×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

65 comments

facebook tracking is getting ridiculous (4, Funny)

rritterson (588983) | more than 6 years ago | (#21472569)

Apparently, the facebook tracking system is getting ridiculous. It's even following me to slashdot, and predicting that I dislike facebook tracking and sending me to an AP article about it.

(If this was evidence editors don't RTFA before posting...) Or am I the only one to get an odd story when I click on the link?

Re:facebook tracking is getting ridiculous (1)

skoaldipper (752281) | more than 6 years ago | (#21472623)

Maybe this laboratory will be studying Beacon while in orbit? Or to launch a new more powerful one?

Re:facebook tracking is getting ridiculous (4, Funny)

WPIDalamar (122110) | more than 6 years ago | (#21472675)

Yeah, must be working. I got an article about male enhancement...

the link goes to the facebook article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21472573)

see subject

Another first (5, Funny)

youthoftoday (975074) | more than 6 years ago | (#21472593)

"Astronauts hook up"

The first space kiss?

Re:Another first (3, Funny)

Megane (129182) | more than 6 years ago | (#21472975)

Maybe the headline was supposed to be "Astronauts Hook Up Via eHarmony in Lengthy Spacewalk"?

(also noting the headline grammar was bad too)

Re:Another first (1)

djupedal (584558) | more than 6 years ago | (#21473131)

"(also noting the headline grammar was bad too)"

It appears the author was being lazy and decided to clip content from a caption, one that perhaps read as "IIS Astronauts Barney and Fred Hook Up the XYZ Panels connecting the coke machine Via eHarmony in Lengthy Spacewalk on Tuesday"

So lazy, in fact, that all available editing energies were spent during clipping, leaving nothing to correct the bad grammar that resulted.

Re:Another first (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21475513)

Did you look at the TFA? I tell you, that picture has some serious phallic imagery going on.

Good (2, Funny)

John.P.Jones (601028) | more than 6 years ago | (#21472635)

Good, now they won't need to have all those extra remote control's floating around the ISS, Harmonies are great.

NASA's a Joke! (-1, Flamebait)

BlueMerle (1161489) | more than 6 years ago | (#21472639)

I have watched NASA go from everyone there being a "Steely eyed missile man" to a bunch of shit for brains bureaucrats that only want to cover their own ass.

They need to either give NASA a complete overhaul or shut it down!

BTW, the IST is as big a joke as NASA is!

Re:NASA's a Joke! (1)

mooreti1 (1123363) | more than 6 years ago | (#21472887)

Am I to assume that you meant ISS instead of IST? I don't mean to nitpick but I don't understand what you're referring to. And my thought, for the record, is that NASA is as "steely eyed" as ever.

Re:NASA's a Joke! (1)

Fourier404 (1129107) | more than 6 years ago | (#21473301)

I don't get it, what exactly is NASA doing wrong?

Re:NASA's a Joke! (0, Flamebait)

jayp00001 (267507) | more than 6 years ago | (#21473311)

The question you want to ask is what are they doing right

Re:NASA's a Joke! (1)

Fourier404 (1129107) | more than 6 years ago | (#21473337)

Um, sustaining human life in space and robotic probes on mars? I'd say that's pretty significant.

Re:NASA's a Joke! (0, Flamebait)

jayp00001 (267507) | more than 6 years ago | (#21473377)

And those things couldn't be done better, more efficiently and safer by a private company? Those are the significant things- and that's a sad note. We should be going to mars by now, not sending probes. We should be sustaining live on the moon- not just in temporary space stations. Again, what's been done right?

Really? (4, Interesting)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 6 years ago | (#21473549)

Well, lets look at this. Bigelow has 2 space stations up there. So, I guess that you are correct. Oh, wait. They obtained the technology from NASA for next to nothing (for the amount that they had, it should have cost bigelow 100's of millions). In addition, with 7 years of work, they have 2 stations that are the size of large coffins up there. So, while I expect big things out of them, they are like NASA, having a LONG way to go.

