DART Succumbs to Fuel Problems

qw0ntum writes "The AP reports that NASA's experimental DART (Demonstration of Autonomous Rendezvous Technology) spacecraft mission ended early when the craft's onboard computers detected a fuel-system problem. The craft, which was entirely computer-controlled, came within 300 feet of its target rendezvous target, a Pentagon satelite, before detecting the problem. Despite the failure, mission leaders 'called the mission a partial success because it demonstrated that an entirely computer-controlled craft could find a satellite in space.'"

Comments

They should do this mission again

[TheKidWho]

They really should, in space rendevous is going to be a very important technology in the future, especially when the CEV needs to be assembled in orbit for a trip to the moon or mars, much easier to have it autonomously done.

And this time, launch the thing off of a Falcon 1, not a $30million pegasus.

Re:They should do this mission again

[Anonymous Coward]

The most important part of the mission was accomplished. This sounds hard to believe since the mission it was supposed to perform appeared to be simple: go up, find a satellite, fly around it a couple of times, and then go away. What most news sites fail to mention is that DART was designed to find the satellite without ground or space support. Just GPS.

The proving that GPS alone could allow spacecraft to navigate in space was the most important part of the mission. This part was accomplished. The precision GPS navigation towards the end of the mission was not accomplished. This is a pity, but not nearly as significant as the initial GPS navigation performed. It would be nice for this technology to be proved in the future, but it is not reasonable to believe that any normal rendevous in space in the near future would be done without communication between spacecraft. I don't think it is worth the money currently to put another DART into space for just this task. If DART failed altogether, I would say yes, but since it proved the most important part of its mission, couple the precision GPS navigation onto another research craft.

Re:They should do this mission again

[cahiha]

There is no need for autonomy in orbit--they could do the entire thing via teleoperation.

And that's what they should do for now: get teleoperations and telepresence between orbital vehicles and the ground worked out. That's useful not just for operating vehicles in orbit from the ground, it's potentially also useful for telepresence during planetary exploration--for most planetary operations, even if you send astronauts, there is little reason for them to actually land on the planet.

Re:They should do this mission again

[Anonymous Coward]

You do understand that the machines are making us do this so that we will no longer be necessary. I, for one, refuse to welcome our new autonomous overlords. Just say no to unnecessary mechanical extravagances.

Re:They should do this mission again

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, teleportation is still in the realm of science fiction, as any thinking person could attest. Of course you only seem to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in our high schools.

Re:They should do this mission again

[Anonymous Coward]

Honey, learn to read. TeleOPERATIONS and TelePRESENCE are not the same as "teleportation".

Re:They should do this mission again

[DerekLyons]

And this time, launch the thing off of a Falcon 1, not a $30million pegasus.

Considering that Pegasus is a proven booster, and that the Falcon is vapoware... (Vaporware whose first flight is currently scheduled for 8 months after it's originally scheduled date...)

Re:They should do this mission again

[Anonymous Coward]

after it's originally scheduled date

"its".

Re:They should do this mission again

[GroovBird]

Actually, because rockets generally burn gasses (or liquids brought into gaseous state), they are kind of vaporware, aren't they?

Re:They should do this mission again

[bluGill]

Actually scientists have done successful teleportation before. However it only works for Quantum particles, and they have not gone very far. Still it has been done in the lab.

Teleportation of people is a long ways out, if ever. There are major technical problems to get around. Some require a new understanding of physics such that what we currently know is wrong!

Re:They should do this mission again

[cartmancakes]

I've done it lots of times! Ever played BARIS?

:)

Re:They should do this mission again

[Anonymous Coward]

"And this time, launch the thing off of a Falcon 1, not a $30million pegasus."

Since when is a Pegasus XL $30 Million? Try $19.5 Million.

Lessons learned?

[helioquake]

This partial failure is to show that it is not an easy stuff to launch a satellite and let it autonomously dock itself to another object.

Imagine doing something similiar with the Hubble. Though it'd not be totally autonomous, many things could go wrong in the repair/deorbit mission, which can lead to a disaster. This is why, I think that, at the end the Hubble would be serviced by astronauts to prepare its deorbit.

