Slashdot Mirror


NASA's HETE Coming Down

terrymr writes "NASA expects the High Energy Transient Experiment spacecraft which failed to successfully detach from the third stage of its launch rocket in 1996 to fall to earth within the next few days. While most of the spacecraft will likely burn up in the upper atmosphere there is a good chance that the spacecraft's batteries (weighing 33lbs each) may reach the ground intact. Current predictions put re-entry at 4:41 EDT Sunday April 7 (+/- two days)."

96 comments

  1. Four days to live... by altaic · · Score: 1

    Before the sky falls. Anyone might perish under the batteries crashing down. Live your life to the fullest before you no longer habe the change.

  2. may reach the ground intact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I simply refuse to believe that's possible...anyhow, as if science can prove anything.

  3. Guess they didn't use Energizers by rickthewizkid · · Score: 1

    They would have kept going, and going, and going...

    They must'a used these instead...

    -RickTheWizKid

    1. Re:Guess they didn't use Energizers by Satellite+Designer · · Score: 1
      Well, actually ...


      The HETE batteries *are* Energizers! The cells are cordless screwdriver size (2/3 C) rapid charge NiCd cells, 23 cells to a battery. There are six batteries in three *aluminum* cases.


      HETE is a low cost mission. The HETE spacecraft were built mostly from off the shelf commercial parts, not high cost aerospace parts. The commercial NiCd cells have actually proved very robust and reliable in space: the batteries on HETE-2 have gone through about 8000 discharge cycles so far and are still holding a charge just fine. The HETE-1 batteries could not be charged after the rocket's failure to fire its pyros left HETE-1 in the dark inside the DPAF can. Can't charge batteries without energy.


      The press release is a bit confused: I believe the stainless steel batteries must be in SAC-B. There is very little stainless steel in HETE: there are no large refractory parts at all.

  4. hehe by altaic · · Score: 1

    Too early... that's supposed to read "have the chance" at the end. I think I'm going to sleep those days away.

  5. Ebay... by pfb · · Score: 3, Funny

    /me wonders whether items will appear on ebay before they even land...

    --
    -- ribbit
  6. They�ve got minute-exact time, but +/- 2 days? by uncl_bob · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hmm..anyone care to explain that?

    1. Re:They�ve got minute-exact time, but +/- 2 days? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      They calculated average time of the entering with 2 days of standard deviation.

      Do you remember math?

    2. Re:They�ve got minute-exact time, but +/- 2 days? by squidinkcalligraphy · · Score: 1

      either that's a really silly (but technically valid) way of describing the error margin, or possibly, (and this is pure conjecture : I ain't no rocket scientist) the spacejunk can only enter the atmosphere in certain angles/orbits/what-have-you. So it can only get thru at a certain point in its orbit, equating to a particular time of day. give or take a few days

      --
      "I think it would be a good idea" Gandhi, on Western Civilisation
    3. Re:They�ve got minute-exact time, but +/- 2 days? by E-prospero · · Score: 2

      > Do you remember math?

      Do you? The precision given in an estimate should not be greater than the precision in the error bounds.

      A meaningful estimate would be "Sunday, +/- 2 days".

      The extra detail of "4:41 EDT" is meaningless, due to the magnitude of the error bounds, and only serves to give the illusion of precision where none exists - probably to sate the anger of the masses who don't comprehend the magnitude of the problem, and therefore don't understand why a multi billion US$ space program can't predict when something they launched will fall out of the sky.

      Russ %-)

      --
      ... and never, ever play leapfrog with a unicorn.
  7. On NASA's tracking program? by Myshkin5 · · Score: 2

    Does anyone know how to bring this up with NASA's tracking program?

    1. Re:On NASA's tracking program? by Telecommando · · Score: 2, Informative

      try http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/RealTime/JTrack/3D/JT rack3D.html and select SAC-B/HTET/PEGASUS under satelites.

      --
      Beta sux! Join the Slashcott! http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4760465&cid=46173047
  8. reminds me of skylab by serps · · Score: 3, Funny

    Reminds me of when Skylab fell to earth, dumping pieces of itself over Western Australia. The local president of the town council, Mervin Andre, gave the Director of NASA a littering ticket when chunks of the disintegrating space station dropped over the area southeast of Perth. The ticket remains unpaid to this day, although the council later waived the fine anyway.