Then we have Spacex. They have launched 2x and are still not in orbit. The amazing thing is that ALL of their tech is a NASA derivative. That is, they did not do the research (though they are doing a bit of their own development). Currently, the payments for these 2 launches come from where? NASA. So, NASA is funding them. In fact, if you have been following the pace of COTS lately, you would realize that Spacex is putting pressure on NASA to give them a contract to service the ISS very quickly. In addition, NASA is likely to select SpaceDev for the second go of COTS2. They have also hinted that they want guarenteed sales to the ISS after they have launched. Considering that they are going to start by using deltas to launch their vehicle, they will have a good shot at 2010 flights.

So, what is the point? It is NASA that is helping to create the private business, not the other way around. If ISS had not been there, then spacex/bigelow would likely not be happening. Oh, BTW, you are aware that they feds have the ability to buy the first BA-330 from bigelow, yes? I am guessing that griffin will push for the first sundancer to be hooked up to the station. After all, it is a cheap way to expand the system, test a private space station, and perhaps ultimately get the funding to put the CAM on to the ISS as well. I am also guessing that Scaled as well as armadillo will get future funding from NASA (far beyond the xprize). What this should point out is that NASA is not hindering getting private enterprise into Space, They are their best partner for it.

Right now, I do not feel that NASA is doing everything correct, but they are finally moving forward again. Even now, I think that constellation the way it is being done, will be a mistake, but it will still get us a true heavy launcher (a delta V is not a heavy launcher; Saturn V, Energia were). In the end, the ASSORTMENT of launchers and finally launch technology (land based vs. airplane launch vs. rail launched vs. ladder) is what will strengthen the west's capabilities.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21473637)

well, as someone who grew up reading sci-fi, all I can say is, the future sure seems lame ... actually, imho, it's not the future, it's just some people who care more about affluence than space exploration, indeed, from what I can see, NASA is just one glaring example, among many, of what's so wrong with the first world

Re:Really? (4, Interesting)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 6 years ago | (#21473725)

First off, you appear to believe that you are unique. Hell, the fact that you hide behind AC shows that you are VERY non unique. As to reading sci-fi, I am guessing that /. probably has a sci-fi readership of just under 100%. Why? Because we are ALL interested in what the future CAN hold as well as what it DOES hold. Sci-Fi is about CAN hold. But if you look at history, you will see the beginnings of sci-fi through out time. In particular, IMHO, DaVinci was one of the greatest Sci-Fi's. The reason is that he envisioned so much about what potential we had and was working towards them. But how do you think that he could afford the time? Well, simply put, he was wealthy. In general, most ppl of science WERE wealthy. That is how they afford all that time. Right now, The west, and in particular, America, affords more ppl the opportunity to persue science. Shoots, The wright brothers flew in 1905. It took another 35 years before we had aircrafts in active warfare and doing VERY EXPENSIVE transportation service. And it was another 20 years before we had jet propulsion civilian aircrafts. And these WERE CHEAP to do compared to a doing a rocket. The hard part is finding the first means of flight. After that it slowly takes place. That is what is happening now. America (and USSR) pushed rocketry for 35 years, then coasted. Now, we are seeing a resurgence in it that will allow only the wealthy to fly. But I know that my children will fly on a rocket to space in their lifetime (not likely in mine). More importantly, ppl WILL be on the moon to colonize most likely within my lifetime, and possibly on mars as well. Assuming that we are not hit by another world war, we will finally be off this planet within 10 years. yes, I believe that private will make it happen before NASA. In fact, by the time that Ares V is developed, SpaceX falcon 53 (or what ever it is using the merlin 2) will be developed and will be landing numerous Bigelow stations on the poles of the moon.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21480123)

Aircraft-based warfare existed in WWI. Perhaps you've heard of the Red Baron?

Re:Really? (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 6 years ago | (#21480521)

That came about at the end of war and had very little impact on WWI. Even the dropping of hand bombs had little to no impact. Study your history.

Basically, aircrafts did not make a huge impact on civilization until WWII (where the air became big (and was everything in korea) ). At that time, DC3's made a HUGE impact as it lead to not only troop support (from 1937 until 1945), but was the basis of nearly all successful airlines.

