×

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!

Discovery Lands in Florida

CowboyNeal posted more than 7 years ago | from the return-to-terra-firma dept.

NASA 83

duh P3rf3ss3r writes "As reported by the BBC, the space shuttle Discovery safely landed at Kennedy Space Center in Florida at 2232 GMT. Discovery's 13-day mission is being called a success after astronauts undertook four space walks to install new wiring and to do battle with a recalcitrant solar panel. The next scheduled flight is the Atlantis shuttle in March. A video chronicle of the mission, including the landing, is available at NASA's video gallery."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

83 comments

You can (3, Interesting)

chanrobi (944359) | more than 7 years ago | (#17347948)

land the shuttle too! http://www.the-underdogs.info/game.php?id=1758 [the-underdogs.info]

Re:You can (4, Interesting)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 7 years ago | (#17348154)

Uh, what... Time to switch to a more modern Shuttle sim perhaps? ;-)

Orbiter [ucl.ac.uk] (more info and screens [wikipedia.org] )

Re:You can (3, Funny)

hey! (33014) | more than 7 years ago | (#17348844)

You know a game is pitched at geeks when the front page shouts in large letters: "Now with improved dynamic state propagation!"

Zounds! I didn't know what I was missing!

X-Plane (1)

achesterase (918544) | more than 7 years ago | (#17352798)

With X-Plane [x-plane.com] you can simulate re-entries as well. Not sure how realistic they are, but it's an otherwise very interesting sim - worth a look. It's also available for Win, OS X and Linux.

WINE (1)

clashdot (1034936) | more than 7 years ago | (#17348384)

I tried and failed to get the old game from the "underdogs" to run under WINE/Crossover. Downloading Orbiter now to try it. Did anyone have any success with getting any of the games to run under Linux? Anyway, congratulations to the Shuttle crew!

Re:You can (2, Insightful)

Synonymous Bosch (957964) | more than 7 years ago | (#17350452)

Never even heard of that game before, awesome : )

On another note - I may be a cynic, but it never ceases to amaze me how fast top billing, world shaking, future of space travel, front page news can turn into a slownewsday tag on slashdot.

not so long ago, the discussion would be on if we would ever see the shuttle land again - and if it would be decades before any privately owned spacecraft achieved the same feat.

The First Swede in Space (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17347954)

And Christer Fuglesang was our first Swede in space. He's
a national hero. :P

And he did all those space walks.

Welcome back!

Re:The First Swede in Space (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17348004)

Cool, I was first. /ironfist A.K.A Anonymous Coward.

Fuglesang! (3, Interesting)

Nevtje(hr (869571) | more than 7 years ago | (#17347968)

Välkommen hem!

First swedish astronaut ever. I'm so proud!

Even cooler is the fact that he is funny (not some deeply overserious physics guy)- I very much enjoyed the interview with him from ISS.

Re:Fuglesang! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17348246)

Congratulations, Sweden! :) Yet again you beat us Finns :D but this definitely gives us hope that one day there will be other Scandinavian astronauts in space. I do feel proud of you guys. Once again, from the bottom of my heart, grattis!

Re:Fuglesang! (2, Funny)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 7 years ago | (#17349090)

Maybe Ikea could make a shuttle? So long as you've got one of those hex keys, you'd be laughing. (After getting it out to the parking lot and home, of course.)

Re:Fuglesang! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17348256)

Nice to see the shuttle was full of affirmative action hires... I'm sure most white people will be taken in and believe that blacks have a hope in hell of ever putting their OWN shuttle into space... NOT.

I expect NASA's workforce is about 99% white (or at least, it was before affirmative action - i.e. anti-WHITE hiring practices came into being...)
America has about fifty years left and then it will be just another third world shit hole, caused by all the losers (i.e. non-whites) who are streaming into it every year, breeding like rabbits, and destroying the place... Mexicans, Haitians, Africans, Arabs, Indians... However did the white Americans manage until now without all this 'enrichment'?

The time to do something about it is NOW, because these 'equal' people won't give US any 'tolerance', even though they expect us to 'tolerate' them...

Mods, mod parent troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17348290)

Mods, mod the troll poster (parent) a troll.

Re:Mods, mod parent troll (1)

hey! (33014) | more than 7 years ago | (#17348872)

Wrong kind of troll. You need what in NASA parlance would be a "moderator, goat, billy, gruff, (large)."

