Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
NASA Space Science

Shuttle Delayed Due to Cloudy Skies 208

Posted by CmdrTaco from the pins-and-needles dept.
PunkOfLinux writes "The shuttle won't be coming down until Tuesday, due to a decision by NASA that the weather was not good enough for re-entry. After the first two attempts, at around 4:45 and 6:25 this morning, NASA called off today's landing."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Shuttle Delayed Due to Cloudy Skies More

Shuttle Delayed Due to Cloudy Skies

Comments Filter:

  • And (Score:3, Interesting)

    by PunkOfLinux ( 870955 ) <mewshi@mewshi.com> on Monday August 08, 2005 @08:07AM (#13268373) Homepage
    I woke up at 4 in the morning to watch this...
    Well, let's just hope nothing goes wrong with this.

    I really wanted to see it land...

    • Re:And (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Great to see it was postponed! I didn't wake up to watch it.

    • Too much second guessing? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by John Seminal ( 698722 ) on Monday August 08, 2005 @08:59AM (#13268615) Journal
      I remember back in the 70's and 80's when test pilots for the air force flew fighterjets that were considered "unstable" and the air force wanted to test different designs. The common understanding was, there is a greater chance of it crashing than landing. Yet, many good pilots wanted the chance to fly. What motivated them even when they knew there was a greater chance of crashing than landing?

      There are some jobs that are very dangerous.

      Can man make a shuttle that is perfect, that will never have a mishap? Does anyone know the statistsics, of how many launches and how many crashes? I am just guessing, but I would think NASA has an over 90% success rate. If that was my college physics class, I would be jumping up and down with joy. It is not like these astronauts took "physics for poets". They studied their topics in great detail, and they know it.

      Getting back to my analogy. If the old air force test fighter pilot program had a failure rate over 50%, and NASA is under 10% failure (just a guess), then perhaps what is needed is a new understanding. Congress did not shut down the test pilot program because of accidents, it was considered too important. What is NASA? Eye candy? Do they want to put on a show, where the first injury causes a shut down? Or do they want to explore space, learn, and understand there will be terrible accidents along the way.

      There is a great quote NASA should try and understand better. Life is the master teacher. Unfortunatly, it gives the tests first, and the lessons second.

      • I don't have a reliable source for this, but supposedly there is around a 1 in 200 chance of something going fatally wrong on a shuttle flight. I believe NASA is working on somewhere around 120 space shuttle missions; Challenger and Columbia are the two where the crew has been lost. Those are the only two that I can think of--if they're the only two, then the chances are 1.6% right now of something going wrong.

        I would be extremely happy if the astronauts made it down safely, but chances are working against

      • Re:Too much second guessing? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by DerekLyons ( 302214 ) <fairwater@@@gmail...com> on Monday August 08, 2005 @04:06PM (#13272760) Homepage
        I remember back in the 70's and 80's when test pilots for the air force flew fighterjets that were considered "unstable" and the air force wanted to test different designs. The common understanding was, there is a greater chance of it crashing than landing. Yet, many good pilots wanted the chance to fly. What motivated them even when they knew there was a greater chance of crashing than landing?

        There are some jobs that are very dangerous.

        That's true - but it's only half the story.

        While they accepted the tests as dangerous - they didn't go out of their way to make them more dangerous. If the weather was bad - the flight didn't take place. If the hydraulic system on the plane was iffy - the flight didn't take place. etc.. etc...

        Can man make a shuttle that is perfect, that will never have a mishap? Does anyone know the statistsics, of how many launches and how many crashes? I am just guessing, but I would think NASA has an over 90% success rate. If that was my college physics class, I would be jumping up and down with joy.
        In the flight test business a sucess rate of only 90% would be considered an utter failure. (Even in the 1950's when the crash rate was at it's highest while we were trying to get a handle on jet engines, supersonic flight, new stability problems etc... etc..) Contrary to popular belief Flight Test isn't about flying in the face of risk - it's about calculated acceptance of risk. Killing pilots teaches you nothing and wastes a trained pilot.
        There is a great quote NASA should try and understand better. Life is the master teacher. Unfortunatly, it gives the tests first, and the lessons second.
        When it comes to iffy weather and aviation, the tests and lessons were completed decades ago. NASA waved off the landing oppurtunity because those lessons are long learned. ("Landing in iffy weather kills - don't do it if avoidable.")
    • I just left NASA TV running on my laptop while I slept. Every now and then I'd wake up and hear what was going on, and at some point, I could tell they weren't going to land, so I turned off the stream and went back to sleep.

