Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Loses Contact With Comet Explorer

Posted by timothy on from the at-least-it's-only-taxpayer-money dept.

linuxwrangler writes: "According to this article in the SF Chronicle, NASA lost contact with the Comet Nucleus Tour ('Contour') satellite just after firing engines to boost it out of orbit. The spacecraft was launched July 3 with the mission to probe comet Encke in 2003, Schwassman-Wachmann 3 in 2006 and perhaps d'Arrest in 2008. NASA is calculating possible trajectories in an attempt to search for and contact the probe. Let's hope they regain contact/control. This sounded like a cool project." Liquor adds: "The BBC has a report that indicates that the launch window for the $159M spacecraft closes tomorrow. If it hasn't successfully fired the engine by then, it can't make the planned mission."

29 comments

  1. Self correcting mechanisms.... by hackwrench · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Does anybody know what self correcting mechanisms to contact NASA or meet the launch window, or anything else, that the probe has?

  2. 159 million dollars.. by BlackCobra43 · · Score: 0, Troll

    of taxpayer money,"Flying out the window"....

    --
    I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
  3. I will put odds that... by Neck_of_the_Woods · · Score: 2


    They find it collecting dust samples on Mars.

    --
    Neck_of_the_Woods
    #/usr/local/surf/glassy/overhead
  4. More NASA Blunders by whodunnit · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one getting sick of NASA constantly screwing up? They say they arent getting enough money but it seems as if they are wasting the money they do get on mishap after mishap, you would think that they would realized that if they stopped screwing up, and wasting our money that maybe they would accually be able to convince congress to give them a larger budged. I dunno, over all I like NASA they just are pissing me off as of late.

    Just my 2 cents.

    1. Re:More NASA Blunders by whodunnit · · Score: 1

      Sigh, I always forget to proof read stuff before I post it. Please forgive the spelling errors.

    2. Re:More NASA Blunders by yakfacts · · Score: 2

      They usually get it right. The news loves to make a massive deal about their screwups, but all of these things are high-risk.

      With paper-thin budgets thanks to our damn legislators, they do what they can with what they have...but space is not cheap, and mistakes happen when you try to "do it cheap".

    3. Re:More NASA Blunders by g4dget · · Score: 2
      How many ships do you think people lost during the age of exploration? And what fraction of wealth do you think was spent on exploration?

      Space travel is much, much more complex. It's amazing that we manage to do it at all. And, on balance, NASA is doing very well, in particular given the limited resources they are getting.

    4. Re:More NASA Blunders by dnahelix · · Score: 1

      Your 2 cents aren't worth jack shit. Oh, and if you LEARNED to spell, you wouldn't NEED a spell checker.

      --
      Slashdot Eds Link Anonymous Posts With Logged Posts
      They Are Vermin Feeding On Each Other's Feces.
      I Hate \.
  5. This is why I see... by C0LDFusion · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    ...that NASA should be eliminated. Not only are the Space Admins stifling free-market efforts towards space, but they are also bungling fools who mess up English to Metric conversions and throw satellites into space without thoughts towards back-up comm methods. I mean, shite, dude, even Amateur Radio guys know that if you're dealing with something important, you have a second method of communication.

    If, back after we landed on the moon, we switched to subsidizing private Space Exploration rather than feeding mega-Trillions to NASA, we'd already have our colonies on the damned moon, and we'd probable have it for alot less than what NASA's blown on the Space Shuttle program alone.

    From the Apollo 1 to Apollo 13 to Challenger to this day, NASA's proven itself to be an organization that is all too self-aware of their job security.

    --
    Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
    1. Re:This is why I see... by PD · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Twas Lockheed that made the error, not NASA.

      And how is NASA stifling private competition? Seems like there's more private space companies now than there ever has been.

      Privatizing everything is not the solution.

      --
      If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
    2. Re:This is why I see... by C0LDFusion · · Score: 1

      And how is NASA stifling private competition? Seems like there's more private space companies now than there ever has been.

      Because, as it is now, there's only one American organization that is actually sending things into space. I mean, PHYSICALLY moving them. NASA. Most other Satellite and other orgs pay NASA to send their junk up there.