    --
    "Einstein argued that [...] God is not capricious or arbitrary. No such faith comforts the software engineer." ~ Brooks
    1. Re:reminds me of skylab by slickwillie · · Score: 2

      I wonder if NASA issued their standard response (like they did for Skylab):

      "we've calculated that it has a 70% chance of not hitting land."

  9. people getting hit by CmdrTaco+(editor) · · Score: 1

    What are the chances of this hitting somebody? People say the chances are slim to nill, and just recently a significant piece of equipment came down and I didn't here about anyone getting hit. But a couple years ago NASA printed an article that the odds of someone being hit by the falling Iridium debris were about 1 in 250. By my count, this is the third potentially hazardous satellite entry in as many years, leading me to believe that eventually, someone will be hit.

    1. Re:people getting hit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot poll:
      Who would you like to get hit by a satellite first?
      *) John Howard
      *) Bill Clinton
      *) Idiots on both sides of the Israel/Palestine conflict
      *) Some gold miner near Kalgoorlie
      *) Cowboy Neal

    2. Re:people getting hit by Babbster · · Score: 1

      Getting hit on the head with satellite debris certainly would be something to forget to tell your grandchildren about....

    3. Re:people getting hit by shrikel · · Score: 1
      Actually, the chance of somebody actually getting hitby any given battery (if we were all distributed equally around the planet -- oceans and all) is 1 in 176949. (Assuming the average person displays about a square foot of target area from above.) But the chance of a battery landing within 10 feet of them (which is probably nearly as bad) is 1 in 563.

      However, since most of the world's population lives in urban environments, and since 70% of the earth is covered with water, the chances decrease, uh, astronomically.

      --
      Any sufficiently simple magic can be passed off as mere advanced technology.
  10. HETE going down, Bass going up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HETE coming down, Bass going up.
    All your Bass are belong to us!

    Mod me up, baby!

  11. Used to study gamma ray bursts. by garrick_rorapaugh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The HETE-1 was supposed to look for gamma ray bursts. If you haven't heard about these events, they are believed to emanate from explosions so powerful that they produce more energy in a matter of seconds than the sun will emit in its entire 10 billion years of life.

    The cool thing is that astronomers have almost no idea what could be causing these enormous bursts.

    Check out http://www.sciam.com/0797issue/0797fishman.html for more information.

    1. Re:Used to study gamma ray bursts. by Rolo+Tomasi · · Score: 2, Interesting
      ... astronomers have almost no idea what could be causing these enormous bursts.
      Actually, they have. Scientists from Leicester University analyzed the spectral fingerprint of a GRB and they found that it had come from a Supernova explosion. There's an article in the current issue of Nature. The interesting part is that the GRB occured 10 to 100 hours after the Supernova explosion.
      --
      Did you know you can fertilize your lawn with used motor oil?
    2. Re:Used to study gamma ray bursts. by efuseekay · · Score: 2

      Actually, not yet. THere are a lot of scientists out there, and not all believe that GRB's are supernovas. There are a lot of ideas, but no consensus.

      --
      Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
  12. 33lbs in kg? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    For us standards-lovers (or non-US people if you prefer): what are 33 lbs in kg?

    Thanks!

    1. Re:33lbs in kg? by cybergibbons · · Score: 2

      It says 15kg clearly in the article which is only a few paragraphs long and takes less than a minute to read.

      Maybe you should try that.

  13. The poster is wrong ... by Rolo+Tomasi · · Score: 1
    ... the spacecraft's batteries (weighing 33lbs each) ...
    From the article:
    ... four small stainless-steel batteries, weighing a total of 15 kilograms (33 pounds) will survive re-entry.
    So each battery weighs 3.75 kg. Hmm, I just wonder what kind of batteries those are ...
    --
    Did you know you can fertilize your lawn with used motor oil?
    1. Re:The poster is wrong ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they are probably nuclear batteries.