      I kind of wanted to see if I could see something of it as it re-entered. Here in Texas, it would probably already have passed the glowing heat shield stage before it was in view, but I wanted to try.

      • Since the orbiter was to approach on the south->north leg of the orbit rather than the north->south leg, It was to pass over south america and cuba on its way to kennedy. You would've needed a very powerful telescope (with magical horizon adjuster) to see any part of the landing from texas.

  • Shoulda gone Canadian (Score:5, Funny)

    by ndg123 ( 801212 ) on Monday August 08, 2005 @08:08AM (#13268384)
    I hear they don't mind you landing in bad weather north of the border.
    • pff Survivors in Toronto's crash last week 100% survivors in NASA's last crash 0%...

      not trying to start a flame war here.. But seriously I don't understand how people can not take the fact that when a plane crashes and blows up and EVERYBODY survives it's a good thing...(chalk one up to the engneers who designed the plane so people could get out fast enough) why does the media have to paint such an evil picture on everything?

      So NASA waits a day to land.. good for them.. God knows what will happen t
      • There's a saying in the airplane industry expressing that idea:

        Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing.

      • Re:Shoulda gone Canadian (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Smidge204 ( 605297 ) on Monday August 08, 2005 @11:00AM (#13269472) Journal
        pff Survivors in Toronto's crash last week 100% survivors in NASA's last crash 0%...

        Not to downplay the survival rate of that particular crash, but let's put things into persepctive:

        Flight 358 had just touched down and failed to stop before running off the runway and into a ditch at less than 90 MPH.

        Columbia was travelling at roughtly 18,000 MPH when the heat basically melted the craft, causing it to disintegrate.

        That's a pretty rough comparison. Having said that, how many commercial aircraft have exploded mid-flight and had any survivors? And none of them were going 18,000 MPH!
        =Smidge=
    • Sure, they may not seem like much. But the last crew died because of a piece of foam.

      Time to start sending our engineers to Russia to learn a thing or two about resilent design.

      -Eric

      • You'd be surprised how much damage a piece of foam can do when it hits you at Mach 1.
        • Well, seems like the thing to do then is to put the heat shield where you don't have to worry about it being hit by anything.

          You know, like Soyuz or Apollo.
          • ... or like the CEV. It's called "learning from your mistakes". This particular mistake hadn't been made before. It's been made now. Learning has been acquired.

            There have been a lot of lessons of the shuttle program beyond debris (and beyond the huge amount of research that's gone on, much of it with general rocketry applications). Here's just a couple:

            * - Inline the engines with the center of mass of your craft. The shuttle has a low center of mass due to being side-mounted, but the engines a

  • Good luck to them (Score:5, Insightful)

    by janek78 ( 861508 ) on Monday August 08, 2005 @08:09AM (#13268385) Homepage
    I hope they get home safe. When I read about the ISS positioning itself for the first time in two years thanks to the gyros repaired/replaced by Discovery, I realised how amazing this mission was. Not just a prove that shuttles can fly again. MISSE experiment, supplies to ISS, repair works, a new platform. What an achievement! Kudos to all involved. Good luck coming home.
    • NASA is Kozmo reincarnated.

      Although with really crappy service.

    • I agree- let our prayers or good thoughts, whatever your inclination, be with the astronauts.
      After the seven Russians escaped their tangled sub, I breathed a sign of relief. Hopefully we will all be able to feel the same when the Discovery touches down safely.
      I just sincerely hope that there is nothing wrong with the shuttle, as our Russian Friends have offered to bring down our Astronauts if need be. As much as I would like to see the Shuttle land under its own power, who else, who lived through the 80s,
    • Bah! Why is nobody amazed when I experiment with gas/air mixture, change oil, change the water pump, and put in new shock absorbers??? My car can now position itself too!

  • Better safe than sorry (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Crixus ( 97721 ) on Monday August 08, 2005 @08:09AM (#13268386)
    It's certainly better to be safe than sorry. And NASA is certainly going to be extra careful on this, the first launch after the accident, but I wonder if they would have landed in these conditions before?
  • But nature is one of the last things man has yet to conquer and is still heavily vulnerable to.. now to invent the weather control devices they described in Star Trek... [memory-alpha.org]

  • Level of care (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Henry V .009 ( 518000 ) on Monday August 08, 2005 @08:10AM (#13268400) Journal
    Are they being ultra-careful with this, or is this just normal-careful? I imagine that it's the second, but this mission has been weird so far. One of the hazards of being ultra-careful with the weather would be that you reject all the okay opportunities to land and have to take the worst at the end. Or land in Texas.