Re:Really? (2, Informative)

PeterBrett (780946) | more than 6 years ago | (#21473989)

Then we have Spacex. They have launched 2x and are still not in orbit. The amazing thing is that ALL of their tech is a NASA derivative. That is, they did not do the research (though they are doing a bit of their own development). Currently, the payments for these 2 launches come from where? NASA. So, NASA is funding them. In fact, if you have been following the pace of COTS lately, you would realize that Spacex is putting pressure on NASA to give them a contract to service the ISS very quickly. In addition, NASA is likely to select SpaceDev for the second go of COTS2. They have also hinted that they want guarenteed sales to the ISS after they have launched. Considering that they are going to start by using deltas to launch their vehicle, they will have a good shot at 2010 flights.

Firstly, saying that all of SpaceX's technology is a NASA derivative is somewhat obvious -- because all rocket launcher technology is derived, directly or indirectly, from either from NASA's research or the Russian space agency's.


Secondly, NASA hasn't paid a dime towards the two Falcon 1 launches that have been carried out so far -- they were funded by DARPA, because the Air Force wants cheap access to space too (one of the other goals is very fast order-to-launch capability). NASA is helping to fund the development of Falcon 9 (the heavy launcher) because it looks like a there's a good chance that between the space shuttle program ending and Ares coming online, they'll either be depending on SpaceX or the Russians for access to the space station. It's not SpaceX putting pressure on NASA -- it's NASA being enthusiastic about what SpaceX are doing, and worried about the political ramifications of giving billions of dollars more to the Russians to fly twice as many Soyuz missions.


Finally, the reason SpaceX have had two "failed" launches so far is because they're trying to move much more quickly and cheaply than the traditional approach, which is not to launch anything until they're absolutely certain it'll work flawlessly. Getting it Right First Time is very expensive.


I was at a talk given by Elon Musk about SpaceX recently, and he was saying that the way SpaceX is working is making their design work cost a tenth of what they estimate it would cost Boeing or Lockheed-Martin to do the same thing.


I think you're trolling.

Re:Really? (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 6 years ago | (#21474113)

Secondly, NASA hasn't paid a dime towards the two Falcon 1 launches that have been carried out so far -- they were funded by DARPA, because the Air Force wants cheap access to space too (one of the other goals is very fast order-to-launch capability). That is false. First, Musk has openly said that he has used COTS money to help pay for the development on this. But ignoring that, why did Kisteler cost COTS 25Million for producing nothing? The simply fact is that COTS IS paying these ppl to develop these systems. And COTS has sent Spacex something liket 45 Million already. Darpa has been wishy-washy about all this. They paid for part of the first launch, but nothing towards the 2'nd or upcoming 3rd.
It's not SpaceX putting pressure on NASA -- it's NASA being enthusiastic about what SpaceX are doing, and worried about the political ramifications of giving billions of dollars more to the Russians to fly twice as many Soyuz missions.
This is because companies have told the agency that to accommodate industry lead times they need a contract next year. So the US agency intends to place the contract then. [flightglobal.com]
Finally, the reason SpaceX have had two "failed" launches so far is because they're trying to move much more quickly and cheaply than the traditional approach, which is not to launch anything until they're absolutely certain it'll work flawlessly. Getting it Right First Time is very expensive.
Did I say that it was because they were quick/cheap? The truth is that this IS rocket science. Most systems have had 2-4 failures in the first few. My point to the original poster was not that Spacex was failing, but that NASA has been supportive of private enterprise. DARPA/DOD, OTH, has been lukewarm. They have been supportive of EELV with Boeing/LMart, that they allowed to just merge (big mistake for America). If you follow though a number of my postings, you will find that I am a big fan of spacex. But by the same token, credit must be given where due. Ppl here seem to not want to do that.
As to the costs, Yeah, I agree.

Trolling? Hmmm. Do you feel that you have no argument so bad that you need to resort to ad homen attacks?

Re:Really? (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 6 years ago | (#21474513)

Well, lets look at this. Bigelow has 2 space stations up there. So, I guess that you are correct. Oh, wait. They obtained the technology from NASA for next to nothing (for the amount that they had, it should have cost bigelow 100's of millions). In addition, with 7 years of work, they have 2 stations that are the size of large coffins up there. So, while I expect big things out of them, they are like NASA, having a LONG way to go.