    2. Re:The poster is wrong ... by terrymr · · Score: 2

      Oddly enough NiCd batteries were used - makes sense really industry standard rechargable batteries along with solar panels.

  14. A 2 day window?! by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 1

    Does it concern anyone else that a 2-day window is awfully large? That means even the us space command can't really pinpoint where this thing will come down, even though it's our own junk. Kinda makes you wonder how it would go if a meteor, etc got too close...
    Sir_Haxalot

    --
    stuff |
    1. Re:A 2 day window?! by carm$y$ · · Score: 1

      Kinda makes you wonder how it would go if a meteor, etc got too close...

      Well, I'm really glad this one is going to come in 900 years. If it was to hit next year it would've probably wiped the human race. Unfortunately, hollywood and bruce willis are not enough for this kind of threat.

      --
      -- No sig today
    2. Re:A 2 day window?! by PhuCknuT · · Score: 1

      A meteor is actually easier to predict. A meteor will be coming in from an orbit that crosses the path of earth, so it will come almost straight at earth. A satellite is orbiting earth and slowly dipping into the atmosphere. It's the interaction with the atmosphere that makes a satellite fall unpredictable. It will last for days or weeks, as opposed to a meteor, which will come straight in.

    3. Re:A 2 day window?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are an idiot who doesn't know anything about orbits. Meteors are trivial to predict compared to material orbiting the earth. Material orbiting the earth is brought down by atmospheric drag and it is virtually impossible to predict the ups and downs of the atmosphere. A meteor, on the other hand, is flying through space - no atmosphere en route to earth. Jeez. You might think before making such idiotic remarks.

    4. Re:A 2 day window?! by zer0*ryok0 · · Score: 1

      dude, to stop a meteor all we hafto do is launch to tripped out shuttles (obviously made of plastic) at the same time and land on the meteor and drill, then plant a nuke. duhh

      alternative would be to send dig-dug up there, he knows what to do!

      --
      the only fact is that everything is an opinion
  15. I hope.. by inburito · · Score: 1, Troll

    ..it will land in USA, King County, ZIP-code 98052-6399 and create a huge explosion.

    1. Re:I hope.. by Ophidian+P.+Jones · · Score: 0

      Why?

    2. Re:I hope.. by Pathwalker · · Score: 2

      I think it is rather obvious why he chose that target...

    3. Re:I hope.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      good wish!! Maybe we should
      contact the transcendental meditation folks
      to retarget their world peace
      array, with a large explosive
      result of course.

  16. that's weird by gTsiros · · Score: 1

    how can they give the TIME of the event when they are not even sure about the DAY?

    --
    Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
  17. Compatible Hardware List by jwork · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    It would be interesting to add a webpage containing a list of hardware that is compatible with this SDR out-of-the-box or is planned to be supported.

  18. Precision, precision. by ChiPHeaD23 · · Score: 4, Funny
    'Current predictions put re-entry at 4:41 EDT Sunday April 7 (+/- two days)'

    Guess somebody's getting a little too specific in their "predictions" given their precision. In other news, today's high will be 67.2 degrees (+/-40).

    1. Re:Precision, precision. by mks113 · · Score: 1

      A typical way of doing these calculations would be to calculate everything to the nth decimal, then do a separate calculation to figure out uncertainty. The exact calculation goes down to a minute. The uncertainty is about two days.

      The uncertainty is due to atmospheric density differences at high altitudes and uncertainty in drag due to spacecraft orientation.

      Then again, I'm a nuclear engineer. What do I know about Rocket Science?

    2. Re:Precision, precision. by Fatllama · · Score: 1

      Must have been one of my lab students.

    3. Re:Precision, precision. by sean23007 · · Score: 1

      If anybody at NASA had said "It'll hit the ground on April 7th, give or take 2 days," people would have been all over them for being so imprecise. By saying "4:41 EDT," they somehow give credibility to their claim, regardless of whether or not they had made any calculations.

      Similarly, if a high school student had made such a prediction relating to, say, the next time he'd get play from the girl down the street by saying "It will happen at 7:56 PM, April 21, 2002. Give or take a few weeks," it would mean absolutely nothing. The exact time does not matter when even the date is in question.