    • Re:Level of care (Score:2, Informative)

      by tadmas ( 770287 )

      Are they being ultra-careful with this, or is this just normal-careful?

      I think they're being ultra-careful. From what I've heard, they would normally land in these conditions.

      However, they really don't want to take a chance. Imagine if something did go wrong: the public outcry would be so big that it would virtually mean the end of manned space flight for a very long time, and that's not something NASA wants to risk.

    • well, if you had R'd TFA you would know that the backup landing sites are in California and New Mexico, and if Florida still has bad weather they want to try and land somewhere tomorrow.

    • Re:Level of care (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The landing conditions are within NASA safety range - but they aren't great. On earlier missions they most likely would have scrubbed the first landing attempt as well. This is routine and has happened many times before.

      Tomorrow they will most likely try to land - either at Kennedy or Edwards but if the weather is bad they will likely scrub again and go for Wednesday. On Wednesday they will land unless it's really bad. Then (this is assuming that Kennedy, Edwards and Mexico are out) there are a number
    • . One of the hazards of being ultra-careful with the weather would be that you reject all the okay opportunities to land...

      As they say, the best is an enemy of the good.

  • Guess I chose the wrong day (Score:5, Funny)

    by Silver Sloth ( 770927 ) on Monday August 08, 2005 @08:11AM (#13268402)
    to give up glue sniffing

  • They are sh*ting their pants (Score:3, Insightful)

    by guruevi ( 827432 ) on Monday August 08, 2005 @08:11AM (#13268404)
    TFA: The cloud cover, although within NASA's safety limits for landing, was enough to make mission controllers uncomfortable about attempting a Monday touchdown in Florida. They must be really scared. Whole mission long they are scared to land, scared to do this and that because of the previous accident. Get over it! Space is dangerous and if you are scared, don't go there, there are enough chinese/russians/europeans to go there without that fear.
    • This isn't a matter of fear - it's a matter of managing perceived risk/benefits. If the shuttle were to crash again it would be a massive PR disaster - as well as somewhat upsetting for the loved ones of those who would die who know and accept the risks

      To give an analogy - if I drive around the block rather than make a dangerous turning then I'm a safe and carefull driver - not a coward.

  • Do they haul out the experiments and try and get some work done, or do they surf space porn for the next few hours while they wait? It's a mystery to me.
    • Go to sleep.
      ---
      The only thing I hate more than a hypocrite is a person who hates hypocrites.
      Generated by SlashdotRndSig [snop.com] via GreaseMonkey [mozdev.org]
    • According to the commentator on NASA TV, they have about 4 hours of shutdown procedures to go through after a wave off. They shutdown many onboard systems to conserve power. They also reposition the shuttle to an inverted attitude again so that the underside of the orbiter faces the sun. This is to keep the temperature of the tires and landing gear up prior to reentry. They will reverse all procedures one again 4 hours prior to the next landing window.
  • Right now the astronauts are sitting in the shuttle, wondering when it's going to land. NASA has probably given them some B.S. story about 'technical difficultys' and passing out free headphones so the passengers can watch the crummy in flight movie.

    Hopefully, some of those astronauts will make a fuss and get their next ticket for free, or, at the very least NASA will upgrade them to 1st class when (and if) they chose to fly NASA again.

  • Why the mission has been so eventuful (Score:5, Interesting)

    by psyklopz ( 412711 ) on Monday August 08, 2005 @08:25AM (#13268457)
    Most would likely agree that this mission has been more 'eventful' than many in the past. And I'm sure most would agree that the general public (if they care at all) are getting more and more of a feeling that the shuttle 'just isn't doing it for me anymore'.

    And that may be exactly the point.

    Now, granted, NASA wants a safe mission. But several of these problems may have simply been overlooked in the past because space exploration is inherently dangerous anyway, so some risks are accepable.

    There is actual politcal value in a mission that seems plagued with problems. I'm getting the general feeling from the media that it's almost all NASA can do to get this thing up in the air one more time.

