Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

The Last Atlas 2 Rocket Launch 174

Posted by timothy from the it's-all-x-prize-from-here-on-out dept.
Fiz Ocelot writes "Reuters reports that the last Atlas 2 rocket was launched on Tuesday. The rocket was the last to launch the old-fashioned way. For this launch, the 120-member team was inside a blockhouse 1,400 feet from the launch pad. It was also the end of an era dating back to the 1950s, when most rockets, including early manned flights, were launched from concrete blockhouses adjacent to the pads."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Last Atlas 2 Rocket Launch More

The Last Atlas 2 Rocket Launch

Comments Filter:

  • Replacement? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Wyatt Earp ( 1029 )
    Anyone know what is going to replace the Atlas II?

    Or why they aren't building anymore? 63 launches with no failures is pretty good.

    • Re:Replacement? (Score:5, Informative)

      by FlipmodePlaya ( 719010 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @01:37AM (#10125821) Journal
      From the article: "The Atlas 2 is giving way to the Atlas 5, a more versatile and less expensive rocket that is in contention with the new Boeing Co Delta 4 and other systems to become the primary launch vehicle for NASA's new moon program, which is scheduled to fly in the next decade."
      • What about the Atlas 3 and the Atlas 4? Did these guys take counting lessons from the RIAA?

      • Re:Replacement? (Score:5, Informative)

        by phreakv6 ( 760152 ) <phreakv6@gma i l . com> on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @01:46AM (#10125869) Homepage
        The Atlas V launch system uses the same Centaur stage as on the flight proven Atlas III. More operationally efficient than previous systems [ Atlas II and III], the Atlas V significantly reduces the time required to process and prepare each vehicle for launch, thus enabling greater flexibility in meeting customer launch schedule requirements. The modular design and broad performance capability of the Atlas V family maximize responsiveness to customer performance and mission requirements.
      • What's interesting about the Atlas V is that it uses the Russian-built RD-180 main engine, an engine derived from the RD-173 used on Russian rockets.

        By the way, an interesting tidbit: the Russians developed the rocket engines in an extremely ingenious fashion. Instead of building the rocket test stand out an an open area per US practice, they built a number of special buildings that looked like a regular factory but with extensive exhaust dissipation and noise-dampening systems just right outside Moscow to
    • For those who may or may not have RTFA, it says that they will be replaces by the Atlas 5 [ilslaunch.com] rocket.

    • Re:Replacement? (Score:5, Informative)

      by E-Lad ( 1262 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @01:39AM (#10125834)

      The Atlas 5 is replacing the 2.

      The Altas 5 can be launched in light, medium, and heavy configurations with different types of strap-on boosters and main engine configurations, all interchangable.

      This brings the US more in-line in competing with the French/ESA Araiane rockets. /dale

    • Re:Replacement? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Soko ( 17987 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @01:39AM (#10125835) Homepage
      From TFA:

      The Atlas 2 is giving way to the Atlas 5, a more versatile and less expensive rocket that is in contention with the new Boeing Co Delta 4 and other systems to become the primary launch vehicle for NASA's new moon program, which is scheduled to fly in the next decade.

      Slashdot - the only place you can look like a genius just by reading, and then understanding, the whole freaking article. :P

      Soko

    • Re:Replacement? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      and if the replacement will be using free software?

      No, seriously folks. How do we expect to progress as humanity unless every aspect of our large scientific projects become open and shared? Space exploration is going to stagnate unless they start using open technologies.
      • Space exploration is going to stagnate unless they start using open technologies.

        Honest question - why? The great thing about "open" is that everyone can use and modify it. How many folks have the scratch to run their own space exploration enterprise?

        Now, a high level tech sharing accord between the major players, I could understand, but why on ( or off ) Earth does it "need" to be opened?

