Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Contour Probe May Not Be Broken After All

Posted by timothy on from the second-hand-hearsay-rumor dept.

RedPhoenix writes "A few friends & I got together this morning to visit the Tidbinbilla Deep Space Communication station open day, just outside of Canberra Australia. One of the NASA team mentioned that there have been indications early this morning (AESTime) of a contact with the 'Contour' probe, that has been reported to have broken in two. Perhaps some cause for optimism? The most interesting part of the day though, was probably the little old wooden crate out the back of one of the warehouses, stamped with 'NASA Voyager 1 Mission' ... Now that would look nice as a geek coffee-table."

16 comments

  1. I hope NASA are getting facts right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    This reminds me of the time North Korea launched the "satellite into orbit". It was a test of some missile delivery system. The americans tracked it and observed it going up, then finally crashing in the ocean. The North Koreans, not wanting to admit it was a missle test, claimed they were launching a satellite into orbit. They took the lie as far as to claim the satellite was *in* orbit and they were receiving telemetry from it.

    Now we have NASA, and an observation post observing the contour spacecraft broken in two pieces along the original trajectory. Despite that, NASA claims to be hearing from it. This will not make NASA look any better in the public eye. If it's dead, it's dead, and $200million down the drain.

    1. Re:I hope NASA are getting facts right by RobotWisdom · · Score: 3, Funny
      "$200million down the drain"

      Yep-- 15 more like that every year, and we're talking 1% of the defense budget.

    2. Re:I hope NASA are getting facts right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      NASA however, do not have the defense budget. They only get what congress gives them. If this looks bad, then they'll get even less. $200m is a lot of money, and it's definately a lot of money to them.

    3. Re:I hope NASA are getting facts right by geoswan · · Score: 0, Redundant
      NASA however, do not have the defense budget. They only get what congress gives them. If this looks bad, then they'll get even less. $200m is a lot of money, and it's definately a lot of money to them.

  2. NASA's "faster, cheaper" experiments by geoswan · · Score: 5, Insightful
    NASA however, do not have the defense budget. They only get what congress gives them. If this looks bad, then they'll get even less. $200m is a lot of money, and it's definately a lot of money to them.

    Woops, I meant to comment on this. :-)

    In another thread on this probe someone said something like, "I wish NASA would make probes that work darn it!"

    I thought the "faster, cheaper" experiment, where NASA would build more probes, but cheaper probes, which would carry fewer instrument packages, and be easier to build -- I thought it was a good idea. It was an experiment. NASA's plan was to accept a greater failure rate, which was supposed to be balanced by the probes overall smaller budgets. A greater proportion of these probes did fail. The public didn't like hearing about these failures.

    But was the experiment a failure? Did NASA get more instruments out there, for cheaper, than if they had built a fewer number of gold-plated probes? Either way, I would say the experiment was worth trying.

    Has NASA officially announced the abandonment of the faster, cheaper experiment?

    And, if so, was the CONTOUR one of the last "faster, cheaper" probes.

    If NASA were sending cosmonauts out there, the probes would have to be really reliable, and consequently a lot more expensive. NASA sends robot probes knowing some will fail. I wish there wasn't all this criticism when it happens.

    1. Re:NASA's "faster, cheaper" experiments by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      (* NASA sends robot probes knowing some will fail. I wish there wasn't all this criticism when it happens. *)

      It is all about cost/benefit analysis. At some point there is an optimum spending per probe where the extra costs are not worth reducing failure risk. I don't know where that point is, but it seems like bad press tends to push the costs up a bit too high on this curve.

      One approach is to do what they did in the 1960's: launch 2 identical probes at the same time. Mariner 4's partner and I think Mariner 9's partner failed, but people only remember the successful twin.

      The cost of a twin probe is not double the cost of one because much of the effort is research and control software rather than just manufacturing.

      Perhaps they could make the probes half-size, put 1/2 the instruments on one, and 1/2 on the other. That way if one fails you still get half the science rather than all or nothing. (Put cameras on both, however, or you have nothing for the papers if the eyed one fails.)

      NASA has to also think about managing expectations, regardless of whether such expectations are rational or not. That is just part of life living with humans.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    2. Re:NASA's "faster, cheaper" experiments by Callamon · · Score: 1
      If NASA were sending cosmonauts out there
      NASA sends astronauts, not cosmonauts.. ;)
  3. Can split probe still talk? by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Funny

    There are two moving spots where there should be one (viewed by big ground-based telescope).

    Thus, if it can still communicate, then what is that second spot? It looks about the same brightness, so it must be roughly the same size (barring a lucky reflection).

    It would be a miracle for it to have exploded during the boost phase, yet enough of it to survive to communicate.

    BTW, the links appear to have be slashdotted, if not by us, then by the press. (I guess that would be pressdotted.)

    This may be the first time that Nasa gets two probes for the price of one:

    Con and Tour

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  4. I have a crate by Stinky+Boy · · Score: 1

    I can sell you a crate stamped with "NASA Voyager Mission 1".

    Or maybe I should put it on eBay.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une sig.
  5. i hadn't heard about this by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

    what happened to this one, where they measuring in cubits?

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  6. Hmmmm....? by dnahelix · · Score: 1

    Perhaps it is an ALIEN SPACESHIP moving along with the probe. If the probe exploded, wouldn't the pieces be moving apart and not parallel? "On Friday, a University of Arizona telescope picked up what appeared to be two "parallel trails" near where the probe should have been, suggesting it had broken apart. " If the pieces have already moved apart, they should still be moving apart.

    --
    Slashdot Eds Link Anonymous Posts With Logged Posts
    They Are Vermin Feeding On Each Other's Feces.
    I Hate \.
    1. Re:Hmmmm....? by Royster · · Score: 3, Informative

      If their rate of travel away from one another is small in relation to their rate of travel with respect to the earth, parallel tracks is exactly what you would expect to see.

      --
      I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
    2. Re:Hmmmm....? by dnahelix · · Score: 1

      I was being facetious.

      --
      Slashdot Eds Link Anonymous Posts With Logged Posts
      They Are Vermin Feeding On Each Other's Feces.
      I Hate \.
    3. Re:Hmmmm....? by applejacks · · Score: 1

      What type of fuel did it carry? Any fluids? They tend to stick together remember? A bolt could have jarred aloose. And the thing fell apart. Maybe they didn't tourqe the bolts to spect or maybe they did and rung the bolt off. Then just decided to ignore it so as to not have to tap the hole and pay 17.00$ for another bolt. Markup costs you know?

  7. It didn't split in two...... by lasertech · · Score: 1

    It's just become bi-polar. Sorry, I couldn't resist the extremely bad joke. *sigh*

  8. Mariner failures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Mariner failures I know of were Mariner 1 (to Venus, sister of the successful Mariner 2) which IIRC failed because someone left a full stop of a line in a Fortran control program, and Mariner 3.