Re:Lessons learned?

[myowntrueself]

"This partial failure is to show that it is not an easy stuff to launch a satellite and let it autonomously dock itself to another object."

No, its evidently its quite difficult.

Just ask the Russians, who have been doing it with enormous success for decades and who have well-developed systems that have been proven to perform this function extremely reliably.

It must be incredibly hard, if NASA have trouble with it.

Oops sorry, that last bit was a troll.

Re:Lessons learned?

[TheKidWho]

The Russians do it by having an active system on both the spacecraft that is docking and the craft/satellite that is being docked to. It's much much easier to do it that way, what NASA was trying to do was have the spacecraft do it ALL by itself with absolutely no human intervention and no active docking systems on the targetted satellite.

Oooo does the truth hurt troll?

Re:Lessons learned?

[Anonymous Coward]

Enormous success? Certainly not complete success: the Russians almost lost MIR due to a problem with a Progress resupply spacraft in 1997.

An automated docking spacecraft is a simpler design than DART. DART navigated only by GPS, received no navigation information from the Earth after it launched, and then once the satellite was located it navigated within 300 feet visually. DART failed to navigate within 15 feet and do maneuvers around the satellite prior to going into a parking orbit due to a fuel issue. I think it is obvious that the method that DART was using is much more complicated than used on Progress supply ships (which can count on a beacon from the space station and additional information from the Earth--not to mention a manual override).

The difference between DART and Progress is that Progress requires ground and space support in order to dock. DART requires neither. In the future, if a successful DART 2 mission occurs, it may be possible to launch a spacecraft and forget about it until it docks or performs its mission (like a computer program). This could reduce costs for automated spacecraft (logisitics costs).

Re:Lessons learned?

[rbanffy]

If Hubble's big problem is with its gyros, why not dock an additional module with them inside. The gyros that keep something stable do not need to be inside it.

Smarter still would be to attach an orbit-transfer vehicle to it to allow it to be serviced at the ISS, instead of sending up someone with a shuttle. The parts needed for the job could be sent on a Progress or that other ESA cargo vehicle I am too lazy to look up now and the ISS is a cash-drain ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H solution desperately seeking a problem. If the vehicle has an ion engine, orbit-transfer could take a couple weeks but, as long as it extends the life of the telescope by more than that amount, I see no problem with that.

Re:Lessons learned?

[kevlar]

There's a big difference between a remotely controlled space craft and an autonomously controlled space craft. Progress is remote controlled. DART was fully autonomous.

Even with a remote controlled space craft, the Russians almost took out MIR.

Re:Lessons learned?

[Anonymous Coward]

I seem to recall that the MIR accident, while an American was aboard, happened while a Russian astronaut was using a joystick-remote-control to guide the Cargo Module through the final stage of docking.

Re:Lessons learned?

[jclendenan]

Let's just hope they don't forget one if (when) a DART doesn't actually do it's job.

How often have we started something, and then fogotten about it.

Re:Lessons learned?

[CowbertPrime]

The Mir accident was due to human error actually. They try to dock it manually, and the operator miscalculated the lateral course deviation, because he was only relying on the one dimensional radar beacon.

Re:Lessons learned?

[tsotha]

Certainly not complete success: the Russians almost lost MIR due to a problem with a Progress resupply spacraft in 1997.

That's not fair to the Russians. They had a working system and were testing a new video system which would have been cheaper to operate, had it worked out. If they'd stuck with the original system everything would have been fine.

In the future, if a successful DART 2 mission occurs, it may be possible to launch a spacecraft and forget about it until it docks or performs its mission (like a computer program). This could reduce costs for automated spacecraft (logisitics costs).

I don't see how that can actually work out. The people you have standing around at launch aren't there to guide the spacecraft. You could hire one retired porn star for that. All those guys are there in case something goes wrong. You'll still need them even if the computer controlls the flight, for the same reason.

Re:Lessons learned?

[rkrabath]

a SPAcraft?

I need one of those!!!

Re:Lessons learned?