Here's my take. Bigelow will get a six man space station up there at some point in the next 10-20 years. And it won't cost anywhere near $50 billion to do so.

So, what is the point? It is NASA that is helping to create the private business, not the other way around. If ISS had not been there, then spacex/bigelow would likely not be happening. Oh, BTW, you are aware that they feds have the ability to buy the first BA-330 from bigelow, yes? I am guessing that griffin will push for the first sundancer to be hooked up to the station. After all, it is a cheap way to expand the system, test a private space station, and perhaps ultimately get the funding to put the CAM on to the ISS as well. I am also guessing that Scaled as well as armadillo will get future funding from NASA (far beyond the xprize). What this should point out is that NASA is not hindering getting private enterprise into Space, They are their best partner for it.

This friendlier stance from NASA is fairly recent. Keep in mind that from around the late 70's up to the 90's, NASA was more intent on protecting the markets of established US launchers. Some more examples are the destruction of what I've heard was called the "bantamweight" rockets (six or so startups quit when NASA introduced its own competitor) and blocking e'Prime from using MX missiles in the 90's (technically by Congress, but NASA would have had a say in what went on, assuming generously that they or their contractors weren't the instigators). Finally, the Space Shuttle was perhaps the granddaddy of this particular breed of bad idea, since at the time it was created, it required the entire launch effort of the 70's era US in order to justify the economics behind the Shuttle program. Fortunately, NASA was unable to suborn the US launch industry to that extent.

I don't understand where the condescending attitude or the claims come from. NASA will grace Scaled or Armadillo with funding? Right. If either gets big enough that it dominates a sector, say as Orbital Sciences did with the Pegasus rocket, then NASA will have no choice but to deal with them. Otherwise, a few million dollars now is worth a lot more later on. And I don't see NASA anteing up except with token amounts for COTS and some prizes. A good start but nothing to brag about. SpaceX got more funding from DoD than they did from NASA, and the funding came earlier.

I think a legitimate concern here is whether NASA will attempt to block competitors, especially for the Ares 1. They do have a history of this sort of thing. Griffin's policy here is nice, but he'll be out in 2009.

Right now, I do not feel that NASA is doing everything correct, but they are finally moving forward again. Even now, I think that constellation the way it is being done, will be a mistake, but it will still get us a true heavy launcher (a delta V is not a heavy launcher; Saturn V, Energia were). In the end, the ASSORTMENT of launchers and finally launch technology (land based vs. airplane launch vs. rail launched vs. ladder) is what will strengthen the west's capabilities.

I can understand the infatuation with heavy launchers. They are more capable than the smaller rockets that private industry has. The cost is in that the rocket only launches 3-4 times a year. All that infrastructure for so little output. IMHO, it'd be cheaper to launch around 6 EELVs now for each launch than to develope the Ares 5. As Bigelow has demonstrated, you don't need heavy launch to get large structures in space. And if there's actual demand for the 20-25 ton launchers, then there will be incentive (aside from just giving "at cost" bids) to build larger commercial launchers.

What I do see as a long term problem with this approach is that there's no guarantee that heavy lift will actually happen. No work has been made towards a heavy lifter now. It's trivial to kill the program, say if someone wants to loot NASA for some teacher union money.

Hmmmm. (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 6 years ago | (#21475001)

Funny. First you do realize that you and I have posted a lot on the space threads and I am generally defending the private space ventures. But in this case ....