        • Well looking at the X project, I'd say there's a few.
          Isn't that enough?
          • while sending a reusable vehicle up 62 miles and then back down, and doing it again in a week is certainly quite an achievement, but it's certainly not in the same ballpark as putting up an ISS or sending a man to the moon. same game, but not really even the same league - it's like your local slow-pitch softball league vs. MLB. someday, i have no doubt we will see true private space exploration, but for now only governments (hell, not even individual gov'ts, rather a semi-global conglom-o) have the means fo

    • Re:Replacement? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Animats ( 122034 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @01:54AM (#10125890) Homepage
      The Atlas III [ilslaunch.com] and Atlas V. [ilslaunch.com]

      Today's launch was the last of the Atlas IIAS line. There were earlier models, and there will be models yet to come. There was an Atlas IIA, an Atlas II, and, of course, the Atlas A, the first US ICBM.

      Meet the Atlas Family [astronautix.com], all 15 of them. First flight of a small prototype was in 1947. The first real Atlas flew in 1957. Alan Shepard flew into space on an Atlas D.

      It's a big pressurized stainless steel can with engines. Still a good design after half a century.

      • Re:Replacement? (Score:5, Informative)

        by calidoscope ( 312571 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @02:15AM (#10125949)
        It's a big pressurized stainless steel can with engines. Still a good design after half a century.

        IIRC, the Atlas V uses a more conventional structure similar to the Thor (now Delta).

        A dad of one of my friend's from high school worked on the Atlas in the early days and had a few stories to tell. One story was how TI got into volume production of silicon transistors - Convair wanted a bunch, TI said they couldn't make that many, and the Air Force said build a plant to make them - the Minuteman project later jump started the IC business.

        Still amazing to see a design as old as I am still in use.

        • Re:Replacement? (Score:3, Funny)

          by MoobY ( 207480 )
          Still amazing to see a design as old as I am still in use.

          Note that this article is all about the fact that the Atlas II is no longer used.

      • Re:Replacement? (Score:5, Informative)

        by red floyd ( 220712 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @02:18AM (#10125962)
        Alan Shepard flew into space on an Atlas D

        No, Shepard and Grissom flew into space on a Redstone.

        Glenn, Carpenter, Schirra, and Cooper flew on Atlas D's.

    • Re:Replacement? (Score:3, Funny)

      by rf0 ( 159958 )
      A very big Catapult

      Rus

  • eh hem.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by maxdamage ( 615250 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @01:37AM (#10125819) Journal
    "The rocket's secret payload belonged to the National Reconnaissance Office, which operates the U.S. network of orbiting spy satellites."

    umm...

  • Yes...but.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @01:37AM (#10125826)
    Does it run Linux?

  • I love that... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Capt'n Hector ( 650760 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @01:38AM (#10125829)
    "national security satellite." Here's hoping this is the replacement for the one(s) that were used to "discover" Saddam's WMD...

    • Re:I love that... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @01:40AM (#10125838)
      Meh. Who needs a satellite when they have Photoshop?
    • No, it's a replacement for the one they use to watch you jerk off while you are driving your car.
    • Yeah, because a "national security" satelitte will be for spying on things outside the US...

      It's probably just an orbiting weapons platform for use of the xxAA anyway ;-)
    • "national security satellite." Here's hoping this is the replacement for the one(s) that were used to "discover" Saddam's WMD...

      But the elections aren't for another couple months... Well, yeah, I guess the new Kerry.. errm... satellite... has to stabilize before it can replace the old, malfunctioning piece of crap that was in an orbit too high and too eccentric...

      -----------

    • Re:I love that... (Score:3, Informative)

      by snake_dad ( 311844 )
      Supposedly it is a data relay satellite, intended to relay intelligence data from other spacecraft to Earth, probably replacing an older spacecraft. A codename "Quasar" is being whispered. See here [spaceflightnow.com]. So, you might be closer to the truth than you thought when posting :)

    • Re:I love that... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by b-baggins ( 610215 )
      Unreal. We discovered Saddam's chemical weapons when he freakin' used them on the Kurds in the 1980s. Now folks like you are honestly trying to get us to believe that Saddam was a changed man. That under the blistering gaze of Bill Clinton, he saw the error of his ways and just got rid of all of them (without bothering to tell the UN inspectors how and where).

      Yes, the question is where are the WMD, and it's a question that scares the hell out of me, because he had them and they're not there now, and that m
      • "We discovered Saddam's chemical weapons when he freakin' used them on the Kurds in the 1980s."

