Slashdot Mirror
Solar Powered Helios Plane Destroyed in Test Flight
deglr6328 writes "NASA's solar powered Helios airplane has crashed into the Pacific off the coast of Kauai today during its first test using a regenerative fuel cell power supply. Helios held the record for highest prop propelled plane altitude at 96,863 (set 2 years ago) and was making preparations for a 96 hour continuous flight using its 62,000 solar cells during the day while electrolyzing water into hydrogen and oxygen for use in its fuel cells at night. With the capability to carry 200 lb. to near 100,000 ft. for months on end, Helios was eyed with great anticipation by scientists and RF telecommunications buisnesses alike."
...because our history is full of science which worked as expected from the start. If it's too complicated to get right the first time, it's not worth doing. Failure depresses people, so only fund guaranteed successes. It's obvious, isn't it?
All in the name of science after all. Good thing whatever went wrong happened in the prototype phase, before anything but monetary anticipations were relying on it.
I'm very interested to know exactly what went wrong. From what I briefly read, I'd imagine it was the actual construction which had a problem, not the technology. Unless this was a pre-flight damaged part, this could be valuable information as I'm sure this plane used the latest designs, as other planes will be using.
Not trial and success. There's a reason for that.
The odd 747 full of paying commercial passengers has been known to fall out of the sky as well.
You pick up the pieces, figure out what went wrong, start over and hope to do better next time.
Those who refuse to fail will never achieve any measure of success.
KFG
I think it's time to reconsider the validity of spending billions on disaster after disaster when so much needs to be taken care of at home.
Ok, let me get this straight. You list some of NASA's failures and ignore all of its successes, and conclude from that analysis that NASA is a big waste of time and money? Hmm...
NASA's budget is 14 GigaUSD per year. Bush's innefectual, for-the-wealthy tax cut is 35 GigaUSD per year. If your true interest is taking care of problems at home like war and famine, you should be attacking the Bush administration, not NASA.
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
In science, if you demand perfection, don't expect any advancement.
Feel free to mod me "-1 - Angry Jerk".
I simply can't understand this line of reasoning. Bush cut income, estate, and dividend taxes, targeting the cuts disproportionately at the wealthy investor class. He did not cut payroll taxes. Certainly people who pay payroll taxes are also "PAY[ing] TAXES", are they not? And isn't it true that payroll taxes generate a huge surplus in the social security trust fund, while income taxes don't pay anywhere near enough into the general account to pay for basic governmental services? Are we not running a deficit?
Now you may argue that payroll taxes are collected strictly to pay out social services and are not collected for general revenue or spent on general services, as such they shouldn't be cut. However, this isn't the case. In fact the HUGE SURPLUS of $200B/yr is siphoned off to reduce our general account deficit. In fact, the currently stated $450B (4.5%GDP) deficit would actually be $650B (6.5%GDP) were it not for the surplus generated from payroll taxes. Note that payroll tax collections are capped at $86K/yr, meaning that any income above $86K/yr is not taxed; this is called a regressive tax because collections don't continue linearly across all income streams. The rich pay much less proportionally for payroll taxes than do you or I.
Realize that general revenues pay for basic government services such as the military, infrastructure (roads, bridges, airports, rail, etc), NASA, and government overhead - NOT social services. So, I wonder how anyone can defend a tax cut that reduces revenue from a general account which is already $650B/yr in deficit? And the gall of claiming that it is done on the grounds that income taxes are somehow 'real' while payroll taxes don't matter, when it is the payroll tax surplus which covers 1/3rd of our current account deficit.
Whatever you may think of the rationality of providing social services (I support them, you may not, either opinion is legitimate political debate), certainly you agree that general services slated for payment through income taxes should collect enough on their own to pay for those services. We should not be running a 6.5% GDP deficit (or even a 4.5% GDP deficit) while at the same time cutting the very taxes slated to pay for those services. That the current administration claims to cut these taxes for the people who "PAY TAXES", while at the same time cutting no taxes for those who pay a regressive tax, is simply disingenuous and offensive.
And I haven't even begun discussing our current foreign trade deficit, which is another +5% of GDP. Frankly, if this continues Bush's administration may well take America over the brink into bankruptcy. We're already printing money to prevent 'deflation', the Treasury Department has signaled it's willingness to let the dollar continue to depreciate in value against other foreign currencies, and our manufacturing base is running 1/4 idle.
IMO, these tax cuts are a policy mess. Bush and the fed are 'pushing on a string' with their policy blunders by flooding the investment streets with money while there's nothing left to invest in. We should be pushing the money down to the individual low income tax payers to stir consumption, not further investment and development with no buyers in sight.
Cheers,
--Maynard