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
  19. wow by billy_troll · · Score: 0

    will i be able to use these batteries to power my dirty GNU hippie radio?

    --
    -----im billy troll----- im better than you at everything you do.
  20. Re:Guess they didn't use Russian Engineers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Russsian style is that all must work under any conditions. That's why Russians faild in Economy.

    American style is that 80% functions should work under 80% of conditions. That's why NASA has so high % of failure.

    Capitalism is good for 80% industries. Space sector is one of those which require dictate-based management and military discipline.

  21. Re:American Stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wouldn't count numbers five and six. Remember, there'a whole lot of zealots who insist we grew out of two people that were made from dirt. (Oh, think of the inbreeding - wait, maybe that's how we ended up with politicians.)

    Anyway, the zealots may be stupid, but it's a different kind of stupid than "The earth goes around the sun?!"

  22. Weird +/- error tolerance by happyhippy · · Score: 1
    Yesterday I read that an asteriod had a 1 in 300 chance of hitting earth in [b]900[/b] years time.

    Yet they cant determine how soon that satellite is going to hit which is exponentially sooner.

    1. Re:Weird +/- error tolerance by leeward · · Score: 1

      That is almost certainly because the satellite is grazing the atmosphere at a very shallow angle. When satellites, and for that matter space shuttles, reenter the atmosphere deliberately, the reentry is made a little steeper, which allows for accurate predictions of when and where it will reenter. With very shallow reentry angles, even the slight day to day variation in the "height" of the upper fringes of the atmosphere will change when and where the reentry will occur.

  23. Just one of many by somaroma · · Score: 1

    I was astounded when I read that "nearly 3,000 satellites and spacecraft now in orbit around Earth" in CNN's coverage of the story. I wonder if they are counting space junk? It seems like a huge number. With so many in the sky, it is a wonder there is not knews of this sort every day. There was another uncontrolled decent in January of a Nasa satellite. I liked this quote: "Orbital debris has never been known to injure a human, but legend has it a chunk of Skylab brought an untimely end to an Australian cow."

  24. Physics by Alizarin+Erythrosin · · Score: 1

    You know, I actually tried to work out the force of impact of one of the batteries, but then I realized: who actually would give a crap? It's gonna hit, and it's gonna make a really big thud.

    I just hope nobody ends up in the way, or it'll turn out to be a big splat.

    --
    There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
  25. Too much space junk by somaroma · · Score: 3, Funny

    With all the space junk in orbit now, I wonder if the reason we have not be been contacted by aliens isn't because we are the bad neighbors in the milkyway. We are like the people on the street with uncut grass and old broken down crap strewn all around our yard. Nobody wants to come over and say hello because they assume the residents are low lifes. If we do get a visit, it may be the head of the galaxy association telling us to take down the tacky mood decorations and clean the junk out of our space.

    1. Re:Too much space junk by El_Nofx · · Score: 1

      Wired had an article last month talking about a laser that could be used for both missle defense and to zap pieces of space junk into oblivion

      Sounds Kinda interesting. Remember in that star trek movie, #3 or #4 where they had the Klingon going around shooting up space junk. He shot that satelite with tribal pictures painted on it. Maybe we will be doing that someday

      --
      It's not the OS it's the user that sucks. If it's user friendly, you get stupider people. - clinko
  26. +/- two days? by div_2n · · Score: 1

    Let me get this straight, on March 16, 2880, we will get hit by an asteroid. But they can only manage to place this in the next 4 or 5 days?

    I guess physics isn't an exact science.

    1. Re:+/- two days? by hacksoncode · · Score: 2, Informative
      The key to when a satellite deorbits is when the atmospheric drag causes it to. The atmosphere expands and contracts based on a variety of factors including solar flux, which is very hard to predict. This isn't physics, it's astro-meteorology (multiple puns intended).

      By comparison, figuring out when an asteroid will hit the earth is a simple matter of determining it's path and speed and doing a simple calculation.

  27. actually... by HobbitGod42 · · Score: 0

    it will be the vogons... and they will tell us that the earth will be destroyed to make way for a new hyperspace by way...

