Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Satellite Stranded

Posted by michael on from the earth-to-major-tom dept.

Account 10 writes: "BBC News has a story about one of NASA's newest and most sophisticated satellites. Launched a couple of weeks ago, it was supposed to have moved itself up into the correct orbit . Once there, one of its roles would be to route data between the ISS, other satellites and the ground as aprt of the TDRS (Tracking and Data Relay Satellite) project. However a fuel tank is leaking and it cannot reach its orbit. One suggestion is that it maneuver itself into an orbit where the shuttle can reach and rescue it - to repair it and send it on its way, or bring it home to be launched again."

59 of 167 comments (clear)

  1. Silly Putty and Spit by AlaskanUnderachiever · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wasn't there a recent slashdot story (in the past few months) about a budget sattelite put up for under 50k with a metal ruler for an antenna that's still working? I've got a 84 jeep bumper I'm willing to donate for the next communications sattelite. Hell, if they're willing to put my name on the sattelite, I'll throw in my old C64 to run it.

    --
    Find out about my new childrens book: SS Death Camp Criminal Batallion Go To Monte Carlo For The Massacre
  2. Some Suggestions for NASA... by Loki_1929 · · Score: 4, Funny

    1) Fire all the satellite's rockets to bring it screaming into the atmosphere on the 4th of July for one hell of a fireworks show.

    2) Get Tommy Lee Jones and the rest of the crew from Space Cowboys to give it a good kick.

    3) Replace the leaking fuel cell with a new one filled with Nitro Glycerin.

    4) Mass-produce the same satellite and sell it in hobby shops under the name, "My First Satellite Set".

    5) Sell it to the US Miltary as a target for the new missle shield.

    6) "Fuck it, we're going to Mars now."

    7) Call AAA for a tow. (or at least a jump-start)

    8) Tell the monkey inside it to peddle faster.

    9) Make up some ridiculous excuse to explain why you've wasted several million dollars on something that doesn't work - like a fuel leak from a damag... wait a minute...

    10) Pretend everything's going as planned.

    --
    -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
  3. Dangerous? by evil_one · · Score: 2, Funny
    However, experts are saying either option would be a very complicated and potentially dangerous mission.
    Well yeah, would you want to fly a glowing hot shuttle through the atmosphere with a cargo bay loaded with a leaking fuel cell?
    --
    Desperation is a stinky cologne
    1. Re:Dangerous? by mpe · · Score: 2

      Well yeah, would you want to fly a glowing hot shuttle through the atmosphere with a cargo bay loaded with a leaking fuel cell?

      The cargo bay is actually air tight. The problem would come later in the descent when the preasure release vents are opened.

  4. Will Boeing take the $825m hit? by Constrain_Me · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Under the terms of the contract Nasa does not accept delivery of the satellite until it is in its final orbit. If it gets there Nasa will redesignate it TDRS-9.

    Who launched the thing? If they can't recover it will Boeing have to take the hit? Not a good year for the airline industry.

    1. Re:Will Boeing take the $825m hit? by evil_one · · Score: 2, Informative

      Um, Boeing isn't part of the arline industry, it's part of the areospace industry. The airline industry is the one that actually ferries people & goods around on the airplanes.

      --
      Desperation is a stinky cologne
    2. Re:Will Boeing take the $825m hit? by jerryasher · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In the past it has been the insurance companies that take the hit. Of course, with each failure to achieve orbit, insurance prices have risen and risen, such that now, there is a reasonable chance that Boeing has self-insured this satellite.

    3. Re:Will Boeing take the $825m hit? by s390 · · Score: 2

      ...there is a reasonable chance that Boeing has self-insured this satellite.

      A great comfort to the 23,000+ people who are slated to get laid off by Boeing's commercial aircraft business this year, as a direct result of all the brain-dead Bush administration's "security" hysteria preventing the traveling public from... traveling.

    4. Re:Will Boeing take the $825m hit? by JordanH · · Score: 2
      • A great comfort to the 23,000+ people who are slated to get laid off by Boeing's commercial aircraft business this year, as a direct result of all the brain-dead Bush administration's "security" hysteria preventing the traveling public from... traveling.

      This seems like revisionist history to me. Putting aside that it may or may not be true that current administration generated hysteria is actually holding down the traveling industry to some extent, Boeing announced those layoffs within a few days after Sept. 11th.

      As I recall, the travel industry was suppressed at that point due to all flights being grounded. A sensible move to hold down hysteria actually seeing as nobody wanted to fly anyway - people were cancelling reservations right and left anyway - and it probably was good that security was completely reviewed before starting up again.

      It was a cynical move by Boeing to announce layoffs so soon. Boeing was trying to feed into the general hysteria and line up for bailout bucks themselves.

  5. Cost of Repairs vs. Relaunch vs. Reentry by stuffman64 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, NASA has 3 choices Re-entry, Retrieve and Relauch, or Repair.