        Um, you want to go back a step or two. Because of course, the relationship between Saddam and Reagan's foreign policy dated back before that, and the U.S. was instrumental in bringing about Iraq's possession of those same weapons.

        Here's Donny Rumsfeld, as Reagan's Special Envoy, shaking Saddam's hand. [gwu.edu]

        The "Saddam was a changed man" argument is what you'd call a "straw man." You're doing an excellent job refut

        • The United States NEVER sold or provided Iraq with chemical weapons. As long as you continue insisting in delusional fantasies, you are beyond the reach of reason.

          Reagan himself explained his foreign policy approach to Iraq as part of a Q&A he gave at BYU in 1990 (I was there). He basically said, Iraq was perceived as the lesser evil than Iran, and Iran was winning that war, so we aided Iraq to keep Iran from conquering them. An Iraq, disgusting as it was, checking Iran was better than an Iran in both
          • Let's review your aggressively ridiculous response to my message:

            the war was to shut down Iraq as a haven for terrorists, and to remove the growing, but not yet imminent threat Saddam was posing to America.

            The threat was growing, but not imminent, you say -- but in your previous post you've claimed he had the WMDs, and that they must be somewhere, and that it really scares you. How baldly, and badly, have you just contradicted yourself? Um, utterly?

            And again, even on your own terms: "the war was to

  • End of an Era? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Student_Tech ( 66719 )
    They mention that it was the end of an era dating to the 1950's, what exactly are they referering too? Are they referering to the fact that the blockhouses are no longer near the rocket? Launching on land?

    • Re:End of an Era? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by E-Lad ( 1262 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @01:43AM (#10125855)

      The Atlas 2 rockets were the first widely-deployed nuclear-tipped ICBMs in the US arsenal.

      They were both tower and silo launched. Many of the old Altas silos are abandoned today, with a few being opened as museums, and in some cases, homes. /dale
    • I think they are refferring more to the fact that the shuttle and all the current launches are administered from remote locations, rather than immediately next to the launch pad

  • atlas V replaces atlas II (Score:5, Informative)

    by phreakv6 ( 760152 ) <phreakv6@gma i l . com> on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @01:40AM (#10125839) Homepage
    More info on atlas V can be found here [ilslaunch.com].
    Check out the launch video here [ilslaunch.com]
    • The audio commentary on that launch is so lame I cringe.

      And the beginning of the full size video reminds me of something from Robocop.

      Maybe NASA needs to source some talent from WWF or NASCAR for these events...

  • well (Score:1)

    by tuxter ( 809927 )
    I don't know about launching rockets, but I know a lot of people that lay cables in concete bunkers adjacent to their house

  • What's old fashioned (Score:2, Insightful)

    by tuxter ( 809927 )
    The rocket was the last to launch the old-fashioned way. What, with boosters, and rockets and things? What's the new fashioned way? There is nothing ol fashioned about this rockets integral functions, just the location of the operators.
    • "he rocket was the last to launch the old-fashioned way. What, with boosters, and rockets and things?

      Maybe they mean the old fashioned way was "Light Touch Paper and retreat a safe distance" "Safe Distance" in the case of Atlas rockets was 1400 ft and behind a concrete bunker. Maybe they ran out of firing operators.

  • At last! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Howzer ( 580315 ) * <grabshot&hotmail,com> on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @02:10AM (#10125938) Homepage Journal

    This launch signals more than simply the end of that particular series of rocket.

    It also signals the end of NASA's two-decade old "Shuttle + Small Rocket" schema. Hooray.

    To put it another way, about *$#&#*$ time!

    The "Shuttle + Small Rocket" paradigm has kept us firmly in Earth orbit for a generation, and is actually (always was) a step back from the 100-useful-tonnes-to-L.E.O. capabilites of the Apollo-era Saturn V.

    This move is a move back to heavy boosters, and can't come soon enough for those of us [marssociety.org] who are keen on "seeing what's out there".

    In weight terms, with 60's technology (ie the Saturn V) we could have lifted the whole ISS in two shots. With the Shuttle (ie the Winnebago of Space exploration) that has had to be stretched out over a decade, cost far more than it had to, and prevented any other human space-flight programs from going ahead.