  28. Why not bring it down? by dezwart · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    If it was at all possible, would NASA consider forcefully bringing the satellite down, eg: over an unpopulated area of an ocean?

    Or would this have unfortunate legal issues: international airspace, colateral damage.

    1. Re:Why not bring it down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like they don't have any real control over it. Not separating from the booster rocket properly probably put it in a goofy, eccentric orbit that they have no ability to change. Right now the only thing they can do is hunker down and hope it doesn't splat someone.

    2. Re:Why not bring it down? by sharkey · · Score: 2

      Or better yet, over a certain corporate campus in Redmond.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    3. Re:Why not bring it down? by leeward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If they still have control of the satellite, then that is exactly what they do. Remember MIR last year? They deliberately steered it so that it would fall in a large mostly sparsely inhabited area of the southern Pacific.

      If you mean would they shoot it down, then the answer is that it is unlikely. We really don't have missiles that can reliably hit orbiting objects yet.

    4. Re:Why not bring it down? by dezwart · · Score: 1

      Cool, that was what I was wondering.

      When I said "forcefully", I meant forcing it down via remote command then letting it fall eventually.

      More like a kill -15 than a kill -9

  29. Re:American Stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i have magic elves in my pants who bake brownies, oh wait no i don't!

  30. Free beer... by not_cub · · Score: 1

    ... for every slashdotter if a part of this falls on the beer can I have placed outside in my garden. not_cub

    --
    q='echo "q=$s$q$s;s=$b$s;b=$b$b;$q"';s=\';b=\\;echo "q=$s$q$s;s=$b$s;b=$b$b;$q"
  31. Re:American Stupidity by mpe · · Score: 2

    I wouldn't count numbers five and six. Remember, there'a whole lot of zealots who insist we grew out of two people that were made from dirt.

    Actually a few more of the questions are rather flawed.
    Question 1: No technology currently exists to measure the core temperature of any planet, including Earth.
    Question 2: it's just as valid to say that all the oxygen we breath comes nuclear fusion
    Question 4: it sould probably contain "relative to each other". Otherwise they move quite a distance each second. Even then you are asking for a true/false about a theory which is imensly difficult to prove.

  32. 33 pounds TOTAL, not each by wowbagger · · Score: 5, Informative

    Initial analysis indicates that only four small stainless-steel batteries, weighing a total of 15 kilograms (33 pounds) will survive re-entry.


    In other words, the weight of all 4 batteries is 15 kilos, not the weight of each battery. Still, 3.5 kilos at terminal velocity is nothing to sneeze at - perhaps I should buy a large number of pillows from Yahoo!....

    1. Re:33 pounds TOTAL, not each by terrymr · · Score: 2

      Yes - I realised that mistake after I hit the submit button - the difference in mass won't make much difference if it hits you in the head though.

  33. Ouch... by KentoNET · · Score: 1

    "...there is a good chance that the spacecraft's batteries (weighing 33lbs each) may reach the ground intact."

    So...when should I expect it to land on my car?

    --
    "You tried your best and failed miserably. The lesson is...never try. Heh!" -Homer
  34. Plutonium, HETE and Nuclear Links by securitas · · Score: 2, Interesting


    'Stainless steel batteries? ' I think not. More likely that they are plutonium or some other nuclear material, and the reason that no predictions are being made about where they will land is because NASA doesn't want to start a panic. As I understand it they are designed to burn up on re-entry to avoid ground level contamination (that says nothing of atmospheric contamination along the flight path). If they survive all the way to the ground and they are radiological....

    Space Nuclear Power Systems

    Space Nuclear Power System Accidents

    Bulletin of Atomic Scientists: How many nuclear devices are there in space?

    Link to CNN story.

    1. Re:Plutonium, HETE and Nuclear Links by LWolenczak · · Score: 3, Informative

      As far as I know, in recent years, ie the 90s, NASA has only used plutonium decay reactors for missions that go past mars, where solar panels are ineffective. Also, if memory serves, the launching of nuclear reactors is forbidden on the global level these days...... Thats why when NASA has been dumping lots of money into things like impulse drive as of recent.

