APOD: Atlantis to Orbit (2010 Jan 17)

[APOD Robot]

Atlantis to Orbit

Explanation: Birds don't fly this high. Airplanes don't go this fast. The Statue of Liberty weighs less. No species other than human can even comprehend what is going on, nor could any human just a millennium ago. The launch of a rocket bound for space is an event that inspires awe and challenges description. Pictured above, the Space Shuttle Atlantis lifted off to visit the International Space Station during the early morning hours of 2001 July 12. From a standing start, the two million kilogram rocket ship left to circle the Earth where the outside air is too thin to breathe and where there is little noticeable onboard gravity. Rockets bound for space are now launched from somewhere on Earth about once a week.

<< Previous APOD

Next APOD >>

[mason4300]

Isn't this an exact repeat from a while back? I recall reading this and seeing this image before.

[fatcitymax]

It's an image of taxpayer dollars being wasted to support the NASA hobby shop. NASA is nothing more than white-collar welfare. My favorite idiotic program is blasting the moon to see if enough water exists there to support a manned habitat. We ain't goin' to send no men to the moon again, to mars, or to pluto. Wake up Rip Van NASA.

[soupphysics]

fatcitymax, one thing you have managed to show at least, is that there's lots of ignorance about what we get out of space research. Everything we do there gives us back a lot of useful knowledge that we can use right here on earth. The money put into it is well spend, and leads to knowledge that benefits us.

I imagine you probably want us all to do medical research instead to cure cancer and so on. That's a dumb idea. You cannot force the entire earth population to work on whatever YOU find best. People have different interests and they are going to spend their money and time on different things. One does not exclude the the other.

Do you want some kind of global work camp, where everybody is forced to work with whatever some other people decided would be best?

I have zero interest in soccer, football, baseball, etc.. Lots of money is being spend on that, and countries spend millions on arranging tournaments and olympics. It surely has no other benefit that money. Still it's being done, because that's what people like and others make money from it.

No matter what science it is, it has science spinoffs into other science branches. We are not going to stop space research just because it doesn't happen to be your interest.

[Redbone]

No species other than human can even comprehend what is going on, nor could any human just a millennium ago.

Not true, Socrates, Plato, Archimedes, lots of folks could of understood it.

As far as corporate welfare, at least launching a rocket accomplishes something, unlike the billions of dollars wasted on the global warming hoax.

[rstevenson]

Where's Captain Picard when you need him.

Rob

[William Roeder]

No species other than human can even comprehend what is going on, nor could any human just a millennium ago

2 Kings 2:11

And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

[neufer]

No species other than human can even comprehend what is going on, nor could any human just a millennium ago

2 Kings 2:11 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

Be the first in your neighborhood to go like Elijah did:

Deep Discount on Space Shuttles
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: January 16, 2010

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) — Here is a recession bargain: the space shuttle. NASA has slashed the price of the 1970s-era spaceships to $28.8 million apiece from $42 million. The shuttles are for sale once their flying days are over, which is scheduled to be this fall.

When the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in December 2008 put out the call seeking buyers at museums, schools and elsewhere, the agency received about 20 inquiries. An agency spokesman, Mike Curie, said he expected more interest, especially with the discount. “We’re confident that we’ll get other takers,” Mr. Curie said Friday.

The Discovery is already promised to the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum. The Atlantis and the Endeavour are up for grabs. It is possible that the Enterprise, a shuttle prototype that never made it to space, will also be available. The Enterprise is currently at the Smithsonian. Mr. Curie said no decisions would be made before summer.

The lower price is based on NASA’s estimate of the cost for transporting a shuttle from Kennedy Space Center to a major airport, and for displaying it indoors in a climate-controlled building. The travel cost may vary based on location. NASA has moved up the delivery date to the latter half of 2011, instead of 2012. Potential customers have until Feb. 19 to put in a request.

As for the space shuttle main engines, those are now free. NASA advertised them in December 2008 for $400,000 to $800,000 each, but no one expressed interest. So now the engines are available, along with other shuttle artifacts, for the cost of transportation and handling. Assembly will be required, however.

[bystander]

Isn't this an exact repeat from a while back? I recall reading this and seeing this image before.

APOD: 2004 December 12 - Atlantis to Orbit

This isn't unusual, many APODs get repeated.