    If enough people get the same feeling, NASA could seem very justifiable to request mroe money for a shuttle replacement. And maybe that's the real goal of this mission.

    that's my conspiracy theory for the day :)
    • That kind of plan could easily backfire into a "Why do we need the freaking space program anyway. If they can't even do these simple things right, let's just forget the whole thing." mode of thinking. Not feeling in the least, but it certainly could be one outcome of this mission with all of it's "problems".
      • I have heard several times on the radio and know that several articles have been written questioning the space progam's usefulness. We spend countless amounts of money on space exploration and short of the satellites alot of people believe that very little has been gained. Granted I do not feel this way, there are alot of people who do.
        • You have a very good point.

          A lot of people also don't see the need for taxes, since it doesn't impact their lives in any way that they can see "directly." Fortunately, there are those of us who know better.

          (note: not saying the tax system is perfect, just making a general point..)
    • "Most would likely agree that this mission has been more 'eventful' than many in the past. "

      No. Anyone who has studied the space program will tell you that every single mission is eventful. The difference is that this flight has had more attention. The astronauts on STS-114 can't break wind without getting mentioned on a news report or weblog. Hell, look at Slashdot here, we've had more coverage for this space flight then I think we've had for any other single event, ever.

      Why? Because the last shuttle
  • According to TFA, the amount of cloud cover is within safety limits, but is making controllers nervous. Also according to TFA, the weather forecast for tomorrow is the same. Just how long can the shuttle stay up there before they need to use the alternate site in California?
    • Of course, they'd be most comfortable with a daylight landing with clear visibility even though the ship is fully equipped for landing in IMC.

      I'd wager that they'll be landing in California this time.
      • Not so. According to Wayne Hale, Space Shuttle Deputy Program Manager, most of the shuttle commanders prefer night landings due to generally better weather conditions and less distraction from visual stimuli on approach. He made this statement while responding to a query from a reporter during a press briefing at the Johnson Space Center.

        The reporter phrased his question in a way that made it sound like NASA had intentionally scheduled a night landing to avoid a live televised disaster. What a prick.

    • Re:How long? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Flounder ( 42112 )
      They should have purchased that cloud insurance. You just know those clouds are planning something.
    • According to the Weather Underground web page, the weather for Melbourne, Florida (the closest large city to Cape Canaveral) will have more than 50% chance of thunderstorms over the next week. I then checked the report for Palmdale, CA (the closest large city to Edwards AFB) and they only have a 20% chance of thunderstorms, mostly in the late afternoon.

      As such, I wouldn't be surprised that NASA decides to land Discovery at Edwards AFB just after dawn PDT tomorrow morning.

  • ...the media is going to be all hyped up about how the 'daring' astronauts 'managed' to land despite the 'problem' with the heatshield...

    Don't get me wrong, I do think the astronauts are pretty brave, but I also refuse to believe that NASA would let them land if they thought it was remoptly possible that the shuttle would burn up on reentry this time around. The whole freaking mission has been hyped up - now move on and build the CEV [wikipedia.org] please. The shuttle is just too expensive to maintain.

  • It has always been like this (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jurt1235 ( 834677 ) on Monday August 08, 2005 @08:34AM (#13268495) Homepage
    A bit of not perfect weather and the shuttle can not launch or touch down, nothing new here.
    Ofcourse they are more nervous, if they have a disaster, it will be the shuttles last flight, and with no new crew launch vehicle ready, the chance that NASA will loose a big part of its funding is very realistic, because why would they need so much money if they can not bring people and equipment to the spacestation anyway (That is the political question, not mine!!).

    Anyway: We can ask the Japanese to build a huge hand http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/ 08/0411205&tid=216&tid=126 [slashdot.org] which can catch an object the size of the space shuttle. They already have the speed about right (shuttle lands with about 270MPH(??))

  • American engineering (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by evilandi ( 2800 )
    Well, of course! Presumably, the Shuttle comes from the same American school of engineering that sold helicopters that can't fly in cloud, to the British Ministry of Defence [bbc.co.uk].
  • And ofcourse, TV images of a shuttle in the clouds, do not work good. NASA has to show the shuttle landing without the clouds so people can see it works OK again.

    And now for the sarcasm version:
    And ofcourse, TV images of a shuttle exploding in or above the clouds are totally useless. The networks need a clear view of the sky to be able to get the topratings which only a disaster can give them.