    The first choice, Re-entry, is just to give up on it (in otherwords, send it back into the atmosphere and hope it doens't hit anyone, or hit a target so we get free tacos). I doubt they will do this considering the astronomical (pun somewhat intended) amount of money they would have wasted on the whole thing.

    Retrieve and Relaunch is probably unlikey too, because not only do they have to pay to send a shuttle up (although they can just do it on a regularly scheduled mission), but then they have to pay to launch it again. It would be pretty hard, IMHO, to snatch a sattilite, return it to earth, and relauch it without further damaging it. Plus, I'm sure it is more dangerous to land a shuttle with all that extra weight in the cargo area.

    That leaves us with repair, the most reasonable option. Send up some guys on the next shuttle mission with Duct Tape (about $1.50 a roll, depending on store and brand). Voila! Problem solved!

    --
    --- At my sig, unleash hell.
    1. Re:Cost of Repairs vs. Relaunch vs. Reentry by geoswan · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Well, NASA has 3 choices Re-entry, Retrieve and Relauch, or Repair. The first choice, Re-entry, is just to give up on it (in otherwords, send it back into the atmosphere and hope it doens't hit anyone, or hit a target so we get free tacos)...

      Maybe, maybe not. From the original BBC story it sounds like those at mission control don't know whether it has enough fuel to make it back to an orbit where the shuttle can retrieve it. I am going to speculate that if they don't have enough fuel to make it back to an orbit where the shuttle can retrieve it, then they don't have enough fuel for re-entry either.

      Obviously, Boeing had already started moving it up to geosynchronous orbit, or there wouldn't be any question of moving it back to an orbit where it could be retrieved -- it would still be in an orbit where it could be retrieved. This means it is much less of a problem leaving it in place. Unlike Mir, and Spacelab, if it is partway to geosynchronous, above where the shuttle can retrieve it, its orbit isn't going to decay to an altitude where it might crash for eons.

      ...Retrieve and Relaunch ... would be pretty hard, IMHO, to snatch a sattilite, return it to earth, and relauch it without further damaging it...

      How do you figure this? Matching orbits won't be a problem. NASA, and the Russian space agency, must have done this thousands of times by now. Heck, didn't the tugs that supplied Mir do it by remote control? (-8 And they only crashed one once. 8-)

      Isn't the robot arm strong enough, yet gentle enough to grab it, once it has matched orbits? Maybe they wouldn't be able to roll the photocells back up. What other problems did you anticipate?

      That leaves us with repair, the most reasonable option. Send up some guys on the next shuttle mission with Duct Tape (about $1.50 a roll, depending on store and brand). Voila! Problem solved!

      Yeah, we'll send Red Green. (whose movie, "Duct tape forever", opens up any day now. And my buddy who wins stuff won us advance tickets for the local sneak preview.)

      Seriously though, my question is, if Boeing has to wait for a next generation shuttle to retrieve it, how many years should they wait, before the satellite last its value? Two years? Five years? Ten years? Whose next generation shuttle will be ready first?

      If the Soviets could make robot frieghters dock with Mir, why can't someone make a robot tug just large enough to fly to high orbit satellites like this, and tow them down to where the shuttle can retrieve them?

    2. Re:Cost of Repairs vs. Relaunch vs. Reentry by adminispheroid · · Score: 3, Informative
      Well, NASA has 3 choices Re-entry, Retrieve and Relauch, or Repair.

      I fear this post has missed an essential point -- as the article makes clear, this isn't NASA's problem, it's Boeing's problem. NASA doesn't pay for the thing and doesn't own it until it's in the right orbit.

    3. Re:Cost of Repairs vs. Relaunch vs. Reentry by djmurdoch · · Score: 2

      I am going to speculate that if they don't have enough fuel to make it back to an orbit where the shuttle can retrieve it, then they don't have enough fuel for re-entry either.

      It's easier to achieve re-entry than to get back to a low orbit. They just need to make the orbit more eccentric, and it'll graze the atmosphere at perigee. It'll be going way too fast for the shuttle to catch it at that point. Slowing it down safely would take lots of fuel. (The atmosphere will slow it down, but the satellite is not likely to survive the experience!)

    4. Re:Cost of Repairs vs. Relaunch vs. Reentry by Loki_1929 · · Score: 2, Funny

      That leaves us with repair, the most reasonable option. Send up some guys on the next shuttle mission with Duct Tape (about $1.50 a roll, depending on store and brand).

      No, no, no... This is the US government here. Hammers generally run about $50,000 each, a couch runs several hundred thousand dollars, etc. You have to convert to government dollars. Last I checked, the going conversion rate is something like ((N/I) * Pi^8) where N is the normal price, and I is the importance of the item (scale of 1 to 10, duct tape being a 1, nuclear weapon being a 10).

