

This new data will prove invaluable not only for the remaining shuttle flights, but also for the replacement vehicle.

Future missions... (2, Insightful)

theantipop (803016) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277704)

I hope safe returns in the future aren't news but instead are commonplace. Hopefully NASA's shift in ideology regarding spacecraft design will usher in a new era in incident free missions.

Re:Future missions... (1)

DynamicPhil (785187) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277768)

Yes, well, they are also heavily looking into doing more unmanned missions.
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1432901.htm [abc.net.au]
(don't know if this is a good or bad thing - probably safer for astronauts)

Re:Future missions... (1)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277860)

NASA's shift in ideology regarding spacecraft design

What shift? Last I checked they were using 40 year old designs (i.e. the shuttle).

And spending over half the mission tearing loose threads off the outside of the ship doesn't sound like accomplishing anything except wasting money to me.

anyone else woken up by the sonic booms? (4, Interesting)

SpecialAgentXXX (623692) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277716)

I slept thought my 5 AM alarms and was going to be late for work, but the sonic booms woke me up. I wonder how many people forgot or did not know about the Space Shuttle landing. My family thought it was an earthquake.

Re:anyone else woken up by the sonic booms? (1)

mridoni (228377) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277856)

Not me, but probably the fact that I live a few thousand miles from Edwards AFB helped somehow...

who cares? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13277717)

so what?!

Excellent work (5, Insightful)

ReformedExCon (897248) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277724)

But after having done this since 1961, you'd think that we'd be at a point where getting "those brave souls" back to Earth in one piece was mundane.

Though it would be wonderful to have the space program re-examined and reformulated with realistic goals, unencumbered designs, and brave (not foolhardy) leadership, I doubt that we'll get anything more than another round of shuttle flights until the next one breaks up. Then we can expect more hand wringing, indecisiveness, and basically a whole lot more of nothing.

Space is the biggest challenge Mankind will ever embark upon. It's sad to see that almost 45 years has passed and we're still crossing our fingers hoping that things go okay.

Re:Excellent work (1)

JohnHegarty (453016) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277826)

It was, before the previous mission !

We're still new here (5, Insightful)

DragonHawk (21256) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277861)

"But after having done this since 1961, you'd think that we'd be at a point where getting "those brave souls" back to Earth in one piece was mundane."

While I agree with the rest of your comment, it's worth pointing out that 45 years is a drastically short period of time in human history. How long did we sail the seas before trans-oceanic travel stopped being experimental and perilous? We're so used to the incredibly fast pace of recent technological advancement that we forget that not everything comes quick. Expecting spaceflight to have become mundane in so short a time may not be reasonable.

Well done! (1)

Nick Driver (238034) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277725)

Excellent job by the shuttle crew and everyone at NASA behind them on this successful and safe mission.

One word sums it up: YeeHaw!!!

Sad News... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13277727)

I just heard some sad news on NPR. Seven shuttle astronauts were found dead today, vaporized in the skies over Texas. No other information was available. Even if you weren't a fan of the monumental financial waste we call the Shuttle program, you have to admit they were American icons. Truly a sad day.

*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_
g_______________________________________________g_ _
o_/_____\_____________\____________/____\_______o_ _
a|_______|_____________\__________|______|______a_ _
t|_______`._____________|_________|_______:_____t_ _
s`________|_____________|________\|_______|_____s_ _
e_\_______|_/_______/__\\\___--___\\_______:____e_ _
x__\______\/____--~~__________~--__|_\_____|____x_ _
*___\______\_-~____________________~-_\____|____*_ _
g____\______\_________.--------.______\|___|____g_ _
o______\_____\______//_________(_(__>__\___|____o_ _
a_______\___.__C____)_________(_(____>__|__/____a_ _
t_______/\_|___C_____)/______\_(_____>__|_/_____t_ _
s______/_/\|___C_____)__NASA_|__(___>___/__\____s_ _
e_____|___(____C_____)\______/__//__/_/_____\___e_ _
x_____|____\__|_____\\_________//_(__/_______|__x_ _
*____|_\____\____)___`----___--'_____________|__*_ _
g____|__\______________\_______/____________/_|_g_ _
o___|______________/____|_____|__\____________|_o_ _
a___|_____________|____/_______\__\___________|_a_ _
t___|__________/_/____|_________|__\___________|t_ _
s___|_________/_/______\__/\___/____|__________|s_ _
e__|_________/_/________|____|_______|_________|e_ _
x__|__________|_________|____|_______|_________|x_ _
*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_


Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.

Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.

Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.

Almost Home (2, Interesting)

Smallest (26153) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277731)

Now how do they get the shuttle back to FL so it can be launched again ?

Re:Almost Home (2, Informative)

mbelly (827938) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277761)

They piggyback it on a 747, the trip costs about $1 million. (Happened to visit Kennedy Space Center last week and they mentioned it on the tour.)

Re:Almost Home (1)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277770)

Hah! That's a very good question!

I guess they'll have to take it apart into many tiny pieces.

Is there news on why they landed at the alt instead of Florida?

