Slashdot Log In
Astronauts Hook Up Harmony in Lengthy Spacewalk
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Sun Nov 25, 2007 01:35 PM
from the wish-i-could-afford-a-visit dept.
from the wish-i-could-afford-a-visit dept.
Tech.Luver writes "Astronauts spent seven hours in space to finish preparing the International Space Station for its next addition — Europe's first permanent space laboratory, the Columbus laboratory — which is sitting in the cargo bay of space shuttle Atlantis at Cape Canaveral, Florida launch pad — set to lift off on December 6."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
facebook tracking is getting ridiculous (Score:5, Funny)
(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: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:facebook tracking is getting ridiculous (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:facebook tracking is getting ridiculous (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Another first (Score:5, Funny)
The first space kiss?
Re:Another first (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe the headline was supposed to be "Astronauts Hook Up Via eHarmony in Lengthy Spacewalk"?
(also noting the headline grammar was bad too)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Link to possible intended story (Score:1)
That link is hosed... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/071124-expedition16-third-spacewalk.html [space.com]
Parent
Good (Score:3, Funny)
Correct Link (Score:1)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/24/AR2007112400458_2.html?hpid=moreheadlines [washingtonpost.com]
Its under Related Stories (Score:1, Informative)
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
Ok ok, bad joke.
Re: (Score:1)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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? (Score:1, Troll)
"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
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't trying to admin anything. Just pointing out that you were acting like a douche. Like so:
space lab? more like a low orbit aluminium can (Score:1)
we should be building moonbase by now
Re:space lab? more like a low orbit aluminium can (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Not much news (Score:1)
KSC versus Cpae Canaveral (Score:4, Informative)
Astronauts? (Score:3, Funny)
"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."
Re: (Score:1)
"Astronaut Hooks Up Harmony" or "Astronauts Hook Up Harmony"?
It can't be both.
why is it named "Columbus"? (Score:1, Funny)
Does this mean Harmony has minions? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Really? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Hmmmm. (Score:2)
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 s
Re: (Score:2)
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 ca
Re: (Score:2)
BTW (Score:2)
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 ear
Re:Really? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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 aganc
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
"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.