Re:Fuglesang! (1, Funny)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#17348378)

First swedish astronaut ever. I'm so proud!

      Will we be seeing a torrent of the mission on the pirate bay? ;)

ugh (1, Flamebait)

theMerovingian (722983) | more than 7 years ago | (#17347980)


They can put a crew up in space, but in order to watch a clip of the landing you have to download the newest RealPlayer... /sigh

Re:ugh (0, Offtopic)

LaughingCoder (914424) | more than 7 years ago | (#17348098)

And what exactly did that cost you? Probably Real subsidized the video distribution. Would you rather have paid to see the clip? If you are nervous about what Real might do to your machine, then you can use a virtual machine and install the Real player into that. Then after watching the clip, exit the machine without saving state and voila - no harm done. I will say that I have not tried this with Real player so I don't know if it will work in this particular case, but I have used this technique with other applications that I don't want mucking around with my machine.

Re:ugh (4, Funny)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 7 years ago | (#17348340)

Don't worry - you didn't miss anything ... the Florida voters did a recount and it turns out that Discovery actually landed in Maryland.

Somewhat unfair downmod (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17349430)

They can put a crew up in space, but in order to watch a clip of the landing you have to download the newest RealPlayer... /sigh
For some reason, the normal NASA TV link wants people (at least me using Firefox) have Quicktime, WMP, and RealPlayer installed before it will let you watch in any format.

However, you can go straight to the streams from the NASA TV landing page [nasa.gov] and pick your preferred format from among those three.

3 shuttles to LEO a year: What a fucking waste... (2, Insightful)

mikelieman (35628) | more than 7 years ago | (#17348002)

Maybe if they could launch a dozen a day it would be a useful thing, otherwise it's just a way to keep NASA employees employed.

Re:3 shuttles to LEO a year: What a fucking waste. (0, Redundant)

mikelieman (35628) | more than 7 years ago | (#17348504)

Why is legitimate criticism of the futility of permitting NASA to continue leading the vanguard of spaceflight modded as a troll?

Re:3 shuttles to LEO a year: What a fucking waste. (-1, Troll)

teebob21 (947095) | more than 7 years ago | (#17348600)

Why is legitimate criticism of the futility of permitting NASA to continue leading the vanguard of spaceflight modded as a troll?

Because you obviously do not understand the complexity and (gasp) dangers still present in space flight. When Columbia burned up, remember the cries for a moratorium on manned space travel? The tortoise won the race, while the hare died in a fire.

How come YOU aren't leading the charge into spaceflight, if its so easy?

Re:3 shuttles to LEO a year: What a fucking waste. (2, Insightful)

mikelieman (35628) | more than 7 years ago | (#17348720)


"Because you obviously do not understand the complexity and (gasp) dangers still present in space flight."

Of course I do.

"When Columbia burned up,"

Proving NASA's inablility to do the job...

"remember the cries for a moratorium on manned space travel?"

From fucking idiots. What does that have to do with me.

" The tortoise won the race, while the hare died in a fire."

You mean Apollo 1, right? The pad fire?

Hey, how could we get from the Earth to the Moon in less than a decade, but NOT GO BACK THERE NOW IF WE HAD TO?

"How come YOU aren't leading the charge into spaceflight, if its so easy?"

Getting NASA out of the process is the first step. Why are you resistant to progressing past the "Apollo Engineer Perpetual Employment Program?", which is now the "Shuttle Engineer Perpetual Employment Program", or maybe the "ISS Engineer Perpetual Employment Program".

How about DEVELOPING some new decent hardware. For the BILLION DOLLARS they waste on a shuttle shot to just LEO, they could spread it around to some hungry emergent tech companies, and see some REAL RESULTS for our investment.

I'm thinking, why do you equate the rightful criticism of NASA to stopping going to space?

NASA is NOT the only way to outer space. In fact, we've seen that NASA is anything but.

Re:3 shuttles to LEO a year: What a fucking waste. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17348762)

"How about DEVELOPING some new decent hardware. For the BILLION DOLLARS they waste on a shuttle shot to just LEO, they could spread it around to some hungry emergent tech companies, and see some REAL RESULTS for our investment."

