Shuttle Discovery

***gerbick*** · 08-08-2005, 07:53 PM

bwahahaha.

**robbmcaulay** · 08-08-2005, 08:00 PM

Originally Posted by iaskwhy

LOL, I was 11 when they shot Sputnik into orbit.

**lefteyewilly** · 08-08-2005, 08:05 PM

AWWWW, stop picking on the old man. He might fall off his computer chair and break a hip.

Now how would you feel if you caused that?
<raises eyebrows>HMMMM?????? Well?</brows> That's what I thought. Now, i want you to appologize to him. Come on...do it. Can't you see he's about to cry?

**Ask The Geezer** · 08-08-2005, 09:17 PM

You giuys should be the ones worried, not me. I already made it. You've only got about a 50% chance of making it to this age. Think about that while lying in bed tonight.

**zakp0** · 08-09-2005, 01:45 AM

You SO dont sound that age at all dude. You could easily pull off being me :\

And we really should stop picking on grandpa here...I completely forgot he's a moderator

**gesteves** · 08-09-2005, 06:56 AM

Discovery is now Go for landing at Edwards AFB. The deorbit burn is planned for 7:06 EDT (10 minutes for now) in case you wanna watch it on NASA TV.

**Genesis F5** · 08-09-2005, 08:14 AM

They're home. They just landed.

**gesteves** · 08-09-2005, 08:15 AM

Discovery is home

**TheOriginalFlashDavo** · 08-09-2005, 08:25 AM

I have to ask, with all the dough they spend on the space program, how can they really make something that seems to fall apart so easily and requires so many intricate repairs? Seriously, it boggles the mind and I just don't get it...

**admedia** · 08-09-2005, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by gesteves

Discovery is home

Whoooyooo!!!!!!

**gesteves** · 08-09-2005, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo

I have to ask, with all the dough they spend on the space program, how can they really make something that seems to fall apart so easily and requires so many intricate repairs? Seriously, it boggles the mind and I just don't get it...

Yeah! It's not as as if it's rocket science... wait, it is

. I guess we'd have to be engineers and scientists to fully understand how difficult it is to go to space and return safely. But anyway, I just found this interesting read, at least it shows where part of the dough goes:

The right stuff is the software. The software gives the orders to gimbal the main engines, executing the dramatic belly roll the shuttle does soon after it clears the tower. The software throttles the engines to make sure the craft doesn't accelerate too fast. It keeps track of where the shuttle is, orders the solid rocket boosters to fall away, makes minor course corrections, and after about 10 minutes, directs the shuttle into orbit more than 100 miles up. When the software is satisfied with the shuttle's position in space, it orders the main engines to shut down -- weightlessness begins and everything starts to float.

But how much work the software does is not what makes it remarkable. What makes it remarkable is how well the software works. This software never crashes. It never needs to be re-booted. This software is bug-free. It is perfect, as perfect as human beings have achieved. Consider these stats : the last three versions of the program -- each 420,000 lines long-had just one error each. The last 11 versions of this software had a total of 17 errors. Commercial programs of equivalent complexity would have 5,000 errors.

I think that's pretty amazing.

More links

**aversion** · 08-09-2005, 10:38 AM

I remember reading a rant by an ex-NASA employee at the time of the last crash about how the institution has this culture of not listening to the experts it hires (he was one) and just playing politics, leading to massive overspending and safety issues.

He wasn't your normal ranter, he was a well-respected scientist, and if even a quarter of what he said was true then NASA needs (or needed) some serious re-organising.

**gesteves** · 08-09-2005, 11:08 AM

Have you read the final report by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (link)?

It details all the faults at NASA from an organizational and administrative point of view, which for the most part not only caused the accident, but prevented them from saving the crew of Columbia.

But regardless of all the faults that NASA as an organization has, I guess I'm just inspired and amazed by the incredible feat of engineering that the Space Shuttle represents.

**Ask The Geezer** · 08-09-2005, 11:27 AM

I think NASA is the biggest barrel of pork the world has ever witnessed. It's just another manifestation of the good old boy network who's latest bag of tricks includes allowing the very rich to ride along and admire their handywork. What's truly amazing is that while the whole thing is paid for by the taxes of everyone, they only allow the rich a ride on it. Isn't it obvious that the only benifits from spacetravel so far has benefitted those rich enough to pay for them and not the ant people who have financed it with their tax dollars?

**aversion** · 08-09-2005, 11:28 AM

Don't forget those pens that write upsidedown....

(or you could buy a Russian pencil)

**Ask The Geezer** · 08-09-2005, 11:51 AM

LOL, yes, exactly. But I was thinking of medicines that have been perfected in weightlessness, not many can afford them. Or the commsats, which only benefit huge corporations that have the money to put them in geo orbit, for the sole purpose of making more money for the corporation. I really am trying to think of any benefit that the small person who paid for it has recieved, and aside from the misplaced sense of national pride we all feel when a shuttle is launched, I can't think of anything.

**gesteves** · 08-09-2005, 11:52 AM

Tang?

Thread: Shuttle Discovery

Thread Tools

Display

Posting Permissions