[Nerull]

The Progress/Mir accident was caused when Russia decided to save money by ditching the autopilot and having a human remotely dock Progress from Mir via a joystick remote control and looking out the window at it. He lost it against earth and it crashed into Mir. Their autodocking system had nothing to do with it.

It did have a problem on Soyuz TMA-5, though. The astronauts had to take manual control. A thruster was not preforming at full power and the software overcompensated with the other thusters, approaching the ISS too fast.

Re:Lessons learned?

[myowntrueself]

"The Progress/Mir accident was caused when Russia decided to save money by ditching the autopilot and having a human remotely dock Progress from Mir via a joystick remote control and looking out the window at it."

Wrong; NASA insisted that the Russians develop and test methods to dock manually because NASA didn't trust the Russian computers.

When they did it the NASA way, they had their first major accident in a docking maneuver.

Re:Lessons learned?

[Deliveranc3]

Why is this stuff considered so difficult. Artificial intelligence in areas like video games do things that are orders of magnitude more difficult.

Re:Lessons learned?

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, Progress resupply craft is not a good example.

A much more similar system from Russians was the "IS" anti-satellite system, developed and tested between 1960-1980s. The core of the system is a destroyer satellite that approaches target at a kill distance and then explodes.

Some more info here: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/is.html

Re:Lessons learned?

[DerekLyons]

"The Progress/Mir accident was caused when Russia decided to save money by ditching the autopilot and having a human remotely dock Progress from Mir via a joystick remote control and looking out the window at it."

Wrong; NASA insisted that the Russians develop and test methods to dock manually because NASA didn't trust the Russian computers.

Wrong. NASA asked Russia to ensure a continued supply of docking computers (they are manufactured in the Ukraine, who insists on being paid in hard currency). Russia was so hard up for docking computers during Shuttle/MIR they salvaged them from Progress before it undocked and begged NASA to carry them back on the Shuttle!

Russia decided to cheap it out and try a manual method instead. Then, they decided to perform the test with a crew that had already been in orbit for months, and whose training was questionable. Then, they made things worse by not outfitting the Progress with visual aids, and by not outfitting MIR with proper hardware (windows, cameras, viewing aids, rangefinding aids etc..), and by conducting a shitty approach against a bad background.

Just a few weeks ago, Russia announced they had set up a factory to produce KURS computers in Russia, from Russian components. (Their native TORU system having proved problematical.)

Re:Lessons learned?

[space2004]

According to "Automated Rendezvous and Docking of Spacecraft" by Wigbert Fehse, the russian automated docking system, "Kurs," is "designed to provide all required navigation measurements during the entire approach from a few hundreds of kilometers down to contact." In other words, it does not require ground or space support to dock. This is also confirmed on:

http://www.nasa.gov/missions/science/dart_into_spa ce.html

As mentioned in other posts, the russians also developed a manual joystick/video docking system, "Toru," which can be used to dock instead of Kurs if desired. This is the system which caused the problem on MIR, not Kurs.

The russian system has active RF components on both the target and chase spacecraft which are used throughout the automated docking sequence.

The american system uses GPS instead of the RF beacons on the target for the initial approach. However, GPS is also RF based, so to my mind, that is not a huge difference... you could say the difference is that one provides absolute position information whereas the other provides relative information.

For the final approach (within 300m) the american system utilizes visual tracking of passive reflectors on the target to achieve docking. This is the primary difference between the two systems (the russians continue to use RF on final approach).

The potential benefits of the american approach are reduced weight and system complexity on the target. Whether this can achieve the same reliability as the russian system is of course unknown at present.

Re:Lessons learned?

[bluGill]

No, the benefit of the American system is it allows docking with a satelite that wasn't designed for automatic docking. Do you have a new, cost effective way to repair/upgrade a satelite that wasn't designed for repair? This system can get there and do it without involving humans at all. (Assuming your cost effective repair involves no humans)

The Russian system is great when you know you will be going back. A supply ship to a space station is a good example. It is useless to something you didn't expect to be going back to.

Re:Lessons learned?

[hey!]

I don't see how that can actually work out. The people you have standing around at launch aren't there to guide the spacecraft. You could hire one retired porn star for that.