Here's my take. Bigelow will get a six man space station up there at some point in the next 10-20 years. And it won't cost anywhere near $50 billion to do so.
First, I trust that you are not saying that the ba-330 is a six man station the way that bigelow claims. Keep in mind that the skylap was 368 m3. IOW, it was bigger than the ba-330. Did it support 6 ppl? Just 3 (though it was expected to support up to 4). So, it will require the full system config to support say 6-10 ppl (2 ba-330, 1 sundancer and the node). Now, will that cost 50 B? No, it might cost all of 1 B in the future. But of course, what was the RD cost for it? The guts of this was paid for by NASA. In fact, had NASA not been doing the ISS, it is doubtful that transhab would have been developed and by same line, that bigelow would not have this. A big part of the 50 b is not the actual placing of items in space, but the RD work on it. In addition, to compare the ISS to even the full bigelow station is also a joke. The bigelow will not have any where near the capabilities of the ISS (for instance power). In addition, it is almost certain that the life support system will be some modified version of what NASA has going into ISS. IOW, again, bigelow will use NASA dollars to do their work. So, to compare these is a real apple/orange situation. ISS was about getting a number of nations to cooperate in putting up a large system and learning to survive in space. Bigelow is about taking others technology and then lowering the costs.

WHile I agree with you that Spacex had earlier funding from DOD, and some support esp in launch facilities, DOD is NOT paying for the development. That apparently is pure Musk.They paid for falcon 1, which cost them 5.9 million. [space.com] Since it failed, musk has had access to the same facility, but all launches are on their dime. I am sure that you remember Spacex's old launch schedule. Do you remember that a few were on there but disappeared? Musk points out that spacex has not lost any planned launches, but that they might change schedule and mission. Read that how you want. NASA, jumped in late with support, but cots has already brought more money to spacex than DOD has. In fact, musk has indicated that COTS paid for much of his development costs. That has allowed Spacex to be able to do more launches.

NASA has been schizoid WRT to private launchers. And yes, griffin will probably be gone with the next pres. But I doubt that cots will disappear. In fact, I suspect that constellation will be more in trouble. Dem Congress seems to want to push small private space as well as robotics. WRT to armadillo/blue shepard, I think that NASA will fund these, because both systems can be converted to landers for the moon, esp. if the companies will convert those to trucks i.e. have the ability to drop a load and take off again. Right now, most of the space designs have the launchers being used for 1 landing and launch. Will NASA willingly give it to them? Nope. But they will because 1 or both of these 2 will be used by the private groups for landing on the moon. NASA will throw their lot in with those that are working. As to NASA getting rid of these systems, well, Ares I will not be available until 2011 at the very earliest (and that is with major money right now), and more likely 2013. NASA may not like these private systems, but they dislike having to deal with a nation that they kept alive for more than 13 years, only to be snubbed and played with. It is in America's interest as well as NASA's to help the private systems.

Finally, a true heavy launcher. Yes, if we are only launching 3-4 a year, then yes, these are too expensive. But Spacex has said that they can do many more than that. They base it on the fact that not only are we shooting for the moon, but we are launching much bigger systems to GEO, as well as they would like to launch more to deep space. Ares V capability would be nice (130,000KG), but it is more likely that we will see Ares IV capability(80000kg). It is about 3x the size of the deltaV/Facon 9 heavy. If spacex can make the numbers work, then we will see the first launcher around 2013-2015 (of course, there is that little bit about making the numbers work).

Re:Hmmmm. (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 6 years ago | (#21475375)

You are apparently right about NASA and SpaceX. Googling around, I see that what I thought was $100 mllion in spending from the US Air Force actually was a cap on a promise for spending with most of the cap uncommited at the time (several years ago). Most of the US AF launches didn't happen so SpaceX hasn't yet gotten the promised money.

I suppose I really was bristling at the implication that NASA can burn through tremendous sums over decades, failing to deliver on a scale that only government programs can manage, and yet we appear to be belittling smart entrepreneurs for using the leavings productively.

Re:Hmmmm. (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 6 years ago | (#21476517)

Don't sweat it. I know that you and I differ on various parts of NASA (esp. ISS as I do support it; just wish that it had not been so expensive, but that was the price of keeping rsa going as well as building up other western space programs).

BTW (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 6 years ago | (#21477359)

Most of the US AF launches didn't happen so SpaceX hasn't yet gotten the promised money.