      Therefore, that $1.50 per roll duct tape would actually cost about $14,175 US government dollars.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    5. Re:Cost of Repairs vs. Relaunch vs. Reentry by SgtXaos · · Score: 2

      Mod parent up! It is in vogue to hammer NASA everytime anything related to space goes awry, but the reality is that something is wrong with the spacecraft that BOEING built. NASA doesn't own it, doesn't take delivery, doesn't pay money for it, until it is healthy and in the correct orbit.

      NASA buys all sorts of hardware from private industry, and federal purchasing regs mandate that the deliverables must satisfy the spec in the purchase order prior to the invoice being paid.
      This applies equally to spacecraft as it does to computers or flashlights or anything else.

      I imagine if the news media got hold of a story about NASA receiving a new PC from Gateway that had a bad stick of RAM installed, we would have a similar bunch of posts about NASA screwing up.

      Besides, space flight is not easy, nor risk free. Just like any other technologically intensive activity, things go wrong. Unfortunately, unlike the everyday foul-ups and equipment failures that happen everywhere, NASA's are shown live on TV.

      --
      -- Don't call me "Sir," I increase entropy for a living!
    6. Re:Cost of Repairs vs. Relaunch vs. Reentry by mpe · · Score: 2

      This is the US government here. Hammers generally run about $50,000 each, a couch runs several hundred thousand dollars, etc. You have to convert to government dollars. Last I checked, the going conversion rate is something like ((N/I) * Pi^8) where N is the normal price, and I is the importance of the item (scale of 1 to 10, duct tape being a 1, nuclear weapon being a 10).

      Where do you put the cost of black projetcs into the equation?

  6. The real reason... by SHiFTY1000 · · Score: 4, Funny

    NASA Engineer: I dont understand... I only shoved 3 gallons in that tank, it should be fine! Whats that? Litres you say? Oh not again...

    1. Re:The real reason... by Kirkoff · · Score: 2


      I have yet to see one person who can sensibly claim Imperial measurements ('English' measurments to our US bretherin) are useful for technical specs and calculations.

      That's just it, most industries do use the metric system. The thing is that in people's day-to-day lives, the customary system is easier. (No, I don't know why base-10 is so hard for measurements) Personally, I find it easier to say I'm 6'1" rather than 185cm. I'm sure it's mostly an issue of culture, but 185cm seems cumbersome to me. As to miles vs. kilometers, well, there is just a lot of inertia here. For some reason though, liters are better accepted, as long as you don't sell it to me in gas. :P

      I think that the metric system will take over in the US, just slowly. It'll have to start with things like they did in some county in Kentucky. All the signs there said "Foosville 100km(60mi)." I don't remember which county it was in, but I thought it was a great idea. My cousin told me that they just stopped with that small area unfortunatly. I think Loudoun county, Va was supposed to have switched over the the metric system in like 1996, but they didn't. Aperently, it's not the first missed deadline on it either.

      And anyways, how else was I supposed to bother my physics teacher? Giving velocity in furlongs per fortnight is fun!

      --
      There are exactly 42,935,718 letter sized sheets in a square mile.
    2. Re:The real reason... by mpe · · Score: 2

      I have yet to see one person who can sensibly claim Imperial measurements ('English' measurments to our US bretherin) are useful for technical specs and calculations.

      Also remember that the American "English" scales of measurement are not the same as Imperial measures. Especially when it comes to volumes, such as "pints", "gallons", etc.
      As for technical measures in the 1940's both the Imperial and the English inch were redefined to be exactly 25.4 mm. Because the differences were causing problems in the manufacture of precision parts for weapons systems.

    3. Re:The real reason... by bluGill · · Score: 2

      When are the rest of you going to realise that metric is just anouther arbitary measurement system. the only advantage of metric is it is used by most of the world (which is a LARGE advantage, don't get me wrong).

      Metric is not perfect. 1/3rd for instance doesn't work out easially in metric. Nor does 1/4th. In some areas both are commonly needed.

      In the end though all the really matters is that whatever arbitary measurements you use, everyone ends up with something that fits.

      Most amercians can work with metric. I do it when I need to, but quite honestly I see no reason to switch. I'm comfortable working in both systems. Even if we did switch overnight, I have a lot of old equipment that I like to keep running (old iron is a hobby, of mine), so I will still be using the old system, and I would hope others do.

      Thus, I would argue that americans have an advantage because we are used to more systems, and can use whichever one is best.

  7. Give it a break! by leonbrooks · · Score: 2
    a fuel tank is leaking and it cannot reach its orbit.

    What do you expect? Everyone has to take a leak a sometime...
    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  8. Older rescue by Account+10 · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is the story of the successful rescue of an Intelsat after it failed to seperate from its rocket and got stuck in a low orbit. It took 6 tries over 3 days for the shuttle crew to catch it.