      Not only that, but if the money that's given to NASA each year went to private companies (that proved themselves capable and responsible) as a subsidy, you'd have more innovation and less stagnation because different competant companies would compete for bigger grants and more money from people. I pose the question: Is there a Slashdotter who, if given the chance and a decent internet connection, would join up to colonize the Moon? I think we'd find at least a hundred on this site alone.

      --
      Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
    3. Re:This is why I see... by cp99 · · Score: 1

      Surely if NASA is so bad, then private companies would be taking it business away from it as we speak. Any satellite company would jump at the chance for cheaper launches, that is, if a private launch company would offer something other than hot air.

      --
      Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.
    4. Re:This is why I see... by macdaddy357 · · Score: 1

      Everything is Snafu as usual at the National Anus Spelunking Administration.

      --
      How ya like dat?
    5. Re:This is why I see... by John+Biggabooty · · Score: 1

      They might have better luck studying hemorrhoids instead of asteroids.

      --
      That's Bigboo TAY! TAY!
    6. Re:This is why I see... by uncoveror · · Score: 2

      Privatize it? That's just brilliant! Let the likes of Enron, Worldcom, and US Airways run it! Corporate robbber barons care only about grabbing money. They would take every cent of the space agency's budget as their salaries and bonuses, then would lay everyone off, file bankruptcy, and laugh all the way to the bank. Greedy businessmen destroy everything they touch. Consider what could happen to your parents or grandparents if Social Security were privatized. The Social Security Corporation would piss it all away grabbing fat salaries, and speculating in stock like Enron, Worldcom, and Imclone. Some things are way too important to leave to greedy businessmen.

      --
      The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
    7. Re:This is why I see... by PD · · Score: 2

      First, money subsidizing a private company is really the worst of both worlds. Private space companies can and do survive on their own.

      Second, you seem unaware of all the space companies out there that move things into space. I'm thinking of at least SeaLaunch and Orbital. There are others.

      --
      If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
    8. Re:This is why I see... by C0LDFusion · · Score: 1

      You mean like how parcel companies were great competition back for the USPS in the early 1800s? A government-established monopoly is immune to market forces until the government removes the barrier. That's why FedEx and UPS are so big now, because the barriers were removed.

      --
      Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
    9. Re:This is why I see... by C0LDFusion · · Score: 1

      Just tell me next time one of those two plan to send up a batch of colonists. I'll sign up.

      --
      Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
    10. Re:This is why I see... by cp99 · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that NASA would be bankrupted by private industry, but rather, there is lots of money too be made by putting stuff into orbit, and if private companies can really beat NASA, surely they would be doing it now.

      My skeptism towards private launch companies arises because they have only produced plans and nothing solid, whereas NASA actually (more often than not) puts things into space.

      --
      Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.
    11. Re:This is why I see... by PD · · Score: 1

      I would too. You would be very interested in this link then:

      XCor

      It's Dick Rutan and his rocket powered Long-EZ. Future plans are a small rocket powered airplane to carry paying passengers on a suborbital flight.

      --
      If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
    12. Re:This is why I see... by C0LDFusion · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that NASA would be bankrupted by private industry, but rather, there is lots of money too be made by putting stuff into orbit, and if private companies can really beat NASA, surely they would be doing it now.

      It's against FAA rules to attempt a launch of a space vehicle from American ground and airspace without prior permission. And they only give NASA and a few select companies (that can't send people, only cargo) the clearance to do so.

      My skeptism towards private launch companies arises because they have only produced plans and nothing solid, whereas NASA actually (more often than not) puts things into space.

      And then, like a spoiled kid, lose their expensive toy, shrug, and ask their Uncle Sam for a new one.

      --
      Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
    13. Re:This is why I see... by cp99 · · Score: 1

      It's against FAA rules to attempt a launch of a space vehicle from American ground and airspace without prior permission. And they only give NASA and a few select companies (that can't send people, only cargo) the clearance to do so.