Keep in mind what I said above. A number of DOD launches disappeared from Spacex site. But Musk has said several times that spacex has NOT lost a single launch. The money will be coming to spacex. Spacex never wanted a free handout (unlike others such as kistler). They simply want the ability to land launches. I expect that Spacex, combined with Spacedev (who I think will win the COTs 2 award) will handle America's earth orbit launches for the 5 years after the shuttle retires. Somewhere around 2011, then Scaled will come on-line. I am curious to see what their costs will be like. I really think that they will be the new winner. Personally, I have always thought that using a rail or an aircraft to start was the right way to go. The reason is that using rockets for that initial speed boost does not make sense. It seems that future aircrafts will be designed to carry rockets up to 60-80K and doing mach 2-3, will be much cheaper than using full rockets.

Re:Really? (0)

jayp00001 (267507) | more than 6 years ago | (#21474791)

While the researc NASA has done is great wouldn't that same research have been done if private companies had a crack at that same money? NASA's function is supposed to be getting commercial enterprise involve in space. The fact that 30-odd years after going to the moon, NASA partnering with private enterprise is noteworthy should show that NASA isn't doing their part. I'd be ecstatic if all NASA did was research and let other folks build and run the missions. Instead we get half baked research and shoddy mission control/execution.

Re:Really? (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 6 years ago | (#21475027)

Much of that research IS private companies (L-mart and Boeing being just 2 examples). In fact, very little of the r/d is carried out by "NASA" itself. If you like, you can apply for a number of grants from them. I have considered it for an automated farming system idea that I have had. As to half-baked research/shoddy mission control/execution, please give examples. Please show where more than 10% of the money is wasted (which would be far less than what an efficient small business wastes). Likewise, what shoddy mission control/execution are we talking about? Perhaps the Apollo1/challenger/columbia incidents?

Re:NASA's a Joke! (3, Informative)

Chris Tucker (302549) | more than 6 years ago | (#21473369)

They are doing what they have been tasked to do by Congress, with the monies provided to them by Congress.

They may not be doing it the way YOU want. Tough. Sucks to be you.

Why not run for Congress, win a seat, and work your way up to be the chair of the comittee that funds NASA.

Then they will have to do things YOUR way.

Forgive me if I don't hold my breath waiting for THAT to happen anytime soon.

Re:NASA's a Joke! (2, Informative)

jayp00001 (267507) | more than 6 years ago | (#21473415)

As a civilian agency they better not be following congressional orders. You can find the text of the act that created NASA here http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html#POLICY [nasa.gov]. They're purposed as a civilian agency with congessional oversight. They get money from congress- not orders.

Re:NASA's a Joke! (2, Informative)

Chris Tucker (302549) | more than 6 years ago | (#21474023)

Yeah. Sure.

If NASA decided to do something of which Congress disapproved, how much longer would the NASA budget be funded?

Bush says, "YEEHAW! We's goin' to MARS!", NASA says, "Yassah, master George!" Bush tells Congress, "Yew boys don't spend too much on thishere Mars thing, hear?" and Congress says, "Yassah, master George!".

Or, more to the point. DOD told NASA EXACTLY what the dimensions of the cargo bay were going to be, and what the lift capacity of the Shuttle would be.

So much for being a civilian agancy.

I stand by my previous statement. They do what Congress tells them to do. Congress tells them what to do via the budget.

Re:NASA's a Joke! (1)

jayp00001 (267507) | more than 6 years ago | (#21474577)

NASA's budget is a pittence. What would congress do cut it some more? Note that the DOD requirements are a part of the charter.

Re:NASA's a Joke! (1)

Chris Tucker (302549) | more than 6 years ago | (#21474781)

So much for their so-called "civilian" status and independence.

Re:NASA's a Joke! (1)

jayp00001 (267507) | more than 6 years ago | (#21475131)

Yes, there are provisions for DOD requirements to take precedence. This does not make them somehow less independent as DOD requests are fully integrated into the charter. Also note that the DOD spec you mention was simply on how small the bay could be- not how large. There was also nothing stopping NASA from building a smaller one first had they so desired.

Re:NASA's a Joke! (1)

Chris Tucker (302549) | more than 6 years ago | (#21475333)

"There was also nothing stopping NASA from building a smaller one first had they so desired."

"Hello, Congress, NASA here. Hey, look. We're gonna go ahead and build a smaller Shuttle than what DOD wants and use the money appropriated for the bigger Shuttle to do that. That's cool with you guys, right? You're cool with that, right?"