    The TDRS satellite has a similar mass to the Intelsat

    1. Re:Older rescue by jerryasher · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, and depending on which web site you visit, the shuttle has launched up to seven of these tdrs satellites (but I don't know if any were of the same weight as this one). If it can safely launch one, then I have to assume that (ignoring fuel leaks) it can land with one.

    2. Re:Older rescue by snake_dad · · Score: 2
      Assuming that it can land with one just because it lauched with one?

      Yes. In case of a failed launch (like engine failure) the shuttle has the option to return to earth for a landing. Either at the launch site or in Spain or some other location. AFAIK ejecting the payload is not a part of that procedure.

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
    3. Re:Older rescue by jerryasher · · Score: 2

      It's late my time, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

      My point is that they have launched seven TDRS satellites in the past, and so for safety's sake each of those launches, must have had various mission abort strategies that entail a landing with a TDRS on board. Emergency landings at KSC, at Easter Island, Edwards, White Sands, etc. And I bet there are abort to orbit scenarios in which they still can't ditch their payload and so have to land with it eventually.

      So yeah, I am betting that if they can launch with one then they can configure a mission in which they can land with one. Land that is, assuming there are no dangerous fuel leaks.

    4. Re:Older rescue by bluGill · · Score: 2

      True, but it might be cheaper for Boeing to get it rescued. Assuming Nasa is already sending up a shuttle (which they do from time to time), that will come back with an empty payload bay (which happens often). Then the extra cost to retrieve a satalite is essentially nil above the costs nasa already has to spend. So Nasa could contract out retrivial of this satalite for some amount of dollars, which is mostly profit.

      Obvously, sending up a shuttle to only get the satalite is not worth the cost. however that is not the case.

      So the real question is: Can Boeing make a new satalite for less than what nasa wants charge to retrive it. When calculating this out, don't forget any possibal engineering value in studing the retrived statlite to see why it failed. (and thus do a redesign so the next one won't fail that way)

  9. Shuttle designed for it by ZigMonty · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I'm sure it is more dangerous to land a shuttle with all that extra weight in the cargo area.

    The shuttle is designed to be able to bring satellites back. From the link:

    The space shuttle is the world's first reusable spacecraft, and the first spacecraft in history that can carry large satellites both to and from orbit.

    Now, whether it's more dangerous to bring back a satellite leaking fuel is another matter! I figure that they'd drain it before bringing it back though.

  10. liquid fuel? by stinky+wizzleteats · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Leaking fuel? As in liquid fuel? Since when can the shuttle carry up payloads with liquid fuel?

    Following the Challenger explosion, one of the safety regs imposed was that no payload could have liquid fuel. This required the Galileo team to adjust the launch trajectory for the spacecraft to include 2 slingshots around the inner solar system.

    1. Re:liquid fuel? by bogasity · · Score: 2, Informative

      TDRS HIJ were designed for launch on an Atlas in order to reduce launch expenses. Also, none of the articles I have read yet have indicated that TDRS I is leaking fuel. There are many other failures that could lead to a lack of fuel flow from one the tanks - a pinched line, failure of the pressurization system, bad bladder inside the tank, etc. If you read Boeing's statement, they have confidence they can resolve the problem. After seeing Hughes (now Boeing) engineers slingshot a satellite around the moon a couple times to get it to a geosync orbit, I wouldn't underestimate what they can do in this case.

    2. Re:liquid fuel? by Rasta+Prefect · · Score: 2

      Leaking fuel? As in liquid fuel? Since when can the shuttle carry up payloads with liquid fuel?

      Actually, only the slashdot summary mentions a fuel leak. The article only says that there was a fuel tank malfunction - which could just as easily be a screwed up valve or clogged pipe.

      --
      Why?
    3. Re:liquid fuel? by Gogo+Dodo · · Score: 2

      You need to read the article a little closer. It was launched with an Atlas rocket.

  11. Shuttle rescue unlikely by Jonathan+McDowell · · Score: 3, Informative
    As I pointed out in my newsletter JSR on Friday (before the BBC story, I note :-)) it's unlikely that they will try a Shuttle rescue because it would take more fuel to get down to a Shuttle orbit than to get up to GEO, given where it is now. All the previous rescues involved satellites in much lower orbit. Oh, and as a side note to the poster who commented on the post-Challenger regulations, it's only liquid hydrogen that the Shuttle won't deal with in the payload bay, there have been plenty of payloads since then which have had hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide on board, which is what the BSS-601 satellites like TDRS-I carry.

    I draw slashdot's attention to the fact that the story was originally broken by Keith Cowing's excellent NASA Watch web page. I expect that they will get the bird to GEO, although Space Command doesn't seem to have issued any new orbital data for it in several days.