Re:Almost Home (1)

mbelly (827938) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277816)

Only because of weather in Florida, they decided to land in nice weather in Cali.

Re:Almost Home (1)

Fjornir (516960) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277829)

Is there news on why they landed at the alt instead of Florida?

The usual: weather. WALO were favorable but there was a cloud deck which would interfere with sighting on the runway and showers in the 30NM zone they want clear when they bring the shuttle down at KSC.

Re:Almost Home (1)

henrygb (668225) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277854)

Low cloud yesterday, thunderstorms today.

Re:Almost Home (1)

hcdejong (561314) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277865)

Is there news on why they landed at the alt instead of Florida?
That was due to the weather conditions in Florida.

Re:Almost Home (1)

cozzano (666947) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277781)

Now how do they get the shuttle back to FL so it can be launched again ? Not sure how they get it back - but this BBC news piece says it will cost $1million to get it back home :-/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4134986.stm [bbc.co.uk]

Re:Almost Home (1)

nm0n (720057) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277806)

It will be hoisted and mounted to a Boeing 747 that is specially retrofitted to allow the Shuttle to "piggyback" on the top of the fuselage. It will then be flown back to Florida atop said 747 for analysis and reconditioning for another flight in the future.

Re:Almost Home (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13277810)

Are you brain dead? They fly it back on top of a 747.

Though there's no hurry, 'cause that piece of shit ain't gonna fly again any time soon. 2 and a half years to fix the problems that caused the Columbia disaster, and what do we find out? Oh, yeah, the foam still falls off, we didn't make any changes to fix that. WHAT THE FUCK? 2 and a half years and however many hundreds of millions of dollars, and THEY DIDN'T FIX THE FUCKING THING THAT CAUSED THE COLUMBIA FUCKING DISASTER???

NASA deserves to be dismantled. Just shut that whole group of losers down.

Re:Almost Home (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13277836)

Like this [nasa.gov] .

Why bother? (0, Troll)

Blitzenn (554788) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277845)

It will probably never fly again anyway. It took 2 + years to rework it the first time and they didn't fix the problem, by their own admission. What makes you think it will take less time to fix it right the second time? By the time another few years have passed, I would hope we have something better to blow the billions of dollars on than this thing.

Re:Almost Home (2, Funny)

chiph (523845) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277852)

They UPS it overnight. ;-)

Seriously, they use the 747 like nearly everyone else has said. They've been doing it since the days of the Enterprise (the first shuttle, which was never certified for flight because of the destructive vibration tests it went through).

Chip H.

Good to know. (3, Funny)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277736)

Eileen Collins

It's important that we have female shuttle pilots.

I mean, what if the core of the earth suddenly stopped spinning, and we needed to send a team down to jump start the core? If the core did that they could probably make a movie about the core doing that...

They could call it "The middle of the planet"... or something.

Cost of landing at Edwards.. (1)

confusion (14388) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277740)

I wonder what the cost of landing at Edwards vs. Kennedy is. Now that have to put it on top of a 747 and truck it back to Florida. That can't be cheap, and they're not exactly rolling in dough.

Jerry
http://www.cyvin.org/ [cyvin.org]

Re:Cost of landing at Edwards.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13277773)

Back when Edwards was the main landing site, it cost 1M to get the Shuttle flown home.

Re:Cost of landing at Edwards.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13277778)

No big deal. I think this was the 50th landing at Edwards.

Re:Cost of landing at Edwards.. (1)

Mortiss (812218) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277780)

According to NS an a million dollars just for the landing. Anyone here knows the actual cost of piggy-back ride on the back of 747?

Re:Cost of landing at Edwards.. (1)

cuenca (868137) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277787)

5 millions dollars.

That was the figure quoted on a spanish newspaper, but I'm not able to find it anymore.

Re:Cost of landing at Edwards.. (3, Funny)

Nutshell_TA (830986) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277792)

1 million dollars! muhahahha!

Re:Cost of landing at Edwards.. (1)

TurdTapper (608491) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277802)

Something like 1 million dollars to transport it back to Florida.

Re:Cost of landing at Edwards.. (1)

Randseed (132501) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277813)

I wonder what the cost of landing at Edwards vs. Kennedy is. Now that have to put it on top of a 747 and truck it back to Florida. That can't be cheap, and they're not exactly rolling in dough.
Think about it: How much of a difference can there be to move it from Florida to Houston versus from Edwards to Houston?

IM transcript (4, Funny)

kriegsman (55737) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277746)

[5:11am]
MissionK0nTR07: wb
MileHighEileen: ty

-Mark

Re:IM transcript (1)

Neo-Rio-101 (700494) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277819)

AndyTommygun: omfg
MissionK0nTR07: gg
MileHighEileen: gg
NoguNogu: banzai!
SRobbocop: pwned u n00bz

Awesome! (1)

TurdTapper (608491) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277752)

Well I'm glad they made it back safely. Those astronauts are some of the bravest people I know of, along with those in our Armed Forces.

Congratulations Discovery!