Hmmm. Interestign idea. I can forsee a return to the era when spacecraft launches were media events...

Re:Lessons learned?

[space2004]

Well actually no. If you read the DART site, the particular system being tested depends on passive reflectors... i.e., the satellite was designed for automatic docking.

Could we develop a system for automated docking with a satellite that hadn't been designed for such? Possible, but a much harder problem, and frankly not worth the effort.

The DART work will support the new Exploration Mission... and you can be assured that any system that is developed will require satellites designed for automatic docking.

Re:Lessons learned?

[bluGill]

Granted. Still, this is one step on the way to fully automatic docking with craft that wasn't designed for docking.

Re:Lessons learned?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Though it'd not be totally autonomous, many things could go wrong in the repair/deorbit mission, which can lead to a disaster. This is why, I think that, at the end the Hubble would be serviced by astronauts to prepare its deorbit.

Totally autonomous isn't ready but that doesn't mean you need astronouts. What they should do is send up a robot that's controlled from the ground. It will attempt repair of the gyros and attach a deorbit package. If you're sending up a deorbit robot anyway, might as well attempt a repair. Ground-control is low-risk, high accuracy. There's nothing so action-oriented that the latency is an issue at 350 miles. The bigger problem is that it's not geostationary so you have to do stuff during a window or network a series of ground stations.

This way you can get a few more years out of Hubble and not risk a shuttle repair, since that's too risky for the politicians. Win-win-win.

Finding satellites

[vandoravp]

isn't hard at all. In fact right now I can see one. It's big, bright, and has a man in it.

Oh, you mean artificial satellites?

*squints harder*

Re:Finding satellites

[andreyw]

Has a man on it? I knew it!! I knew the gubbmit had to have a secret moon base!!

Autonomous Rendezvous Technology?

[WMD_88]

NASA is copying Apple now?

Re:Autonomous Rendezvous Technology?

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be mistaken.

It's "Bonjour" now, as it has always been and will always be.

Please report to the nearest Apple store, your Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field seems to require an update!

Re:Autonomous Rendezvous Technology?

[Anonymous Coward]

Rendezvous with what? Rama?

Re:Autonomous Rendezvous Technology?

[Mapplex]

bonjour satellite!

I love GovtSpeak...

[mOoZik]

"Despite failure of ultimate task, the craft was a success!"

But seriously, is this that big of a deal? Haven't Russian supply ships been docking automatically for many years now? Is size of the target the only difference in this instance?

Re:I love GovtSpeak...

[helioquake]

I do not believe a Soviet supply cargo ship (progress, perhaps) was entirely autonomous.

And NASA is saying that they were able to accomplish some of the goals from this experiment. Yeah, I do agree that NASA's talking head could phrase it better..

Re:I love GovtSpeak...

[Chairboy]

Your belief is not required. The soviets created completely autonomous docking systems in the 80s that are still used today. The difference is that DART doesn't require active 2-way cooperation from the target.

Re:I love GovtSpeak...

[NOLAChief]

The Progress ships are automated, but are very closely monitored on final station approach. An astronaut or ground control can take over the operation at the first sign of trouble. Linky. The station is also a very big target. The point of DART was to demonstrate automated rendezvous capability with a much smaller target. That it got within 300 feet is pretty darn good, IMHO.

I know very little about the mission, but I'll take a wild guess here, the navigational systems probably need refining. It sounds to me like it ran itself out of fuel getting itself oriented properly with the target satellite. You can only take so much with you.

Re:I love GovtSpeak...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not so much GovtSpeak as it is science speak. Full completion of goals is not the only-- or even a particularly good-- metric for measuring success. Check out every robot competition, esp. AAAI challenge. Technically the AAAI Challenge has been met, but it hasn't been successful in the way intended.

However, it has been very successful in that it has demonstrated some very impressive subsystems. Most failures are partial successes.

I, for one . . .

[Council]

It came within 300 feet of the Pentagon satellite before suffering a "mysterious failure".

Oh, just come right out and say it. The craft was death-rayed by the skittish Pentagon satellite.