    2. Re:Plutonium, HETE and Nuclear Links by leeward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Umm... why was this modded up? This is just plain ridiculous, and the person posting has no idea what he/she is talking about. NASA only puts nuclear power cells on probes that are headed to deep space, where the light from the sun is too weak to use solar power. No NASA satellite in orbit around the earth uses nuclear power, period. It is just too big of a hassle compared to the ease of solar panels and batteries.

      And again, the reason that the prediction is vague is because the satellite is reentering the atmosphere at a very shallow angle. This makes it impossible to accurately predict when, and therefore where, the satellite will reenter.

    3. Re:Plutonium, HETE and Nuclear Links by bperkins · · Score: 2

      You're a moron.

      I saw a show that talked about the HETE a few weeks ago. They were pissed that it was being put on a pegasus, since the rocket had a 50% failure rate or so. It seems unlikely that they would have put a nuclear battery on such a launch.

      Also, if you read the article, you would have noticed that the battery died after a few days of being stuck inside the launch vehicle. Doesn't sound like a radioactive battery to me.

      Finally, there are solar panels on the experiment. It would not make sense to have both a plutonium battery and solar panels on the same sattelite.

    4. Re:Plutonium, HETE and Nuclear Links by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I worked on HETE, built the processing system in fact.

      The batteries are NiCad. 33lbm sounds right.

      The containers for the batteries is what's stainless steel: each cell the in batteries looks like a stainless steel cigarette pack. Those are wrapped inside Aluminum boxes.

      I really wish OSC had managed to make their damn rocket work: HETE's been strapped to the Pegasus booster all this time.

    5. Re:Plutonium, HETE and Nuclear Links by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey if NASA had used Nuclear power for HETE it would have BLOWN UP and released Radioactive waste all over Earth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  35. So what I want to know is... by AgentTim3 · · Score: 1


    Where's the Taco Bell Target sitting for this one?

  36. Nothing nuclear here. These are NiCad. by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 4, Informative
    'Stainless steel batteries? ' I think not. More likely that they are plutonium or some other nuclear material

    Um, you might want to actually read about the satellite before assuming it uses radiothermal generators.

    The great big solar panels in the picture of the satellite might have been a hint that it didn't use nuclear power.

    From the HETE pages (describing HETE-2, an exact duplicate of the HETE-1 craft whose launch was unsuccessful):

    The HETE-2 power system hardware consists of

    • four solar panels, made of honeycomb aluminum with silicon substrate, each supplying 42W.
    • power box with power point tracker,~90% efficient
    • 6 battery packs, each made up of a string of 24 1.5V NiCd cells, and each with 1.2 A-hrs capacity


    You can find more information on the specs of the HETE satellites at http://space.mit.edu/HETE/spacecraft.html .
  37. Heavy boots!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    An informal poll, about gravity..


    Also interesting, from a different perspective, is the first part of this Alan Kay essay.

  38. Contests? by GrandCow · · Score: 1

    The question now is will Taco Bell put another big bulls-eye out in the general area and offer free tacos to the world if it gets hit again?

    --
    "Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try." -Homer Simpson
  39. A couple things by LupusUF · · Score: 2, Informative

    People keep asking why they don't know when it will hit"

    "The re-entry is uncontrolled, and due to potential solar flux variations, time and location predictions will not be reliable until only a few hours before the re-entry event," said Scott Hull"

    And contrary to what the original post says, the batteries are not 33 pounds each. That is the total weight of all of them.

    Initial analysis indicates that only four small stainless-steel batteries, weighing a total of 15 kilograms (33 pounds) will survive re-entry."

  40. Where? by Tokerat · · Score: 1

    Anyone know the predicted area of landing? I'm sure a general idea can be had based on current orbit...

    --
    CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
  41. free batteries by InsaneCreator · · Score: 2

    there is a good chance that the spacecraft's batteries (weighing 33lbs each) may reach the ground intact

    If I'm lucky I won't have to buy that extra laptop battery...

  42. Tax Dollars/Opps by DrewMadMax · · Score: 1

    Well, there's our tax dollars at work. Can I get a nice big OOPS??

    --
    "True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing"
    1. Re:Tax Dollars/Opps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess you're perfect. Maybe you should apply for a job at Nasa and make sure everything goes perfect?