Yeah, I can see that happening.

MORANS (-1, Troll)

MilesNaismith (951682) | more than 6 years ago | (#21472651)

Slashdot continues to devolve.

LINKY NO WORKY!

Re:MORANS (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 6 years ago | (#21472885)

That's what they get for choosing evolution. Should have chosen intelligent design, which can't devolve!

Re:MORANS (1)

Cassius Corodes (1084513) | more than 6 years ago | (#21474793)

Isn't it the other way around? The ID crowd says only devolution can occur? Perhaps slashdot can be used as evidence for their cause?

Its under Related Stories (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21472839)

It looks like a mis-post got promoted to the front page, and the corrected post is under related stories. Here is the link:
http://techluver.com/2007/11/25/astronauts-hooks-up-module-in-lengthy-spacewalk/ [techluver.com]

Looks like even the original story is missing that apostrophe :Astronaut's hooks up module in space.

Ok ok, bad joke. :p

Re:Its under Related Stories (0)

djupedal (584558) | more than 6 years ago | (#21473213)

Ok, so C.Taco comes in as anonymous, and tips a correction, pretending to be a 'Good Samaritan', then he quickly mods it up, so everyone can see it - not sure if this was what the board had in mind when they told Taco to 'improve transparency'.

Why not just go and make the correction instead? Or is it true that the backend is so convoluted-ly broken that you can't, and we're just seeing another example of that particular Achilles heel?

...weak boys, very, very weak.

Re:Its under Related Stories (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 6 years ago | (#21473879)

um, you're whining.

Just so you know.

If you're gonna whine, it might be better to use email and send it directly to the person(s) who can do something about it. That way, you don't come across as such as douche.

Can you hear me now? (0, Troll)

djupedal (584558) | more than 6 years ago | (#21473987)

Editorializing (sarcastically, to be precise), but to someone w/their pointy little head up their scab riddled ass, everything sounds like whining, I suppose.

"it might be better to use email and send it directly to the person(s) who can do something about it."

And you, my dear Pope, are 'list-momming' - acting out a police fantasy, in public no less (-10 points). Ouch. Coupled with a not-so obscure attempt to kiss up to management (+10) makes you a ...(wait for it)... Z E R O!. Let me be the first to tell you that admins despise wanna-be admins more than any other bottom-feeding user types, so don't be at all surprised to see your karma drop before the weekend is over.

Re:Can you hear me now? (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 6 years ago | (#21475177)

so don't be at all surprised to see your karma drop before the weekend is over.
I wasn't trying to admin anything. Just pointing out that you were acting like a douche. Like so:

Editorializing (sarcastically, to be precise), but to someone w/their pointy little head up their scab riddled ass, everything sounds like whining, I suppose.

"it might be better to use email and send it directly to the person(s) who can do something about it."

And you, my dear Pope, are 'list-momming' - acting out a police fantasy, in public no less (-10 points). Ouch. Coupled with a not-so obscure attempt to kiss up to management (+10) makes you a ...(wait for it)... Z E R O!. Let me be the first to tell you that admins despise wanna-be admins more than any other bottom-feeding user types, so don't be at all surprised to see your karma drop before the weekend is over.
And I suppose that the admins just adore users who do... uh, whatever it is your above comment was attempting. Either way, you've established my point much better than I could have done without your assistance.

Re:Its under Related Stories (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21474345)

Back in the oven, jew.

space lab? more like a low orbit aluminium can (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21472959)

if this is our best, lord help us

we should be building moonbase by now

Re:space lab? more like a low orbit aluminium can (3, Interesting)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 6 years ago | (#21474033)

if this is our best, lord help us. we should be building moonbase by now

What's wrong with a low orbit aluminium can? That's exactly what a space station should be. A moonbase would just be an aluminium can on the moon. Certainly we should have them by now, but at least we're back on the right track after the unfortunate spaceplane fad of the last 30-odd years.

The problem with building a moon base isn't the components. We know how to build those. NASA can build them, so can the Europeans and the Japanese and above all so can the Russians. Launching them is easy too. Once in orbit it wouldn't be hard to send them on to the Moon - rendezvous with a separately launched booster stage and off you go. Getting down in one piece would be an interesting challenge, though.