The restrictions on a private company are even higher than on NASA. It would cost more money than it does now. Having said that, NASA subcontracts significant portions of its work to Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Honeywell, ITT, etc.

In addition, any part sent into space must be highly tested, so they do not use emergent technologies when it is unknown how they will respond in the space environment. Only fully tested and proven parts are used. This applies to everything from the paint used to paint identification numbers on discrete parts to the most complex electronics.

You obviously don't understand the restrictions the government places on anyone who receives government funding.

I AGREE WITH GREATGRANDPAREBT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17349202)

NASA's bloat is a big fucking waste, see spaceship 1 for details.

Re:I AGREE WITH GREATGRANDPARE[N[T (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17350062)

Don't be a turd burglar. Spaceship One almost fucking crashed on it's "successful" flight.

Re:3 shuttles to LEO a year: What a fucking waste. (1)

mikelieman (35628) | more than 7 years ago | (#17349954)


"You obviously don't understand the restrictions the government places on anyone who receives government funding."

So we spend tax dollars for the express purpose of stifling progress?

How did we ever develop the technology and processes to actually land on the moon and return?

Great ! (-1, Offtopic)

golodh (893453) | more than 7 years ago | (#17348030)

I would definately want one for our library.

Why? About a fifth to a third of the textbooks I want aren't available when I want them. They either aren't in the library collection (inter-library loan here we come ...), or they are on loan. The campus bookstore doesn't stock them (surprise) and they'll take weeks to arive if they are in print, or I have to chase them up on Amazon because they're out of print or in backorder.

So ... I'd be very happy with the ability to print any book in the catalogue in 7 minutes. This means of course that we would have the permission of the publishers, but given that I'd be happy to pay for out-of-print or even back-order copies I suspect that the difficulties will be resolvable.

Should this happen then I think that a good case can be made for having the Library install the machine and signing deals with publishers so that the machine can print _copyrighted_ books which the Library would otherwise have to keep in its collection. I can think of several out-of-print-but-still-useful mathematics books that would benefit from wider availability.

And yes, I often want a physical book instead of a file. I much prefer reading text from paper than from a screen, (and thanks to the publishers electronic articles aren't searcheable because you get them as images, so no advantages to be had there), and because I tend to scribble in my books (*coughs* with pencil of course *coughs*), mark passages, and take them with me.

HEY SPACE GEEKS, QUIT WASTING MY TAX DOLLARS (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17348122)

Space geeks waste billions of dollars each year to live out their Star Trek fantasies. Time to cut off their money and spend it on someone more worthwhile. Sea exploration would yield far more benefit than space exploration. Maybe we should even consider NOT cutting social security benefits each year instead of paying for garbage like the Iraq war and useless trips into space.

Re:HEY SPACE GEEKS, QUIT WASTING MY TAX DOLLARS (1)

Ucklak (755284) | more than 7 years ago | (#17348370)

Except when the planet shifts orbit, the whole planet is dead.

Why bbc? (3, Informative)

wik (10258) | more than 7 years ago | (#17348142)

Of all news sources, why the random BBC link? Why not link to the shuttle website [nasa.gov] ?

Re:Why bbc? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17349232)

Because BBC link is in the "News Front Page" RSS feed. It is the "easy target". Most of the so called "news" on slashdot is just regurgitated stuff from that RSS feed lately. Why not just put an RSS->web feed on shashdot's front page instead?

Too bad they didn't land at White Sands (2, Interesting)

ishmalius (153450) | more than 7 years ago | (#17348274)

That would have been an awesome sight, that thing landing in the (relatively) lonely desert. One of the promised features was supposed to be the ability to land anywhere. Unfortunately, things have not turned out that way.

White Sands is a last resort (5, Insightful)

amightywind (691887) | more than 7 years ago | (#17348344)

Some people will find the negative in anything. Nothing wrong with a safe, routine KSC landing. For the record the shuttle has an 1100 mile cross range. It was in a highly inclined orbit, so its landing opportunities were limited. Also there are only a handful of runways in the entire world that can handle it, none of which are equiped with crane needed to place the orbiter on top of the carrier aircraft. A White Sands landing would have added 2 months to Discovery's turnaround for the next launch. If you really want to see a shuttle landing at White Sands, dig up the video from STS 3.