      Communist.

  43. Recycling by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 1

    With all of that orbiting space junk out there, why not salvage it? It seems to me an awful waste to just burn it up in the atmosphere, especially when the average bird is on the order of US$150M.

    --
    'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
  44. Funny one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had a great time reading those articles, thanks for posting them here!

  45. Lightning in Southern Bavaria (Central Europe) by heilbron · · Score: 1

    Here a link to the text of the Bavarian state-owned news channel that reports mysterious lightning effects yesterday evening in Southern Bavaria around Munich, Germany:

    http://www.br-online.de/news/aktuell/
    (Look for "Mysteriöse Lichterscheinungen über Südbayern - Weltraummüll?")

    And for convenience the Babelfish translation (since the original is not linkable):

    "Mysterious lightning effects over Southern Bavaria - Space debris?

    Munich: In the sky over South Bavaria it gave several fire balls and optical phenomena yesterday evening. Hundreds anxious humans addressed themselves to the police. Particularly in the region "Bayerischer Wald" and Garmisch as well as in Munich long lightning effects were to be seen around 22:30 for several seconds. Pilots of airliners and military jets announced similar observations over radio. There are no reports about injuries or damages. The space authority NASA had announced that on weekend space garbage over Central Europe could fall. Yesterday it could not yet acknowledge a connection with these optical phenomena however."

  46. falling-down-on-new-jersey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am always interested by NASA's 'scientific' determination of falling objects... they designate the time to the hour, indeed to the minute, then add, +/- 2 days...? Why don't they instead tell us the average ground speed of the Brown-crested Swallow?

  47. Debris falling in China by Eye+of+the+Frog · · Score: 1

    Anyone notice the update to the annoucement. Looks like it re-entered above China. As if our relationship with them isn't shaky enough.....here's a satalite for ya!

    --
    "Sexy Man" is not a moderation option. -- arose
    1. Re:Debris falling in China by Eye+of+the+Frog · · Score: 1

      eerr.....satellite. Yeah, I can speel reel god.

      --
      "Sexy Man" is not a moderation option. -- arose
  48. Space Junk and Close Encounters with Space Hicks by BigBlockMopar · · Score: 2

    We are like the people on the street with uncut grass and old broken down crap strewn all around our yard. Nobody wants to come over and say hello because they assume the residents are low lifes. If we do get a visit, it may be the head of the galaxy association telling us to take down the tacky mood decorations and clean the junk out of our space.

    Or not. Judging from my experience when I leave old junked cars and major appliances in my front yard, it's a great way to make new friends and the encounter would go more like this:

    Interstellar pickup truck with interstellar Confederate flag comes up to the edge of our debris field. Occupant gets out, picks his way gingerly down to the surface, knocks on International Space Agency's door.

    "Hi there. I wuz just drivin' by, and I was wundrin, is y'all still usin' that there Iridium system you'se've got still orbitin' yer planet? I got sompin' like it at home and I need some parts. Kin I take it off'n yer hands fer a coupla cases of beer? Thank-ye kindly."

    --
    Fire and Meat. Yummy.
  49. You're a bloody fucking idiot by fm6 · · Score: 2
    Sorry to resort to trollspeak, but it's the only language adequate to describe your laziness, arrogance, and stupidity.

    Here's why I'm making a point of insulting you. Nuclear power of all kinds is backed by a lobby of smug, short-sighted techno-fetishists who just love it in when some hippie does the usual misinformed kneejerk antinuke rant. This allows them to portray all their opponents as such, and avoid the serious issues nuclear technology raise. You just scored one for their side!

    All you had to do was make a quick search on Google, which would have led you straight to the specs for the spacecraft in question. Which would have told you that the HETE is powered by a combo of solar cells and nicads.

    (Of course, nicads are also an environmental problem, but at least the ones on HETE aren't going into a landfill. Good environmentalist that you are, I hope you take your used nicads to a toxic waste depot. Or is pollution always somebody else's fault?)

    Next time you feel inclined to speak up for The Cause, make sure you're actually serving The Cause, and not your own pathetic ego.