The big problem isn't so much in building a station as in maintaining one. ISS relies on frequent resupply rockets from Earth. That's Progress supply ships from Russia, small unmanned capsules crammed with equipment and consumables; these are soon to be replaced by European cargo ships of considerably greater capacity. There are plenty of rockets available to launch such large ships to ISS. There are no rockets available to launch them to the Moon.

This is where we're getting back on track. You'll have heard of the new Constellation project: NASA are going back to basics with capsules launched on big dumb boosters. Orion spacecraft, launched on two Ares rockets - one small rocket intended for launching manned spacecraft to LEO, one big rocket intended for launching cargo to LEO. That cargo can itself be a rocket; dock the manned ship with that rocket, and you're off to the Moon. This is a much better way of doing things. Even if the Moon project comes to nothing, you're not left with an expensive monster like the Saturn V with few no non-lunar applications - you have a perfectly good lightweight man-rated lifter, and also the mother of all cargo rockets. With something like Ares V, ISS could have been built in a lot less time with far fewer launches.

Not much news (1)

Takichi (1053302) | more than 6 years ago | (#21473069)

From the articles other people have posted and this one [nasa.gov], there doesn't seem to be much to report other than they did some prep work. The shavings are still a problem, the moon is pretty, and they did some cooling systems work.

KSC versus Cpae Canaveral (4, Informative)

ExportGuru (130832) | more than 6 years ago | (#21473101)

Shuttles launch from NASA Kennedy Space Center Launch Complexes 39A and 39B, and not from Cape Canaveral, a geographical feature separated from KSC on Merritt Island (mostly) by the Banana River lagoon. The launch complxes on Cape Canaveral and the "Skid Strip" there are part of the Cape Canaveral Air Forse Station. Let's get it right. NASA can use the credit for what it has and does at KSC. - I used to work at KSC and still live nearby on Merritt Island.

...In lengthy spa? (0, Offtopic)

Filthio (1013357) | more than 6 years ago | (#21473243)

I likes the LOLcats-style title. I was less pleased that my rss feed promised me a lengthy spa, and all I got to read about was a lengthy spacewalk. Ah well.

Jus' Sayin' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21473299)

"Wow it's almost a full moon," said Whitson..."

"Yeah,...it's very close," said Tani..."

No wonder NASA's in no hurry to get to mars. Is Lover's Leap next?

Astronauts? (3, Funny)

achenaar (934663) | more than 6 years ago | (#21473621)

OK which is it:
"Astronaut Hooks Up Harmony" or "Astronauts Hook Up Harmony"?
It can't be both.
Also, can you imagine the instruction pamphlets on those suckers?
"Insert rod C in slot F adhesive adding after pressure applied good."

Editors Dont Edits Slashdots Posts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21473659)

Editors Dont Edits Slashdots Posts

Re:Astronauts? (1)

danlock4 (1026420) | more than 6 years ago | (#21475663)

OK which is it:
"Astronaut Hooks Up Harmony" or "Astronauts Hook Up Harmony"?
It can't be both.
That's correct. However, TFA says (in both the article and the address) "Astronauts Hooks", so I guess it's both.

Re:Astronauts? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21476805)

"Harmony" is the subject.

why is it named "Columbus"? (2, Funny)

deftones_325 (1159693) | more than 6 years ago | (#21473685)

Do they expect that it will detach itself from the space station in search of a new world...appoint itself govorner of said new world, then return in shackles to be made prisoner by the spitefull europeans?

Does this mean Harmony has minions? (1)

Jim in Buffalo (939861) | more than 6 years ago | (#21474391)

Sorry, the name "Harmony" means "perpetual joke vampire character on Buffy" to me.

Re:Does this mean Harmony has minions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21475471)

The fact that you watch something called "Buffy" makes your post mean absolutely nothing to me.

ouch.

That I posted this anonymously in all likelihood makes this post mean nothing to you... but rest assured... most of the normal world adheres to the view expressed above; that the opinion of a loser is worth less than the sum value of its creator's thoughts... nada.

double ouch.
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...