    Sending up 100 tonnes, and bringing 90 tonnes back (the Shuttle model) was always a dumb idea. If you go to the trouble of sending 100 tonnes to orbit, you should get more bang for your buck than a measley 10%.

    End of an era, well overdue.

    • Shuttlecraft (Score:5, Interesting)

      by uberdave ( 526529 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @03:16AM (#10126100) Homepage
      I think there should be two types of shuttle. First, a personnel shuttle to bring people up and down. Second, for those rare occasions when we need it, a cargo shuttle to bring hardware down (not up, but down). These shuttles, wouldn't be the fixed wing flying brickyards we have now, but a craft with a replaceable ablative heat shield, and parasail/parawing. Cargo would be sent up the way it used to be, as simple rocket payload.
      • If you're going to send the thing up to bring cargo down, it would be a waste not to send cargo up in it too.

        I think what your proposing would actually be something like having only 1 shuttle, a bunch of Soyuz capsules, and some normal rockets (Atlases, Deltas, and also Saturn 5s)
        • If you're going to send the thing up to bring cargo down, it would be a waste not to send cargo up in it too.

          You're right, of course. I was trying to emphasize that the cargo shuttle was not essential in getting cargo up.
      • Couldn't you just dump most cargo into the ocean & pick it up when it lands?

        how much cargo do they bring back anway?

        • You need some sort of heat shield to protect the cargo as it enters the atmosphere. So unless the cargo has its own heat shield built in, you cannot retrieve it without some sort of recovery vehicle.

          Also, why land in the ocean? A parawing is steerable. They could land at the Kennedy Space Centre, or any sizeable airport, or military base.
          • An ocean is a bit larger than Kennedy Space Centre and therefor slightly more difficult to miss.

            But outside of cosmonauts and hubble what else is in space that we want back... well ok the comet thingy they are going to catch with a helicopter, but besides those things.

            My old bartender in the US used go on about "Big Dumb Rockets" rather than shuttles...he's got a point!

    • Throw-weight and stuff... (Score:5, Informative)

      by WegianWarrior ( 649800 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @05:04AM (#10126335) Journal

      ...If you go to the trouble of sending 100 tonnes to orbit, you should get more bang for your buck than a measley 10%.


      A throw-weight of 10% would be fantaastic... (yes, I know you're refering to what's left up there - but it was that line which set me looking for info on payloads vs launchweight).

      - The Saturn V had a take off weight of 3,038,500 kg and could deliver 118,000 kg to LEO - or put differently, a whopping 3.88% of the weight would be payload.

      - The shuttlesystem weights in at 2,029,633 kg (or about 2/3rds of the Saturn V) and can deliver 27,850 kg to 24,400 kg to LEO (used to be more, but was redisgned after the Challenger accident). This puts the shuttle at a measly 1.37% to 1.20% payload left in orbit.

      - The Atlas IIAS had a typical take off weight of 234,000 kg and was capabel of putting 8,610 kg in LEO. A respecable 3.68%, but still below the Saturn V.

      - The Atlas V, which will replace the Atlass IIAS, weights 546,700 kg at lift off, manages 12,500 kg to LEO, which in turns means that just 2.29% of the mass is payload.

      - The Titan II, well known for launching the Gemini spacecraft into orbit, weighted in at 154,000 kg and lifted 3,100 kg to LEO - or 2.01%.

      - The Titan 4, designed to lift 'shuttle sized payloads', weights in at a respectable 886,420 kg, but manages 'only' 17,700 kg to LEO, or about 1.99%.

      - Going tothe russian side, the Soyuz 11A511U2 (for many a year the mainstay of the manned spaceprogram in the Soviet Union), weighted in at 297,800 kg and lifted 7,050 kg to LEO. This places it, with 2.36%, in the same league as american boosters.

      - ESA uses the large, 777,000 kg Ariane 5 EC-A, capabel of placing 16,000 kg in LEO. At a ratio of 2.06% this is no better or worse than most other launchers.

      In short, the Saturn V was a vastly superior rocket - simply because of the economics of scale.