Re:White Sands is a last resort (2, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 7 years ago | (#17349808)

Some people will find the negative in anything. Nothing wrong with a safe, routine KSC landing.

This article came up overnight for me. We really are living in the 21st century here. A spaceship landed on a runway in florida a couple of hours ago and the article is tagged "slownewsday".

Re:Too bad they didn't land at White Sands (3, Informative)

wwphx (225607) | more than 7 years ago | (#17348510)

We were hoping for a White Sands landing as it is 30 miles away from our house. I didn't know that it had previously landed there until early this year I was spending time at the White Sands Missile Range museum. Apparently the sand on the runway did quite a number on the brakes.

I think it might have landed here once while being flown from California on the back of its 747, but I'm not certain.

where?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17348294)

In Florida you say?

Heard the sonic boom.. (2, Interesting)

hex1848 (182881) | more than 7 years ago | (#17348514)

I was hanging out with a couple of buddies here in Tallahassee yesterday after workb and heard a "boom boom" sound which pretty much shook the whole house. All the dogs in the neighborhood started barking. We thought it was an explosion or something off in the distance, I guess this could explain what it was. It was right around 5:30 PM EST (give or take a few minutes).

Re:Heard the sonic boom.. (2, Informative)

cyclone96 (129449) | more than 7 years ago | (#17348942)

Yep, that was it. You get a double boom because of the length of the orbiter (the longest supersonic vehicle there is, with the demise of the Concorde). There's a shock off the nose and one off the tail, and they are sufficiently far apart to hear two booms.

We heard it in Houston at 4:20 CST. A bunch of people at JSC wandered outside looking for it (although we all knew it would be next to impossible to view). Among those craning their necks looking was John Young, who commanded the first shuttle mission (and as an aside, been to the moon a couple of times). I wish I had my camera, it was priceless.

Re:Heard the sonic boom.. (3, Informative)

Amazing Quantum Man (458715) | more than 7 years ago | (#17349000)

length of the orbiter (the longest supersonic vehicle there is, with the demise of the Concorde)

I believe that honor goes to the B-1B. According to Wikipedia, the STS orbiter is 122 feet long, while the B-1B is 137 feet.

Re:Heard the sonic boom.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17349330)

Plus the B-1B adds four crazy-loud F101 turbofans screaming freedom to the sonic boom.

But I have to say, it's amazing that we can stick something 122 feet long into orbit and bring it down in such a controlled manner. Yesterday was the first shuttle landing I've watched in progress (on NASA TV, not in person), and it was quite impressive to think about what was going on watching the track over Texas, curve southward, then swing 330 degrees around to land gently at 200 mph with a human hand on the controls.

Re:Heard the sonic boom.. (1)

crotherm (160925) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351676)


Wrong.. It was another Rockwell plane.... The XB-70 [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Heard the sonic boom.. (1)

Amazing Quantum Man (458715) | more than 7 years ago | (#17352084)

Is it still active or extant?

Re:Heard the sonic boom.. (1)

crotherm (160925) | more than 7 years ago | (#17365186)


They only made two, and one crashed when it sucked in a large bird. High altitude bombers viability were questioned after the U-2 got shot down. Even still, the technology learned on that program was impressive.

My dad was a big part of the flight dynamics... As he was for the B-1 and B-1b.

Re:Heard the sonic boom.. (2, Informative)

rxmd (205533) | more than 7 years ago | (#17353082)

I believe that honor goes to the B-1B. According to Wikipedia, the STS orbiter is 122 feet long, while the B-1B is 137 feet.

The Tupolev 160 is 177 feet long and still in operation.

The XB-70, which is no longer in operation, was 185 feet long, but then the Concorde was 202 feet long.

Re:Heard the sonic boom.. (1)

blixel (158224) | more than 7 years ago | (#17349190)

I live near Orlando and heard it too. It was the loudest re-entry boom I've ever heard. I was at my computer when it came back yesterday and I hadn't been paying attention to the news for the previous hour so I wasn't expecting it. I literally jumped up out of my chair because I was so startled by it. And it was the same here regarding dogs. I could hear a chorus of dog barks all around the neighborhood.

P.S. Congratulations Sweden.