    1. Re:Shuttle rescue unlikely by Buran · · Score: 3, Interesting
      From http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/resources/orbiters /discovery.html:
      "Two orbiters, Challenger and Discovery , were modified at KSC to enable them to carry the Centaur upper stage in the payload bay. These modifications included extra plumbing to load and vent Centaur's cryogenic (L02/LH2) propellants (other IUS/PAM upper stages use solid propellants), and controls on the aft flight deck for loading and monitoring the Centaur stage. No Centaur flight was ever flown and after the loss of Challenger it was decided that the risk was too great to launch a shuttle with a fueled Centaur upper stage in the payload bay."

      I think the modifications have since been removed. We now have no shuttle capable of launching a Centaur upper stage -- the other was destroyed. I have often wondered if this really is all that dangerous, considering the fact that the hydrazine maneuvering fuel used on many satellites the Shuttle launches is hypergolic, meaning it will ignite on contact with its oxidizer, no spark needed. Hydrogen and oxygen, on the other hand, require an ignition system.

      --
      i am a soviet space shuttle
    2. Re:Shuttle rescue unlikely by mpe · · Score: 2

      I have often wondered if this really is all that dangerous, considering the fact that the hydrazine maneuvering fuel used on many satellites the Shuttle launches is hypergolic, meaning it will ignite on contact with its oxidizer, no spark needed. Hydrogen and oxygen, on the other hand, require an ignition system.

      The shuttle has both kinds of fuel on board anyway. The OMS and RCS are hypergolic fuel and the main power system uses hydrogen and oxygen fuel cells (providing drinking water as a byproduct). Quite possibly there is more hydrogen and oxygen onboard the shuttle than there was on board the Apollo service module.

  12. Re:In other news... by Pussy+Is+Money · · Score: 2, Insightful
    If this is the kind of retarded farmboi common sense (spit! ka-chunk) wisdom that passes for insight nowadays then I'm not surprised present day tech is so prone to breakage.

    Pioneer 10 cost $75 million to build which translates into approx. $350 million current day prices. The TRDS project has $825 allotted for 3 sattelites that are far, far more capable than Pioneer 10, and have to fulfill a far, far more complicated role.

    Pioneer 10 might have been good, but it was also expensive, and took over three years to build. Good, fast, cheap. Pick two.

    --
    Pushin' 'n dealin', shovin' 'n stealin'
  13. Use it as a test by Lysander+Luddite · · Score: 2

    Maybe the military can use it as target practice for their anti-satellite tests. They've done so well with those rigged tests maybe a mislaunched satellite would resemble something launched from a "rogue nation"

    I didn't think it was funny either.

  14. Slingshot link by djmurdoch · · Score: 2

    Bogasity's link was a press release from before the attempted slingshot; it worked.

  15. Blame the guy they appointed President. by fmaxwell · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I work in the aerospace industry. It's not NASA that needs convincing. It's President Bush. He has cut funding severely on some NASA programs like the International Space Station, where that the U.S. will not even be keeping its promises to its partners. The Pluto-Kuiper Express and Solar Probe were both cancelled due to his budget. He cut $207 million from the overall budget of NASA's Earth Science program, which uses satellites to study the effects of natural and human-induced changes on the global environment. (I worked on one of the satellites associated with that program and the satellite is now mothballed at my company.)

    If you want rockets to be used in weapons, elect a Republican President. If you want rockets to be used for space exploration and science, elect a Democrat. Just look at history. It was Kennedy who saw space exploration as a source of national pride. He pushed the Apollo program. It was Nixon who cut Apollo short by three landings and basically gutted NASA. Nixon ignored the recommendatons for Mars explorations made by his own task force. He only agreed to fund the development of the space shuttle because it would "bring the price of going into space down".

    Reagan pushed NASA and the shuttle into ever-increasing military roles, launching military satellites and contributing to the "Star Wars" efforts. In addition, the Reagan administration directed NASA to cancel one of its ongoing space science missions (the the International Solar Polar mission), and seriously considered terminating the entire solar system exploration program and transferring the Jet Propulsion Laboratory to some other government agency.

    Of course, when the main thrust of an administration is tax cuts for the wealthy, it's not surprising when funding for NASA suffers.

    1. Re:Blame the guy they appointed President. by fmaxwell · · Score: 2

      Of course, if you want freedom, and real development in space technology in the private sector, elect a Libertarian.

      While I like much of the Libertarian platform, this is a really good example of why it doesn't work for everything. The private sector simply won't pony-up billions of dollars for pure science, space research.

      Another example that I use with a Libertarian friend of mine is the privatization of all charity. Were that to happen, there would be a tremendous amount of money given to organizations working for the good of cute, furry mammals and babies. Those those working for less popular causes would be devastated. The average taxpayer simply would not be willing, or able, to evaluate all of the places that his/her donation could go and would, in the end, pick one or two favorite causes. And protecting the habitat of some kind of sea slug, while important, is unlikely to be in the top 10 for most people.

    2. Re:Blame the guy they appointed President. by fmaxwell · · Score: 2

      I don't like you or the government assuming that I am incapable of allocating my own money.