Re: DART Succumbs to Fuel Problems

[kabz]

Well, you can hardly blame NASA for leaving the thing a bit short...

Gas is $2.35 a gallon in Houston !

Partial success...

[gabecubbage]

I consider my recent trip to the bathroom a partial success, too. After all, I SAW the toilet.

Re:Partial success...

[Anonymous Coward]

I consider my recent trip to the bathroom a partial success, too. After all, I SAW the toilet.

I think the idea is that it's better to suspend the mission (i.e. hold it) than to miss the target (i.e. piss on the floor).

Now, the metaphor is bit incomplete, since generally the consequences of pissing on the floor don't involve Pentagon satellites.

Redundancy = space solution

[Hao Wu]

If main fails, use back-up. If back-up fails, switch to back-up back-up.

If failure of back-up back-up, back-up back-up back-up must suffice to accomplish mission.

Its target rendezvous target?

[kubrick]

This NASA mission brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department...

units again?

[jonbrewer]

"When we started doing precise maneuvers, we started seeing excessive propellant consumption," Snoddy said. "The mission as designed, when it runs out of gas, completes itself."
There were some navigation errors but no indication of a fuel leak, he said in a conference call. A NASA investigation board will search for the cause of the problem.

Now when it turns out that the fuel system was reporting litres consumed per hour and the central system was thinking gallons per hour, is NASA going to give up on using English units? "472 miles above Earth"? "300 feet of the satellite"? Wankers.

Re:units again?

[TheKidWho]

oooo j00 s000 funny and smarty!!!

NASA DOES use metric, get your head out of your ass.

The people who mod you and your type insightful deserve to have their brains hanged from a bridge...

Re:units again?

[Anonymous Coward]

it didnt with that mars probe which went splat.
( and the word is hung )

Re:units again?

[TheKidWho]

That was Lockheeds fault, NOT NASA's

So I say again, get your head out of your ass.

Re:units again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, both hanged and hung are correct but hung is in wider use now. At one time hung was considered less formal but no one seems to be making that distinction now. Same goes for sneaked and snuck (although in that case sneaked sounds particularly awkward).

Re:units again?

[DerekLyons]

Now when it turns out that the fuel system was reporting litres consumed per hour and the central system was thinking gallons per hour, is NASA going to give up on using English units? "472 miles above Earth"? "300 feet of the satellite"? Wankers.

Ah. I see you subscribe to the myth that a units error has caused NASA problems in the past.

It hasn't.

MCO was lost because managment ignored steady indications of an increasing navigation error. (An easily correctable error has they authorized spending the money to do the analysis.) Regardless of the root cause of the error, it could have been fixed, but management chose to ignore it.

Re:units again?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hanged" traditionally refers to people only. As in, by the neck. Anything else is "hung".

Re:units again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot HBT.

Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Give NASA another 20 years and they may finally have caught up with Russia.

Re:Russia

[TheKidWho]

yeah because you know the russians have been to the moon and have send probes that have done useful science on mars in recent years. Ohh yeah lets not forget about all the information the Russians gave us about the gas giants and their moons. Yeah definetly ahead of us...

Welcome to 2005, the US beat the Russians, now lets stop with all the retarded fighting about who has a bigger rocket dick and strap on balls.

Re:Russia

[Phil246]

In soviet NASA....
no.. the joke just doesnt work.
it'll take much longer then 20 years

Re:Russia

[demondawn]

Actually, this is one of the few cases where the joke actually does work correctly: In soviet NASA, satellite finds you!

Re:Russia

[Phil246]

if it worked correctly it wouldnt be a joke :D

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because we know about the Americans who put the first satellite in orbit, the first man, the first woman, etc...

The Russians were so scary that the pussy Americans had to invent a whole new concept of war to deal with them.

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet NASA, rocket fires YOU!

Re:mod dow@n

[Anonymous Luddite]

umm, don't click parent. bad thing. trust me.

Re:mod dow@n

[Anonymous Coward]

"be right back. "

Yeah, thats real shocking.