[The Code]

It's an image of taxpayer dollars being wasted to support the NASA hobby shop. NASA is nothing more than white-collar welfare. My favorite idiotic program is blasting the moon to see if enough water exists there to support a manned habitat. We ain't goin' to send no men to the moon again, to mars, or to pluto. Wake up Rip Van NASA.

Yellow stone park volcano, Tic Toc , Oil, Tic Toc, 1 Mile wide Asteroid, Tic Toc, The Goldie locks zone around the sun, Tic Toc. One way or another, we are going to leave this planet. We do not have a choice.

[geckzilla]

Where's Captain Picard when you need him.

Rob

He went to the movie theater and came back to find this thread. Poor Picard, he leaves for just four hours and right then is needed. Oh well, Murphy strikes again.

[GaryR]

... unlike the billions of dollars wasted on the global warming hoax.

At the risk of starting another round of arguments on global warming, why do you think it is a hoax? Something to do with you not wanting to change your way of life by using less energy derived from fossil fuel?

Gary

[geckzilla]

Gary, it's actually very easy to search the internet and become quite mislead by all of the information out there. It can go both ways. Some become very depressed and resigned in humanity's dire fate while others become fervently opposed to the notion. I used to think it was a complete sham as well. Mainly because a few people whose opinions I trust fairly well told me as much. But since it's such a pervasive concern I started reading many news articles from both sides.

For a long time I didn't know what to think, either. There are so very many that provide just a glimpse into the issue and all too often they provide shakily backed opinions rather than objective, scientific information. I put a lot of the blame on all the sensationalism in the media. I know the original intent was to provide some shocking headline and appeal to our hearts but all these applied emotions have done nothing but completely polarize the issue.

I hope Redbone and you can forgive me for interjecting but I am afraid this will turn into another emotional war. And I'm not taking sides on this. I blame Al Gore just as much as the next fire and brimstone "denier". A lot of so-called "deniers" problem isn't that they are unwilling to change their way of life or even that they live in excess already. They believe it is a conspiracy devised to destroy capitalism -- something that they hold very dearly. You just can't have a logical discussion when emotions play such a large role.

[bystander]

I think Chandra Clarke (a humor columnist) had the right of it in her column Hot But Not Bothered:

...
Take the gruff fellow I met at the gas station yesterday. He was filling up his quad cab pickup, and very incensed over the cost. Bent my ear for fifteen minutes, on all things related to gas prices. "Global warming is a crock," he huffed, "it's effing freezing out here!"

That, for me, neatly summed up how scientists and environmentalists have blown the climate change debate.

The message for the past 20 odd years, you see, has been that we need to reduce pollution because it's one of the chief causes of climate change. This message has failed for the following reasons:

The Scientific Method - Scientists fight amongst themselves, in public, over details. This would be fine if we had a scientifically literate public. This problem isn't helped by the fact that this week's science reporter was last week's lifestyles editor. ...

Vested Interests -- The people concerned about climate change are researchers, volunteers, and environmentalists - you know, people who are happy to have enough spare change to be able to afford a fair-trade coffee sometimes. Critics of climate change research tend to be car makers, oil companies, and manufacturers - you know, people who are happy to have enough spare change to be able to afford a coffee producing country now and then.

Whither the weather? - The average non-scientific Joe on the street has difficulty believing long term predictions about climate, when we still can't reliably predict if it will rain in Philadelphia next Thursday.

So what *should* the message have been? Air quality.

It's personal: We all breathe. It's scientific: We've got instruments that can tell us exactly what we're breathing in. It's immediate and health related: What was that about asthma rates again? It's tangible: Even guys in pickup trucks know when they can see, smell, and practically chew the smog.

Plus it's really, really tough to spin the benefits of smog: "Just look at that brown sky! Doesn't it just make you want to... to... oh, never mind."

One last ponderable: In most of North America, it's now socially unacceptable to light up a cigarette. But it's still okay to fire up a smoke stack.

The point is regardless of whether global warming is a crock or not, we still need to reduce our environmental impact on this world in which we all have to live.

[geckzilla]

Carbon dioxide is not smog, though. Just look at how LA has cleaned up its air since the 80s. Remember when semi trucks used to bellow visible brown smoke into the air through two pipes above the cab? I haven't seen one of those since probably the early 90s. Comparing it to smoke stacks and cigarettes doesn't work when the opposition recognizes CO2 as plant food and an otherwise intangible gas by citing percentage points which makes it seem like such a small change that it couldn't possibly have an effect on them.