      I did not say that you were "incapable" of it. I said that the vast majority of taxpayers would fund programs near and dear to their hearts and that, as a result, less compelling, but equally important programs would be harmed.

      Instead of expressing your offense, how about countering my logic?

      To assume that is basically arguing for socialism.

      No, it's arguing for the form of government we have now where our elected representatives are responsible for studying and understanding the thousands of programs out there and apportioning money appropriately.

    3. Re:Blame the guy they appointed President. by GigsVT · · Score: 2

      but equally important programs would be harmed.

      Well, my counter-argument to that would be that the program is not as important, if people really don't care about it.

      Part of the problem with our current government spending is pork barrel programs that only benefit a tiny subset of the population in the reps district. This wouldn't happen anymore, and elected reps couldn't use such de facto bribes to get reelected.

      If the cause was important enough, a small minority has a way of being vocal, that would draw attention to them nationally, and get them funding.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    4. Re:Blame the guy they appointed President. by fmaxwell · · Score: 2

      Well, my counter-argument to that would be that the program is not as important, if people really don't care about it.

      So any science or social program too complex for the public at large to understand or appreciate is unimportant?

      If the cause was important enough, a small minority has a way of being vocal, that would draw attention to them nationally, and get them funding.

      Many important causes with vocal supporters are underfunded. Sometimes, a cause gets funding because government staffers devote thousands of hours of research into it, understanding the nuances and balancing it against other programs. Voters don't have that kind of time. Time that voters spend studying these causes is time that they are not earning money to donate to these causes.

      Have you ever gone through the budget and looked at all of the programs that are funded? Assuming that you felt that even 50% of the programs were worthwhile, would you be willing to spend the man-weeks it would take to write a check to each one of them?

      Libertarians seem far too comfortable in the idea of running a grand social experiment to test their theories about human behavior. An experiment, that, if it failed, would be disastrous.

    5. Re:Blame the guy they appointed President. by fmaxwell · · Score: 2

      The problem with Libertarianism is that people are stupid.

      That's the first problem.

      The second problem is that people are greedy. Libertarians claim that, if taxes are abolished, people would take all of the money they now pay in taxes and donate it to worthy causes. If you eliminated taxes today, people would spend the money on nicer cars, new clothes, lottery tickets, vacations, consumer electronics, and so forth. When Bill Gates donates money to causes, it doesn't have any impact on his standard of living. But to expect a family of four living on a $40K income to do so is, at best, naive.

      I can see it now:

      Honey? I know that we've racked up $7,000 in debt on our credit cards, but I was thinking, shouldn't we donate, say, $500 to a study on the effects of non-indigenous migratory birds on native plant species?

    6. Re:Blame the guy they appointed President. by fmaxwell · · Score: 2

      Who wanted a permanent space station? Oh yeah, that was Reagan.

      Reagan wanted to launch a major space project shortly before the elections, since it would create jobs in important states such as California, Texas and Florida. The scheduled funding for the project was such that the lion's share of it would be borne by adminstrations that followed Reagan's. The Station's long term funding plan called for $0.235 billion in Fiscal 1985, $0.335 billion in 1986, about $1.2 billion in 1987, and about $2 billion per year in 1988-91 (all figures in 1984 dollars). NASA expected to spend an additional $16 billion by 2002 to add a space tug for missions to geostationary orbit and the Moon.

      What Reagan approved was a program that would make him popular in key states while shouldering his successors with the burden of paying for it. He cut taxes and then approved a program that would have to be funded under other administrations. What a bold visionary he was.

      Clinton was ready to kill the station when he was on the primary campaign trail in 92 until he had Gore on his team.

      But he did not kill it. For all we know, Nixon may have been "ready to" fund a mission to Mars, but he didn't do it.

      But think about why Clinton might have wanted to kill it. Reagan/Bush left him with a struggling economy, reduced tax base, and an ill-conceived program that was ballooning in cost.

      That being said, I work in the industry as well, and am continually frustrated by how much of NASAs money the ISS and Shuttle waste each year. These programs tie up well over 80% of the budget at the expense of basic research.

      Thank you for proving my point. Nixon approved the shuttle program and Reagan, as you pointed out, gave the green light to what has been scaled back to become the ISS. If you want money for basic space research, elect a Democrat as President.

    7. Re:Blame the guy they appointed President. by fmaxwell · · Score: 2

      We believe that constant tinkering in a free market is unnecessary.

      On that, we will have to disagree. Capitalism insures that those with money get what they want. If you are a poor, uneducated, widow, that can't afford enough food, the "free market" does little for you.

      If these social programs are important, then there will be a market demand for the services they provide.

      So people who can't afford home heating oil will pay the cost of a program to give them money to buy home heating oil? Is that a Libertarian version of perpetual motion?

      There are a few exceptions to this rule

      Like pure research, space exploration, or charity. Anything that's unlikely to lead to someone getting rich in the near future is an exception.