  • Clouds Delayed Due to Shuttle Landing (Score:3, Funny)

    by Wonderkid ( 541329 ) on Monday August 08, 2005 @08:45AM (#13268547) Homepage
    When we see headlines like this, we'll know mankind has grasped true control of the weather.

  • what are they doing... (Score:3, Funny)

    by spectrokid ( 660550 ) on Monday August 08, 2005 @08:55AM (#13268595) Homepage
    this morning, NASA called off today's landing. are they flying it in a holding pattern over the airport?
  • Truly hope the landing goes through safely tomorrow. In a broader context, need to take a fresh look at the space program. One of the best things I've read on this subject was yesterday. More here: http://mp.blogs.com/mp/2005/08/on_the_shuttle_.htm l [blogs.com]
  • Please remain seated as we fly above this local weather. We will be delayed unfortunately due to this turbulent weather.

  • The Folks at Edwards Have Their Fingers Crossed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by aquatone282 ( 905179 ) on Monday August 08, 2005 @09:00AM (#13268619)

    I know the people at Edwards AFB [af.mil] are hoping for a divert to their location.

    I was stationed at Edwards when STS-111 [wikipedia.org] landed there after several days of bad weather in Florida.

    We piled into the shop truck and drove up to the ridge that overlooks the runway and Rodgers dry lake. We parked at an optical tracking station, which was up and running. The camera operator gave us a bearing to the northwest, towards Santa Barbara, to watch for the shuttle.

    We knew it was inbound when the camera began tracking. It was just a speck, but within seconds it was overhead and the double sonic boom was impressive even by Edwards' standards, where sonic booms are an almost daily occurance.

    It passed overhead and turned once, landing flawlessly on runway 22. From first sighting to touchdown was only fifteen to twenty seconds.

    Later that day, after pre-flighting a jet, we drove out to the taxiway to get a closer look at Endeavour [nasa.gov].

    We almost made it before Security Forces chased us down and told us to get the heck out of there. In retrospect, we were lucky we didn't spend an hour or two face down on the concrete.

  • What to do? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Johnny Mnemonic ( 176043 ) <mdinsmore&gmail,com> on Monday August 08, 2005 @09:04AM (#13268636) Homepage Journal

    Can anyone point me to a link that describes what the astronauts do with this extra day in orbit? Considering the expense of getting them there, I find it hard to believe that they just sit around for this extra day picking their nose and farting, but it would seem like all of the experiments would have already been stowed.

    Can they make use of this extra day?

    On a related note, I'm well aware that the astronauts have plenty of air+power+water+food for this extra day, but how long could they actually stay in orbit before one of those things ran out? Just curious; mostly to know how conservatively these things are planned.

    • Re:What to do? (Score:5, Funny)

      by cdrudge ( 68377 ) * on Monday August 08, 2005 @09:44AM (#13268867) Homepage
      Today is the day they get to shoot lots of file footage. The old stock video of them throwing a carrot across the room as a "missle", bubbles of water floating around, and running on a treadmill while nearly weightless were starting to get data. They also get to bug the commander with "Are we there yet? Are we there yet?"
    • I was listening to NASA TV earlier, it seems that they are spending quite a bit of time backing out of the landing procedure, seemed to be quite a complicated set of stuff to do. So the gap wont be a full day - just the time between them undoing the landing procedure and getting ready for next time.
    • Perhaps they can get their cameras out and take more hi-res photos for Google Earth [google.com] and Google Maps [google.com]...

      (joke)

  • Lemme make sure I've got this right... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Loligo ( 12021 ) on Monday August 08, 2005 @09:15AM (#13268708) Homepage
    Our tanks have targetting systems that can see through smoke and lock onto targets miles away, our troops have glasses that can see at night, and I can go down to the local sporting goods store and buy a laser rangefinder that will accurately measure distances out to a mile or so with a margin of error of an inch or less ... but a SPACESHIP can't land because of a few clouds?

    The cynic in me agrees: This is a publicity stunt. There's no reason to keep the shuttle up there except that clear skies make better photo-ops.

    • You're talking only about visibility, but clouds do more than just block your line of sight - they're often associated with air turbulence and various (possibly nasty) forms of precipitation, including icing.

      Bearing in mind that the Shuttle glides in to land, and has no way to go around (ie abort the landing and go around for a second attempt), that means you only have one chance to get it right. So things like cloud cover, wind direction etc will affect the Shuttle much more than they would an aircraft, wh
    • Our tanks have targetting systems that can see through smoke and lock onto targets miles away, our troops have glasses that can see at night, and I can go down to the local sporting goods store and buy a laser rangefinder that will accurately measure distances out to a mile or so with a margin of error of an inch or less ... but a SPACESHIP can't land because of a few clouds?