      • Now, personally, I believe that Boeing should not be allowed to do business with the US Govt anymore because of the unethical scams they pulled in the EELV contract.
        (disclosure - I work for Boeing's competitor)

        But you didnt' provide info on the Delta IV. How does it do, TOW/Payload?

        • The Delta IV comes in between 3.51% (Delta IV Large) and 3.45% (Delta IV Medium).

          As for my comment on the echomonics of scale - a bigger rocket will have a better ratio because less weight (realtivly speaking) will be used for the strukture and equipment - leaving more for the payload.

    • I think there are a couple of things missing from your analysis.

      First of all, just because it would take fewer flights doesn't necessarily mean that it would cost less.

      Second, suppose you launched the ISS on two unmanned rockets. Who would put it together? How many shuttle flights would it take to get enough on-orbit person-hours to do the assembly?

      Finally, what about form factor? I haven't been able to find the payload dimensions for the Saturn V, but it might be that the bay in the shuttle is better
      • It's interesting to note that the first few parts of the ISS put themselves together.

        • Ahh, but only because Russia found that it wasn't worth seperating the tug and the module it's transporting. Pretty much, launching autonomous modules that dock together in space is the only way that Russia has to get stuff up.

          Which is fine for a service module or a functional cargo block, but isn't exactly optimal for each and every module of a station, especially given that most reboost operations are done with pidly little engines on a Progres cargo craft.

          Pretty much the design of the ISS is all built
    • I seem to remember SkyLab being two Saturn-V shots in the Apollo Applications program. In the 1970s.

      Now THAT's progress, boys!

      (btw, I'm agreeing with you, if you aren't seeing through the thick layer of cynicism.)

      • Re:Funny... (Score:3, Informative)

        by Carnildo ( 712617 )
        I seem to remember SkyLab being two Saturn-V shots in the Apollo Applications program. In the 1970s.

        Skylab was essentially the third stage of a Saturn V, put up in a single piece. This was followed up by four service flights launched on Saturn IB rockets. These service flights carried crew and supplies, and in the case of the first one, an umbrella to replace the Skylab insulation that had been damaged on liftoff.
    • Huh?

      Your conclusions do not follow from your facts.

      This is a move to another family of incredibly expensive boosters. All it signals is that Boeing realized one thing: Given how #%#! expensive their boosters are, it doesn't really matter how much fuel's in there, it has no real point in optimizing that, nor is it even worth worying about how much metal they are using to make the booster. It simply doesn't matter because the big cost is fabricating the vehicle and spending months getting each and every
      • And building it over and over again because there's not a reusable bolt in there.

        Which would be the best possible outcome, because once you got some kind of mass production going on the stack, then the costs come way, way down. This argument has been demonstrated here [optipoint.com] among other places.

        ... a big booster is not required for space exploration

        If you're talking about robots, perhaps not. But here's a research task for you: look up what an actual rock hound does searching for actual microfossils on eart
        • No, the big dumb booster is only *one* way of getting to space. The point of a big dumb booster is to lower fabrication costs by several orders of magnitude, leaving only material and fuel costs (plus launch range fees)

          The point, however, is that a good reusable booster designed properly will cost fuel costs and maintenence, plus launch range fees. As long as maintenence is less than material costs, it's even better.

          The big reason why building a good reusable booster is so hard is that currently, people

          • any manned mission will contaminate the planet with *our* bacteria

            This is simply untrue.

            If there is bacterial life on Mars, and we went there with _malice_ intent on wiping it all out, even if we shipped all the nukes we currently possess up there to do the job we would fail. Think about how deep in the rock bacteria is on earth. Think of all the hostile earth environments where bacteria survives. Is Martian bacteria likely to be unusually sickly? Not half. In that environment, bacteria is likely to be

      • Your argument is ok, except that Boeing doesn't make the Atlas, Lockheed Martin does. Boeing makes the Deltas.
  • an era dating back to the 1950s
    So, it's not really rocket science anymore then, is it?