      Want to see the free market and how it applies to charity? Look at the response to September 11. If you lost your spouse to that act of terrorism, your family would have received huge sums of money and aid from charitable organizations. If, on the other hand, your spouse was killed in a traffic accident, you'd receive almost nothing from charities. (Note: I realize that money does not, for normal people, compensate them for the death of a loved one.)

      Does the woman who lost her husband due to a traffic accident have less need than the woman whose husband was killed in the World Trade Center? Of course not, yet the free market compensated the latter (financially) to a much greater degree.

      They don't have staffers doing research into anything except getting reelected. They don't give a fuck about anything but that.

      If that were the case, any legislator that was not running for reelection would simple lay off their staffers, kick back, and flip coins to decide their votes. While there are some legislators that fit your gloomy picture of the world (Fritz Hollings comes to mind), I think that there is an even greater number of them that are trying to make this country a better place.
      Almost any member of Congress could quit, form a law practice or become a corporate officer and get more money, less public scrutiny, and a less demanding schedule, so there has to be some reward other than simply keeping the job.

    8. Re:Blame the guy they appointed President. by fmaxwell · · Score: 2

      I'm not saying you should blame Bush for the failure of this mission -- I was answering the poster that said "they shoulda been buildin moonbase by now"[sic]. I said that you should elect a Democrat if you want funding for space exploration.

      That said, space exploration is a risky venture. Simply getting funding does not guarantee success.

    9. Re:Blame the guy they appointed President. by fmaxwell · · Score: 2

      No, they will get a job and contribute something useful to society like everyone else has to do.

      And what kind of job would you recommend that an 85 year old, mentally and physically frail widow apply for?

      If they can't, then it is up to their community and family to support them.

      Many of the people that need these programs live in communities where the average wage is below the poverty level. The idea of government programs is to assure that everyone is treated equally -- so that people living in poor neighborhoods don't freeze to death while those living in wealthy ones are well cared for. It is also to make sure that even unpopular people aren't left to die.

      It doesn't justify stealing my money, and leaving me no recourse.

      It isn't "stealing" even if you call it that. The federal government has the right to collect taxes and that right has been upheld by the courts in hundreds of cases.

      Secondly, if you don't want to do your duty as a U.S. citizen, you do have recourse: You can emigrate to a country that has no income taxes.

      If that happens, I wouldn't expect big brother government to steal hard working people's money to support me.

      Just how hard do you work, Jason? Running a scam "poetry contest" (see this link for more info) is not my definition of "hard work." Given the nature of the "poetry contest" you run, you have a lot of gall accusing the government of stealing because they tax your ill-gotten gains. In this case, perhaps they could be considered partners in crime.

    10. Re:Blame the guy they appointed President. by fmaxwell · · Score: 2

      By the way, in the American system of government, the President does not decide what gets funded or not. That decision is made by the Congress, and both the House and the Senate were run by the Democrat Party during the entire length of Nixon's term in office.

      Don't be naive. The President has the power of the pen and can put the screws to Congress until they present him with the budget he wants.

    11. Re:Blame the guy they appointed President. by fmaxwell · · Score: 2

      The poetry contest I take entries for is not a scam. It could be called a vanity press, but they do not defraud people. If people want to pay to see their poetry in a book, we give them that opportunity.

      Calling a vanity press operation a "poetry contest" is a scam. Telling people that their poetry qualifies them as a finalist in a contest when no judgement of the work has taken place is a scam.

      The accusations that windpub.org makes that this sort of contest cares little about literature is a weak argument. Is MTV a scam because it cares little about music? Is McDonalds a scam because it cares little about nutrition?

      MTV does not purport to judge the quality of the music their channel plays. McDonalds makes no claim to be providing food of the highest nutritional value. McDonalds also tells customers what the cost of their product is up front. Neither McDonalds nor MTV try to convince people that they have won a contest in order to get their money. Sorry, but I just don't buy that analogy.

      I want you to know that calling the contest a scam is potentially libellous.

      I'll send you my name and address to you via e-mail so that you and/or Cader Publishing can easily take legal action against me if you wish. Just tell me what e-mail address to send it to. I would welcome the opportunity to defend my characterization of the "poetry contest" in a court of law.

      If you want to take that route, just get your records in order. I'll subpeona your records relating to the number of "winners", the amount of prize money awarded, the judging process, the number of poems published for which no fee was paid, etc. This could be fun.

    12. Re:Blame the guy they appointed President. by digitalcowboy · · Score: 2

      If you want rockets to be used in weapons, elect a Republican President. If you want rockets to be used for space exploration and science, elect a Democrat.

      If you care about actually advancing "space exploration and science" get the feckless retards that work for the government completely out of it! There has never been anything that gubmint does better than the private sector and capitalism.

      If it weren't for the government's monopoly of incompetence (created violently at the point of a gun) we would be vacationing on the Moon today.