Another Safe Landing (1)

Joebert (946227) | more than 7 years ago | (#17348520)

I don't mean to be a spoil sport, but Shuttles landing safely isn't all that intresting to me anyomre.
I read the headline & thought maybe Florida shot down a UFO, or a larger than usual space rock landed with never before seen minerals, or somthing else that doesn't happen often.

Re:Another Safe Landing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17348592)

At what point did you begin to think that space flight was inherently safe and without risk? Landing a space shuttle is not an easy thing to do, and it's unnecessary to post links of the Challenger and Columbia incidents.

What does it take to impress people like you? You must be a very jaded and depressing person.

Re:Another Safe Landing (1)

Joebert (946227) | more than 7 years ago | (#17348664)

It's like watching Evel Knevel jumping over things on his motorcycle, it gets old after awhile.

Re:Another Safe Landing (4, Interesting)

Anonymous McCartneyf (1037584) | more than 7 years ago | (#17349406)

Normally they aren't that interesting to me, either. But this is different.
You see, after the Discovery had launched and was in space, it was discovered that something had hit the wing and maybe damaged some wiring. When I heard about that, I was afraid then that we might get another Columbia incident.
They set a record on spacewalks this mission because they had to take an extra spacewalk to fix that wing.
And then, this shuttle landed on the very last day it could have safely landed. There was bad weather in Calif. and bad weather in Florida continually up to that day. If it had tried to land through bad weather, it risked crashing. If it had stayed up another day, it would have ran out of fuel and become a very large piece of space junk. So the people in charge of landing this shuttle took a gamble.
So yes, the Discovery landing safely, in one piece, and with everyone onboard alive is news. Excellent news, but news nonetheless.

Re:Another Safe Landing (1)

Rebuke (994145) | more than 7 years ago | (#17353318)

A sensor on one of the wings registered a very small possible impact, below the level they are normally worried about. To be safe, they added an extra inspection of the wing using one of the robotic arms (I can't remember whether it was the shuttles or the stations) - this showed nothing so the shuttle was cleared to return, they didn't have to fix anything...

The extra space walk was to fix one of the space station solar array wings which hadn't retracted like it was supposed to, nothing to do with the shuttle at all!

I'm not sure about the weather, but I believe it could still have landed OK on Saturday, it was after that they would have fuel problems...

Re:Another Safe Landing (1)

Anonymous McCartneyf (1037584) | more than 6 years ago | (#17354998)

Thanks for the info. Since I am not usually interested in space shuttle missions, I didn't have that good an idea of what the astronauts were doing up there.
That NASA didn't think this was a serious problem didn't comfort me. They saw nothing wrong whatsoever with Columbia before it crashed. I don't believe that NASA actually found a solution to the falling foam problem; they just couldn't let it stop missions any longer. (The Discovery mission before this one got some minor dings from falling insulation, if I recall correctly.) All shuttle missions from here on out are risky; and if hits in the insulation are bad, how bad can hits to the wing be?
I am sure about the weather. I had my TV on the Weather Channel on Thursday, and they were specifically talking about the shuttle landing. There was rain in one preferred location and strong winds in the other.
It was Friday night when the shuttle landed in Florida. Saturday was only two or three hours away.

Only 14 More Flights! (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17348550)

For all you space fans out there, I suggest you make an effort to watch these shuttle launches, landings, and ISS construction missions when they happen. There are only 14 more space shuttle flights planned before retirement of the entire fleet in early 2010. All except one (the Hubble Telescope repair mission) will be construcing and resupplying the space station.

Spaceflightnow.com has a nice manifest of future flights (see link below). Number 3 on the manifest just finished.

http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts116/fdf/manif est.html [spaceflightnow.com]

Yes the shuttles have enormous problems (huge costs and long turnaround times, for example), but they are really the most versatile and capable spacecraft ever sent into orbit. After the shuttles are retired, we'll be going back to Apollo-style craft for the foreseeable decades. I for one am glad my child is old enough to be able to see and remember these shuttles flying in their final years.

Re:Only 14 More Flights! (1)

hey! (33014) | more than 7 years ago | (#17348854)

I remember getting up early to watch the very first launch live, with a couple of friends (shows you how public interest in space flight has changed). I'll have to figure out some way to watch the final landing live.