  • Spaceflight Now articles (Score:5, Informative)

    by colonist ( 781404 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @02:46AM (#10126033) Journal

    Good articles from Spaceflight Now:

    Atlas 2 rocket retires with remarkable record [spaceflightnow.com]

    AC-167 launch timeline [spaceflightnow.com]

    Launch ground track [spaceflightnow.com]

    Atlas 2AS vehicle data [spaceflightnow.com]

  • Missile house (Score:3, Informative)

    by Xerxes2695 ( 706503 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @03:09AM (#10126089)
    Yes, you can live in an abandoned missile silo [missilebases.com]. Can anyone say nuclear rave?

    • Re:Missile house (Score:4, Funny)

      by mrchaotica ( 681592 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @05:22AM (#10126376)
      from the linked site:
      Very few of these first generation missile sites were built. All other sites decommissioned after 1965 are being destroyed to conform to international treaty agreements. No more structures of this size and strength are being built.
      Stupid G#&-D@#! F#*$!@& international treaties! Always foiling my plans!

      (Actually, I really would like to own a missle silo)

  • Knowing this administration... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Black Art ( 3335 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @03:35AM (#10126136)
    They will replace the Atlas rocket with the Estes rocket.

    Looks about the same as long as you don't look close and lack depth perception.

  • End of an era? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Natchswing ( 588534 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @07:00AM (#10126561)
    I launched three rockets from blockhouses just last year. I wouldn't call it the end of an era. There are still plenty of sounding rocket flights controlled from blockhouses.

    The difference is that we typically have about a 20 man crew, everything from range support to NASA TM to PI and his crew. Check out my lab's photo gallery [erau.edu] for some pictures.

    • You know, that's pretty cool and all but this is /. it doesn't have nukes, hasn't launched a creator of a video game and it's not going to Mars. Man I hope you're running Linux!

      Seriously though your site is interesting but I have one suggestion: you should put a scale of reference in the photos. How big is that RAP thing (I'm guessing the connector is a little wider than a VGA conneector) or the "payload_sampler_smaller" thing. I take pictures of things I design & build at work too and I put a met

      • Of course I'm running linux. If I posted a link to a Windows server in a slashdot article - I can't even consider the consequences. Ragnarok maybe.

        Anyways, good suggestion. Most of these were originally taken for documentation purposes. The connector on RAP is a standard canon connector. That's a 15 I believe, just like a game port on a PC. If you go into the photo gallery itself you'll see human hands holding the RAP payload. There are some pictures of the optical assembly of DEBI that I put a dim

        • Very interesting, although I can't get the video codec for the avi file here at work. Still it sounds like you get paid for nearly blowing things up, which is not bad at all.

          Oh and the Venus Transit photos are quite nice.

          • Well, if I actually blew things up I would still get paid, but it's questionable for how much longer.

            Thanks for the compliment on the transit pictures. They involved a bit of luck and a week of practicing out in the hot sun. A sum total of ~$20k of toys can take some nice pictures.

  • IMHO the name "Atlas" has been kept going as a marketing ploy. The current "Atlas" is as much an "Atlas" as twisted pair Ethernet is the original "garden hose coax" Ethernet. The Atlas has been re-giggered over the years until the only part in common is the concept of using very flimsy pressurized tanks as structural elements. Everything else, engines, boosters, upper stages have all been radically changed several times over. And the reason the success rate was mentioned may be to counteract the Atlas
    • Ya but no one seems to mind the latest Corvette being called a Corvette even though the main thing it has in common with the original is 4 wheels and a gas engine.
      • actually, IIRC even the newest Vette still uses a solid rear axle on leaf springs. granted, the differential is now a transaxle, and the springs are some sophisticated composite, but still...LEAF SPRINGS, like my dad's Ram truck. IRS, anybody?

      • Ya but no one seems to mind the latest Corvette being called a Corvette even though the main thing it has in common with the original is 4 wheels and a gas engine.

        There's also the fiberglass body...

  • Will this also be the end of the Mystery Clouds [space.com]? I hope not. I use them as an opportunity to alarm my neighbors. "HURRY! QUICK! It must be a radioactive puffy thing from the nucular plant!"

Slashdot Top Deals

Never ask two questions in a business letter. The reply will discuss the one you are least interested, and say nothing about the other.

Close