      The shuttle can trigger lightning on a cloudy day.

      This could easily disable electronic devices on-board.

      Protecting Space Sys [aero.org]

  • *SPOILER ALERT* (Score:3, Funny)

    by l0ungeb0y ( 442022 ) on Monday August 08, 2005 @09:16AM (#13268710) Homepage Journal
    Here's this weeks timeline in advance:

    Monday August 8th 2005: A cloud is in the sky, NASA decides to postpone landing

    Tuesday August 9th 2005: A slight breeze is detected, landing will be pushed back to Wednesday.

    Wednesday August 10th 2005: Wind Chill Factor sited as cause for continued delay

    Thursday August 11th 2005: A small flock of birds is spotted near the runway, landing cancelled due to safety and environmental protection concerns..

    Friday August 12th 2005: Barometric Pressure Non-Optimal, landing postponed.

    Saturday August 13th 2005: Humidity levels cause concern, after some deliberation it is announced that Mission Control will again delay the landing to "play it safe".

    Sunday August 14th 2005: Another cloud is spotted, landing delayed.

    Let's just hope they manage to get perfect weather conditions so they can land the damn thing sometime soon.

    • well tuesday and wednesday sound good, but thurday should read as following:

      Thursday August 11th 2005: Crew not responding. Presumed dead from lack of oxygen.

  • To add insult to injury.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Monkey Angst ( 577685 ) on Monday August 08, 2005 @09:24AM (#13268759) Homepage
    The Moon People keep holding up "If you lived here, you'd be home now" signs every time the shuttle swings by.
  • I hope those chaps have enough petrol to stay up there another day.

  • This Shuttle Mission was Like My Last Vacation (Score:3, Funny)

    by vjmurphy ( 190266 ) on Monday August 08, 2005 @11:04AM (#13269513) Homepage
    Let's see:

    * I ended up leaving late, because my car was having problems.
    * I finally got to where I was going, and my Dad made me look all over the car, to make sure it was still working correctly.
    * When I found a problem, he made me fix it.
    * When I went inside, my Mom made me take out the garbage.
    * On the way back home, traffic was so bad, it prevented me from getting home at a reasonable time.

    I'm like an trip in space away from being an astronaut! I think I'm fully trained now.

  • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • More accurate headlines please (Score:5, Informative)

    by mbeckman ( 645148 ) on Monday August 08, 2005 @11:19AM (#13269649)
    I expect dopey headlines from the traditional media, but Slashdot should do better. Announcing "Shuttle Delayed Due to Cloudy Skies" is like saying "Airliner Crash Due to Ticket Sales." The headline incorrectly gives the impression that the weather problem is not significant. Cloudy skies are not the issue -- the shuttle lands with cloudy skies all the time. The issue is unstable weather with low ceilings (as low as 500 feet). This is a much more serious condition, as any pilot can confirm. For the shuttle these are marginal conditions. They require conducting the landing under instrument flight rules, with the possibiity of losing visibility just before touchdown. At the shuttle's high speeds, this is much more serious than for commercial aviation. Attributing the delay to timidity, a publicity stunt, or wanting better photographic conditions is just stupid.
    • Attributing the delay to timidity, a publicity stunt, or wanting better photographic conditions is just stupid. Although I could absolutely understand why they would want to delay the landing until better conditions for photographic reasons. I'm sure NASA has thousands of variables they want to monitor and watch during the landing and having high resolution photographs of the shuttle in-flight are probably part of that data. Look how important photography is on take-off? I can only assume it's almost as
    • Actually, the weather problem wasn't significant. I was watching NASA TV all night, and before waving off the second landing opportunity, Mission Control stated quite clearly that:

      1. The conditions at Kennedy at that moment were "go"
      2. The forecast for Kennedy at the time of landing was "go"
      3. Because things were unstable, they just didn't have the level of comfort they wanted.

      To me, that says "the weather isn't bad, but since this is the Return To Flight mission, we're taking even fewer chances than usual
  • Let's rename the shuttle to something more coherent with its delays.

    "Shuttle Vista." :)

Slashdot Top Deals

On the eighth day, God created FORTRAN.

Close