Orbital not NASA

[TornNight]

Orbital Designed, Manufactured, and launched DART.
It's mostly their fault.
http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/MissionUpdates/dar t.html

Re:Orbital not NASA

[FleaPlus]

Relevant article from last year:

A DART Near Miss: Infighting at Orbital - and Deceiving NASA

Re:Orbital not NASA

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I can tell you that you are exactly right. It was Orbital's fault. NASA has a good amount of oversite but in the end they are just paying for it. The Orbital engineers are really responsible for making the thing work. But in their defense, they don't call these missions high risk, low cost for nothing. $110 million on a NASA program means everything is half-assed. There aren't enough brains and enough time to cover all the bases and catch all the screw-ups. This sort of thing is many orders of magnitude more difficult to get right than your typical subcompact crap-mobile. If failure is not acceptable then we need to pony up with the big dollars. I think this misison was a success because it WAS a partial failure. Partial failures are great because you get a lot more test data than either a complete failure or a complete success. My guess is that future missions that do this sort of thing will be much more successful because of this failure. Also, I'm pretty sure that the Russians' docking systems are all manual. The only issue is the video and radar that they use to help the astronaut dock the thing. But I could be wrong.

Re:Orbital not NASA

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe you are mistaking the design and manufacture of the spacecraft and launch vehicle with the design of the mission, instruments, and flight software. Orbital did not design any of those...that was Marshall Space Flight Center. The launch was flawless, the launch vehicle and spacecraft bus operated as designed. It is my guess that the error was in the mission design, instruments, and/or flight software.

Re:mod dow@n

[Anonymous Coward]

you dont say. it kinda -does- say goat.cx in the url preview you know :). Ah well at least you know now

Re:mod dow@n

[Anonymous Luddite]

>> "be right back."

Perhaps Mr. Goatse has stepped out to buy a tube (drum?) of anusol...

Re: DART Succumbs to Fuel Problems

[dgatwood]

Ah. I thought maybe they just used the same 3.8L V6 as my Windstar. :-D

For people who don't get the joke, there was a design flaw in that engine (also used in the Mustang) for a couple of years that caused oil to corrupt the air intake manifold, resulting in vacuum lines getting clogged. The end result is that the fuel system starts misbehaving badly and the computer thinks that both banks of the engine are running exceptionally lean.

I ordered parts to repair mine just seconds before reading this story, so I laughed pretty hard.... I suddenly feel very gratified that my fuel problems didn't happen in orbit.

always wanted to try one of these...

[dahlek]

I for one welcome our new autonomous semi-successful satellite finding space-craft overlords!

Re:always wanted to try one of these...

[Anonymous Coward]

In soviet Russia, satellite finding space-craft overlords welcome you!

Re: DART Succumbs to Fuel Problems

[rbanffy]

Gas is $2.35 a gallon in Houston !

It should not be a problem. They lift off from Florida

The $110 million mission

[Anonymous Coward]

For 11 hours of productivity. Go NASA!

Re:The $110 million mission

[imsabbel]

Building a fully automated probe: 70 Million$
Lauch into LEO via rocket: 40 Million$
One fillup with propellant for end-naviagation: 50$
Failing the mission because you were cheap on the wrong end: Priceless

(values guesses that should be in the right order of magnitude)

x /= "moon"

[Rob T Firefly]

x = "space station"

In Other News...

[TimeTraveler1884]

Oh, just come right out and say it. The craft was death-rayed by the skittish Pentagon satellite./

NORAD's new laser warning system has been successfully demonstrated in space after a terrorist DART satellite's attempt to enter the 300 feet "personal space bubble". The laser warning system was put into effect after all attempts to contact the DART satellite failed. "We knew the satellite was hostile when its only reply was 'beep beep beep' to our verbal warnings over emergency radio bands." says NORAD spokesman John Smith.

A NASA scientist had this comment: "Next time, we will be sure to let NORAD know of our mission plan. But perhaps, it would be better to simply not give our robot satellites the capability to feel pain from blinding lasers."

Re: DART Succumbs to Fuel Problems

[Legion303]

Hey, it's NASA. They airlifted the fuel from Houston.

What do you expect??