      If a company truely believes that it can make money off sending people to space it will get around this, by either lobbying for permission, or moving to a different country. If your the sort of person who is willing to travel to the moon/mars/whatever, then an international flight shouldn't worry you.

      And then, like a spoiled kid, lose their expensive toy, shrug, and ask their Uncle Sam for a new one.

      Has NASA requested more money because of this loss?

      --
      Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.
  6. NASA geniuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    From space.com:

    The cost-saving plan was to boost it into space using an onboard Star 30 solid rocket motor this morning. The approach shaved $10 million off the cost of the mission, compared to a plan that would have shot the craft directly from launch to deep space. Buckley told SPACE.com there are two scenarios for what might have gone wrong:

    • The spacecraft's transmitter might have switched itself off
    • The course-changing rocket might have damaged or destroyed the spacecraft

    $10 million well saved, boys!. Now they've blown the whole $159 million. Hope they got more than this to put on their resume, they're gonna need it.

  7. update - why it went off course by gruntvald · · Score: 1

    Turns out there was a 1 gram misbalance caused by SOME GUYS ASHES in an old film cannister, glued to the wing...

  8. Did they check their pockets? by theraccoon · · Score: 1
    I know how they must be feeling. I lost my car keys the other day. That was embarrassing.

    raccoon

  9. CONTOUR News Update by Tsar · · Score: 2

    Here's the latest press release from the CONTOUR people, which can be found here:

    CONTOUR: Latest News
    August 16, 2002 -- 1 p.m. (EDT)
    Search for CONTOUR Continues

    Mission operators continue to listen for a signal from CONTOUR.

    Using its 34-meter antennas, NASA's Deep Space Network stations are scanning the spacecraft's expected path beyond Earth's orbit, attempting to pick up radio signals from CONTOUR's transmitters. The CONTOUR team is also awaiting feedback from several NASA-sponsored and other optical and radar sites that have been searching the skies for signs of the spacecraft.

    CONTOUR's STAR 30 solid-propellant rocket motor was programmed to ignite at 4:49 a.m. EDT on Aug 15, boosting the spacecraft out of an Earth parking orbit and onto a trajectory to encounter two comets over the next four years. The spacecraft was too low for DSN antennas to track it during the burn - about 140 miles (225 kilometers) above the Indian Ocean - and the CONTOUR mission operations team at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory expected to regain contact about 45 minutes later to confirm the burn. No signal was received, and the team has been working through plans to find the craft along the predicted trajectories for a successful burn.

    CONTOUR's onboard computer was carrying a command that, starting at 6 a.m. EDT today, would have turned the spacecraft and pointed another of its four antennas toward Earth. So far, however, no signal has been received.

    CONTOUR, a Discovery-class mission to explore the nucleus of comets, was built and managed by the John Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, Md., for NASA. Additional information about CONTOUR is available on the Internet at: http://www.contour2002.org.

  10. Split in Two? Yipes! by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    They aimed a telescope at the position where it is expected to be, and they found what appears to be TWO moving spots instead of one.

    Not a good sign.

    Here is an image that appears to be a positive/negative overlay to help seperate star images from moving things:

    http://spacewatch.lpl.arizona.edu/Jeff/contour.j pg

    There are 4 streaks here because there are two sets of positive/negative plates overlapped I am speculating.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  11. rant: space.com flucked to infinity and beyond by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everytime I go to space.com my browser goes haywire, but in different ways each time.

    They did an overhaul recently and it has not been the same since. I will take functioning over pretty any day.

    They have too much JavaScript, Flash, and pop-up ads.

    Somebody over there needs to be FIRED now!

    Burn The Fuckholes!!!!!!!

  12. Rocket Scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The complexities of launching such a craft are phenomenal. And I imagine this mission just suffered from one of many potential problems that could occur. I can accept that.

    That being said, what if they took our 500 million and then sent up a couple of cardboard boxes, how would anyone ever find out, short of going out there and looking at the stuff first hand?

    Now, if there were different times I'd never even consider such a scenerio. But in the context of our times it would be illogical to not consider such things. I find it tragic to be living in times when such suspicions are prudent.