      But I expect this tripe from someone who has nothing better than traffic to bitch about in his journal.

      Read a non-government approved book. (I recommend "The Federalist" as a start.) Then you'll be qualified to comment on the pathetic political situation in this country.

  16. Space Tows by Colz+Grigor · · Score: 2
    No substance here, only vision (or fluff). If you're looking for a response with meat, skip this one.

    Now wouldn't it be neat if the ISS had a few Satellite repair labs and a "space tow trucks" for a team of pilots to leave the ISS and retrieve a satellite for repairs? No more shuttle space walks to repair the Hubble. Instead, the shuttle brings necessary components (fuel, repair parts, etc.) to the ISS so the crew on the ISS can do the work in a less risky environment.


    Anyone know if this has ever been NASA's intention?

    ::Colz Grigor
  17. Cassini, NASA & plutonium by VValdo · · Score: 2

    Does anyone remember a couple years back when they were launching the Cassini satellite? There was a huge movement to stop the launch because the Cassini had radioactive fuel, which in an accident above the earth (either in the initial launch or the "boomerang" across the planet) could potentially threaten millions of earth lives for centuries to come.

    NASA at the time said that there were safety features that made an accident virtually impossible.

    I wonder now, considering the fuckups w/the various Mars missions and this $825m satellite, whether they should be allowed to continue using plutonium fuel...

    Thoughts? Are these protesters paranoid or do they have a valid point?

    W

    --
    -------------------
    This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    1. Re:Cassini, NASA & plutonium by rarose · · Score: 2

      The protesters take the unreasonable position that no risk is acceptable. If they led their lives by this standard they wouldn't get dental X-rays and they wouldn't live anyplace with granite bedrock. (Granite is radioactive in case you didn't know that...)

      If Cassini had reentered the odds say that it would have hit the ocean. Plus the plutonium is in ceramic form that likely would make it to the sea floor more or less intact.

      Plus you make the fault in assuming that all NASA missions (and all aspects of those missions) are treated the same as regards to safeguards against failure. I'm sure NASA looks at "what's the worst that could happen if this fails" for all the scenarios. Therefore the launch of a relatively small sub-$1bln part of a series mostly-nontoxic satellite didn't receive as much redundency than a multibillion long-term one-of-a-kind toxic subcomponent probe.

      --
      --Rob
    2. Re:Cassini, NASA & plutonium by mpe · · Score: 2

      Does anyone remember a couple years back when they were launching the Cassini satellite? There was a huge movement [animatedsoftware.com] to stop the launch because the Cassini had radioactive fuel, which in an accident above the earth (either in the initial launch or the "boomerang" across the planet) could potentially threaten millions of earth lives for centuries to come.

      An RTG is not a fission reactor. The chemical properties of the fuel and it's daughter istopes are well known, so it can be encapsulated in a way which is very safe.
      If they want to make a fuss about danger from shuttle launches they'd be better off complaining about the SRBs which produce all manner of nasty chemical byproducts.

    3. Re:Cassini, NASA & plutonium by geekoid · · Score: 2

      I've seen the testing of the way the contain the Radioactive material.
      They took a rocket, put a container in the nose of the rocket, and then launched it into a wall. (Not a normal wall,obviously.) The cantainer was unscathed.
      The prtester have a valid concern, but they shouldn't close there eyes to the saftey precautions and say "its bad, just bad". I would have a lot more respect if they actually evaluated there concerns, instead of a knee jerk, radiaion! it must be stopped.
      Of course it was these people that tried to tell me Nuclear Power planets are bad because it sends radiation over the wires.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  18. As someone... by ImaLamer · · Score: 2

    As someone who thinks the key to space exploration is stepping into space and building a number of craft for a number of things this could have been avoided.

    There would be errors with satellites and maybe even the ISS, but shouldn't there be other craft with available resources?

    Colonize space, don't just send up a few metal boxes.

    --
    Get your Unix fortune now!
  19. I don't get it. by torpor · · Score: 2

    It just looks like a dining room table. What's wrong with it? What am I missing?

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
  20. Re:Who is going to build.... by mpe · · Score: 2

    problem is space junk is getting to be a real issue even now. i can envision an actually profitable business venture in developing and operating a space salvage and disposal system..

    So we now need the Earth orbiting equivalent of a garbage truck as well as a tow truck.

  21. Metric Pints? by geoswan · · Score: 2
    There is a chain of eateries, here in Southern Ontario, called "Elephant and Castle". They are one of several competing chains that try to recreate the experience of visiting an English pub. The decor is meant to be like that found in England, and so is the menu, Bangers and Mash, Steak and Kidney pie, Fish and Chips.

    Well, my buddy Gerry and I sat down and each ordered a pint of cider. There was something funny about those pints. The waitress confirmed that the "pints" were actually only 500 millilitres. We got a kick out of ordering another round of "metric pints".