Re:Awesome! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13277859)

Sir, I feel seriously offended by that statement.

As chairman of the union for forces without arms I resent your remark.

I can not stress enough that the level of braveness of a individual has nothing to do with the amount or absents of limbs.

Come to think of it, Why is it called a ARMy ?
I understand you can't call it a LEGy, eventhough it seems a bit laggy now and then.

Done writing with my chin.
Retep Vosnul

Top news. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13277755)

I was watching it on the BBC's site.. good old works time. Had no audio so it seemed to be miles away for ages and then suddenly on the runway with parachutes out behind it. all good, anyway.

News Reporters (1)

VeganBob (888165) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277760)

I thought it was interesting how none of the major networks planned ahead to have some people at the alternate landing sites. It was likely that the shuttle was to land at Edwards instead of Kennedy due to weather

Women Space Pilot (1)

ytsejam-ppc (134620) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277767)

There is something inherently sexy about a female space captain. Even Janeway got me bothered every now and again.

"Pilot" (-1)

rokzy (687636) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277788)

>the shuttle landed safely with Commander Eileen Collins at the control yoke

according to Feynman the shuttle pilot does only 2 things:
1. pushes the button for which base to land at
2. lowers the landing gear
and they only do number 2 because they don't like to feel completely like passengers.

the BBC says the pilot made a perfect landing. these guys do a lot of stuff, but they don't land the shuttle.

Re:"Pilot" (2, Informative)

blancolioni (147353) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277835)

From the NASA coverage:

8:07 a.m. - Discovery's wings leveling as it approaches the landing site. Now that the orbiter has gone subsonic, Commander Eileen Collins has assumed control. She'll fly Discovery on a 194-degree right overhead turn to align with runway 22.

Sure sounds like she's landing it to me.

Re:"Pilot" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13277848)

....and she landed at the wrong base.

Are you sure? (1)

domipheus (751857) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277862)

according to nasa's site:

8:07 a.m. - Discovery's wings leveling as it approaches the landing site. Now that the orbiter has gone subsonic, Commander Eileen Collins has assumed control. She'll fly Discovery on a 194-degree right overhead turn to align with runway 22.

=More than press a button

Yes, but... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13277791)

...does it run Linux?

Trying to stay ontopic (0, Offtopic)

Fringex (711655) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277794)

While I am the last person I know to ever really complain about this or that. I am rather tired of spending everyday this past week reading about the Space Shuttle Discovery.

Everyday is a new article it seems about this or that. The most pointless to me was the article about how Discovery can't land due to clouds.

I honestly think you can beat a dead horse to death a second time. This was successfully completed by the continuing coverage of Discovery.

I think it would have been better to have reported that Discovery had some issues regarding the tiles and that Discovery landed safely. That would have been all I cared about.

Re:Trying to stay ontopic (1)

It doesn't come easy (695416) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277851)

Nothing like the possibility of disaster to bring out everyone's interest. This was probably the most watched space mission since Apollo 13...

I suppose all those trolls (1)

metternich (888601) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277797)

who said that they were waiting for a nice picture perfect sunny landing were wrong, as they landed before dawn.

What an ordeal (1)

DragonHawk (21256) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277808)

I hate to say this, but I'm glad this is over, and we can stop getting the minute-by-minute news reports of every damn thing the crew did.

"This just in: Shuttle still in space. NASA still monitoring."

"The inner airlock hatch will be shut now. Then, later, the outer hatch will open."

"The shuttle just vented 11 mL of waste gas into space."

"Commander Eileen just burped."

Sheeesh.

(Note well: I'm not slamming NASA, the space program, or our astronauts. (Not in this comment, anyway.) I'm slamming our culture of media sensationalism and short attention spans.)

Bogus physics on CNN ... (1)

Ihlosi (895663) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277832)

During the approach, there was an article on cnn.com that said something along the lines of "when the shuttle speed drops from supersonic to subsonic, there is a sonic boom ..."

Yikes. Horrendously bogus physics, on international news.

Yeah But What About the Chitty Chitty Bang Bang? (1)

ivanjs (801614) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277857)

With the good news out of NASA this morning, everyone has forgotten about the the CCBB [lyzrdstomp.com] ! ;)

Media frenzy (2, Insightful)

pmdata (861264) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277858)

Thankfully the media "Deathwatch" comes to an end. Ever get the feeling that they are hoping for disasters to happen? They are.

Heard the sonic boom... (4, Interesting)

jeblucas (560748) | more than 9 years ago | (#13277873)

My wife and I were just getting the baby back to sleep when this loud BOOOOOM blew the curtains in a little. (Baby slept through it.) We just looked at each other and I went off to check the CalTech Earthquake advisory site for local quakes. My wife suggested the shuttle, but then pointed out it was to land in Florida. No quakes obviously, then I waited to hear sirens rushing to the site of a gas explosion. None of that either. Maybe one of the Perseids was a little bigger than normal--but there wasn't any light. I finally saw that Discovery landed safely at 5:12 PDT at Edwards AFB--about two hundred miles away. Pretty cool.
Load More 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>