|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"Space Shuttle Gains Remote-Control Landing Capability" from SLASHDOT
Any comments on this? Is this true. Finally the shuttle does not need
those pesky humans! http://science.slashdot.org/article....58246&from=rss |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Space Shuttle Gains Remote-Control Landing Capability" from SLASHDOT
"EricT" wrote in news:Gkj7h.34021$rG.7322
@tornado.texas.rr.com: Any comments on this? Is this true. True. Finally the shuttle does not need those pesky humans! False. -- JRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Space Shuttle Gains Remote-Control Landing Capability" from SLASHDOT
Is this a covert way of extending it's life after 2010?
Jorge R. Frank wrote: "EricT" wrote in news:Gkj7h.34021$rG.7322 @tornado.texas.rr.com: Any comments on this? Is this true. True. Finally the shuttle does not need those pesky humans! False. -- JRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Space Shuttle Gains Remote-Control Landing Capability" fromSLASHDOT
Rich Godwin wrote:
Is this a covert way of extending it's life after 2010? Why? If it's then deemed no-good as a people-carrier, would it still inspire much confidence as a pure cargo carrier? Other than the ability to self-land, it would be the same system, with the same problems. But even so, it's still valuable enough (for all practical purposes, an orbiter is as irreplaceable as a human, as are some payloads) to want to make it possible to at least *try* to land a questionable orbiter, sans crew, rather than just destructively de-orbit it. -- Frank You know what to remove to reply... Check out my web page: http://www.geocities.com/stardolphin1/link2.htm "To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." - Stephen Hawking |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Space Shuttle Gains Remote-Control Landing Capability" from SLASHDOT
"Rich Godwin" wrote in news:1163808762.105445.196430
@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com: Is this a covert way of extending it's life after 2010? No. -- JRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Space Shuttle Gains Remote-Control Landing Capability" from SLASHDOT
"Rich Godwin" wrote in message oups.com... Is this a covert way of extending it's life after 2010? No. It's exactly what the last two sentences said: The remote control landing would be used in the case where the Shuttle was damaged to the point that it would be too risky to land it with humans aboard, but could be landed without humans aboard in an attempt to save the vehicle. The astronauts would take refuge on the ISS while mission control in Houston attempt to land a damaged Shuttle. In other words, it's to give the shuttle a chance of coming back in one piece even if it's damaged enough that NASA won't trust it to return the crew. Jeff -- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Space Shuttle Gains Remote-Control Landing Capability" fromSLASHDOT
Jeff Findley wrote: In other words, it's to give the shuttle a chance of coming back in one piece even if it's damaged enough that NASA won't trust it to return the crew. Why do I keep seeing that last scene in "Doppelganger/Journey To The Far Side Of The Sun" with the damaged orbiter flying straight into the VAB where the next orbiter is being stacked? :-) Pat |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Space Shuttle Gains Remote-Control Landing Capability" from SLASHDOT
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 21:54:45 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote: Why do I keep seeing that last scene in "Doppelganger/Journey To The Far Side Of The Sun" with the damaged orbiter flying straight into the VAB where the next orbiter is being stacked? :-) ....Actually, I concocted a plot twist that would save the film from its fatal flaw: instead of their actually being a "counter-Earth" on the opposite side of the Sun from our Earth, when Sun Probe 1 and the Phoenix/Dove go behind, something - fill in the blank here with your favorite technobabble - reverses the molecules of everything on board, which in turn reverses the perspectives of the crew. It also has them appearing on the other side almost instantaneously so that it appears to Earth that they did, in fact turn back. Which is exactly what they did, but molecularly and relatively reversed. On the other hand, I'd also do the updated, reimaged version in Supermarionation... OM -- ]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Space Shuttle Gains Remote-Control Landing Capability" fromSLASHDOT
OM wrote: On the other hand, I'd also do the updated, reimaged version in Supermarionation... When they return, their wires are coming off the bottom of them. :-) Pat |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"VideO Madness" "Pulp FictiOn!!!," ...., and "Kill Bill!!!..." | Colonel Jake TM | Misc | 0 | August 26th 06 09:24 PM |
NatGeo's "Space Race - The Untold Story"...And you thought "Moon Shot" was bad, kids... | OM | History | 21 | July 5th 06 06:40 PM |
Live From Fascist America: Mind Control and Lies "Kali" Believes Kooky ideas again | Saul Levy | Misc | 0 | March 19th 06 02:36 PM |
Redneck Space Shuttle (was: NASA RELIED on "Cottonelle" toilet paper to launch the space shuttle! ) | Raving Loonie | Misc | 1 | February 23rd 06 07:28 PM |