Space Shuttle Endeavour is landing at LAX/being retired.

[Nightmare-Duckie]

Space Shuttle Endeavour is being retired and is landing at the Los Angeles International Airport atop a Boeing 747 where it will make low-ish passes (1,500-foot flyovers) at "Malibu, the Getty Center, the Griffith Observatory, the Science Center, Los Angeles City Hall, Disneyland, the Aquarium of the Pacific in Long Beach, the Queen Mary, Venice Beach, Universal Studios, and Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena beginning around 11:30 a.m. Friday." After it lands in LAX it will stick around until October 12th, then it will make a 12-mile two day road journey to the California Science Center in Exposition Park where it will make its new home. It will go on official display at the Science Center on October 30th.
I'm pretty excited to see it pass, so if anyone else is in the Southern California coastal area you should watch out for it. Also they won't be allowing people to loiter at LAX so if you want to watch it from there you'll have to buy a plane ticket.

[Ad Bot]

[Ben Grapevine]

YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS?

NEW SPACE SHIP COMING SOON GUYS

[Frontrox]

It passed over us here in Tucson, it was really cool.

[Nightmare-Duckie]

YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS?

NEW SPACE SHIP COMING SOON GUYS

Actually it means just the opposite. Funding cut from NASA = no new ships for a while. Endeavour just ran it's course.

[Ben Grapevine]

Actually it means just the opposite. Funding cut from NASA = no new ships for a while. Endeavour just ran it's course.

NASA is cutting the rocket program and exploring more shuttle-like approaches to space travel..

[devildogelite]

If I'm not mistaken we were stepping away from low orbit research and are starting to focus on deeper space

[pecon98]

It'll be flying nearby my house at 9:30 am tomorrow on top of a carrier plane.

[Mikoyan]

Isn't it funny? The emotions man can get over machines?

[Nightmare-Duckie]

NASA is cutting the rocket program and exploring more shuttle-like approaches to space travel..

If I'm not mistaken we were stepping away from low orbit research and are starting to focus on deeper space

Well that's interesting. Regardless the funding will still be $150million less than it normally is.

[Fredulus]

Actually it means just the opposite. Funding cut from NASA = no new ships for a while. Endeavour just ran it's course.

lol....... no

4 private companies are developing spacecraft designed to carry passengers under NASA's CCDev, or commercial crew development, program. SpaceX has already demonstrated ISS resupply capability with their capsule.

also, NASA is working on a capsule they're calling Orion that's designed for manned moon/asteroid/etc missions.

the space shuttle was the worst thing that ever happened to the american space program, it was a step backward in every way. barely capable of reaching low earth orbit (apollo missions in the late 60's could get further than this piece of stuff). it was prohibitively expensive, costing upwards of $1.5 billion per launch with everything taken in to account. that's $60,000 per kilo of cargo to orbit. russian proton launchers, based on tech from the 60's, cost about $5,000 per kilo to orbit. gg USA.

NASA is cutting the rocket program and exploring more shuttle-like approaches to space travel..

the opposite, actually..... we already cut the shuttle program and are going back to rocket-based manned missions (see Orion, mentioned above.. plus all the private companies developing capsules). shuttles are bad for many reasons.

[Slate521]

SpaaAAaaaAAaaaaaacceeeeeee

ot:

yay space

[Ben Grapevine]

lol....... no

4 private companies are developing spacecraft designed to carry passengers under NASA's CCDev, or commercial crew development, program. SpaceX has already demonstrated ISS resupply capability with their capsule.

also, NASA is working on a capsule they're calling Orion that's designed for manned moon/asteroid/etc missions.

the space shuttle was the worst thing that ever happened to the american space program, it was a step backward in every way. barely capable of reaching low earth orbit (apollo missions in the late 60's could get further than this piece of stuff). it was prohibitively expensive, costing upwards of $1.5 billion per launch with everything taken in to account. that's $60,000 per kilo of cargo to orbit. russian proton launchers, based on tech from the 60's, cost about $5,000 per kilo to orbit. gg USA.

the opposite, actually..... we already cut the shuttle program and are going back to rocket-based manned missions (see Orion, mentioned above.. plus all the private companies developing capsules). shuttles are bad for many reasons.

Like amazing re-usability?

[Slate521]

Like amazing re-usability?

Re-usability, but does that matter when it can only get into incredibly low orbits, and isn't as versatile?

[devildogelite]

Like amazing re-usability?

Shuttles are more expensive than rockets

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_program

[Slate521]

Shuttles are more expensive than rockets

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_program