Re:Only 14 More Flights! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17349248)

You can watch space shuttle flights live on the web at www.nasa.gov. Just before a flight is to launch, and throughout the flight and landing, there is always a "Watch NASA TV" link for the flight on the front NASA page. Alternatively, you can click on the "Multimedia" tab on the front NASA page, and find the "NASA TV" link there.

Unlike past years, the NASA TV coverage is now seamless and available in many different formats (Quicktime, Windows Media, and Real I think)--it usually detects what your preferred player is and automatically launches in that format.

Re:Only 14 More Flights! (1)

iamlucky13 (795185) | more than 7 years ago | (#17349360)

Amen. I've watched a couple of them courtesy of NASA TV. Now that the end is tangibly near, I'm hoping to plan a trip to KSC to see one myself before they're all done.

Of course, when we get that far (2016 or so), the massive Ares V's should be able to put on a pretty good show, but without the glamor of hanging that pretty white glider off the back of the stack.

Re:Only 14 More Flights! (2, Informative)

GvG (776789) | more than 7 years ago | (#17350144)

I actually went to KSC to see the last launch (STS-116). It's amazing, I can really recommend it. If you're serious about going there, I'd recommend subscribing to NASA's "Armchair Astronaut" newsletter. That will keep you informed when Launch Transportation Tickets are going on sale. A Launch Transportation Ticket gives you access to the closest public viewing site. For the STS-116 launch they were sold out in about 15 min.

Re:Only 14 More Flights! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17350718)

Versatile? Apollo-Saturn could orbit and land on two different objects, its cargo lifting capacity is larger than the shuttle's by several times, and the real-world cost is about the same per launch. The sooner we get something like that back, the better off we'll be.

This Couldn't Have Been Done (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17349284)

This couldn't have been done without the heroic efforts of Christer Fuglesang.

It crashed my browser (1)

slashthedot (991354) | more than 7 years ago | (#17349388)

The video crashed my Firefox browser twice.

Re:It crashed my browser (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17358854)

Have you tried switching to IE? It must be more stable. Videos never crash for me in it, like i often hear of happening in Firefox.

Can anyone tell me why (2, Interesting)

Traf-O-Data-Hater (858971) | more than 7 years ago | (#17350348)

...on any ISS construction mission on Nasa TV, whenever a spacewalker tightens a bolt or moves a plug from one socket to another, Mission Control goes into absolute paroxysms of congratulation? Is it really that difficult? These guys are in an air-conditioned environment, and as well as having trained for years to be able to do it in their sleep, have their 'boss' tell them exactly what to touch at every single minute step along the way, with no distraction from other work colleagues.

I reckon a vast majority of slashdotters shoved into that spacesuit and given a pouch full of toolbits would be capable of doing the same thing, without the years of training.

I can only wish I had a boss like Nasa leaning over my shoulder and congratulating me for every line of code I write!

Re:Can anyone tell me why (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351368)

Is it really that difficult?

Yes.

Have a few drinks, put on an 02 tank, dive underwater, check your weight for neutral buoyancy, and then try turning a bolt on a million-dollar piece of art made out of material not that much sturdier than a cardboard box. Oh, and put a man with a loaded gun and free reign to kill you outside of the pool.

Spacewalks are NOT easy. I may be under-stating the difficulty/stress combination.

Re:Can anyone tell me why (1)

markjo (977895) | more than 7 years ago | (#17352026)

You forgot to mention that you are also wearing hockey gloves while trying to turn said bolt.

Pictures? (1)

user24 (854467) | more than 7 years ago | (#17350510)

I don't know about you, but I'd love to see some pictures of this "Florida" place.. I mean, if the shuttle has actually landed there safely, are the astronauts going to finally walk on the surface of florida? Are they taking samples back to earth? This is truly a historic day.. the first steps on the alien soil of "florida"...

slownewsday???? (2, Insightful)

potat0man (724766) | more than 7 years ago | (#17350634)

wtf. What's with the slownewsday tag? A successful space mission isn't news for nerds?

better check for aliens! (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351184)

I hope they ran all kinds of multi-phasic scans to check for invisible aliens cuz we don't want them sneaking back to earth on them.......what?!....well what are you thinking of between Stargate Seasons?

How do they get the shuttle on top the 747? (1)

dolphin558 (533226) | more than 6 years ago | (#17355792)

Does anyone know the process by which they get a Shuttle mated to a 747 for transport? Amazing feat.
Check for New 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...