[eno2001]

I don't care how strong a bloke's arm is, there comes a point in time when, no matter how hard he throws a dart, gravity is going to win. :P

Gallons liters

[mschaffer]

let me guess, NASA screwed up the conversion between liters and gallons... ... the fuel tank was labeled in gallons, and was filled with the prescribed liters of fuel.

Good lord!

[ShaniaTwain]

Is that leonard Nimoy?

the Russians

[Anonymous Coward]

The Russians have been doing this for years and years.

But remember folks! Nothing counts as a first until the USA does it. The first in everything is always an American - unless you count all of the others.

Re:the Russians

[praksys]

Doing what for years? Building stuff that doesn't quite work?

Re:the Russians

[Anonymous Coward]

really?
something makes me belive, that russian stuff works better, then american stuff.
compare the death rate in russian and american space programs.
they are not that strong on marketing though...

Nice Editing

[Yeldarb-7]

target rendezvous target, a Pentagon satelite
Can anyone say redundant? Can anyone say redundant?
And WTF is a "satelite ?"

Re:Nice Editing

[Anonymous Coward]

And WTF is a "satelite ?

...asked the infallible person who talks about "Web Desgin" on his own web site. Moron. You also misuse apostrophes on your site ("it's").

Subject

[Legion303]

This is a big reason why we still need manned missions.

Success?

[bakerstreet]

Or could this have been a partial success, because it was partially a test of a system to autonomously seek and destroy satillites?

It was a pentagon satillite, after all...

Re: DART Succumbs to Fuel Problems

[dukeisgod]

I'm in Florida and I'm paying more than $2.35 a gallon for fuel.

how does this get insightful?

[Anonymous Coward]

Makes up a poor supposition, then insults people based upon the entirely made up info.

I could maybe see funny (although I don't find it funny) but not insightful.

Finally, there's nothing wrong with English units. As long as you understand your units, there's nothing wrong with any unit. One may be easier to use than other. Fine, use it if you like it better. But insulting others for using units other than your favorite is just stupid.

Re: DART Succumbs to Fuel Problems

[Anonymous Coward]

No, please don't, that's the problem with fucking "blogs" and quasi-blogs like Slashdot. Who cares what the fuck some schmuck in Toledo did today? Why the hell would anyone want to read this drivel all over the web? That's why the "blogosphere" is one big pile of steaming dogshit. None of these people like dgatwood and the rest have anything even remotely fucking interesting to say. Same thing with that stupid notion that some future mega-cable system will have 500 channels of all this crap everyone's making in iMovie. It's still fucking crap. Go impress your girlfriend or something instead of bugging us with it.

Oh yeah, almost forgot, microsoft sux0r!

Just like our ICMB killers

[Anonymous Coward]

We still need the object we want to find to have reflectors or in the case of our ICBM tests homeing devices.

"The Pentagon satellite that was the target of the mission was launched in 1999 and carries special reflectors that are used by guidance systems such as the one aboard DART."

Uncle Bob, eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would anyone need autonomous approach for a repair mission that would be have to be remote controlled anyway? This experiment is not about repairing, it is about destroying satellites.

Re:Uncle Bob, eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would anyone need autonomous approach for a repair mission that would be have to be remote controlled anyway? This experiment is not about repairing, it is about destroying satellites.

Not just satellite repair missions - it's hard to run stuff remotely that requires input responses faster than signal roundtrip time... For instance docking a Mars lander carrying ground samples with the [unmanned] vehicle capable of getting it back to Earth.

I, for one, could tell you...

[SEWilco]

The Pentagon wishes to not announce a successful test of its antirendezvous technology.

Re: DART Succumbs to Fuel Problems

[M1FCJ]

I'm in Cambridge, UK and I'm playing 86.9p a liter you damn yanks!

Is DART really a dual-use Satellite-Killer?

[billstewart]

Sure, I know you were trying to make a joke and I'm sidetracking...

It really does sound like the DART is designed for multiple uses - sure, there are good applications like deploying extra supplies to a manned system, or deploying extra batteries or fuel to a system that has the capability to use them, but that's not really a separate problem from what an ASAT weapon needs to do to park itself next to an enemy satellite and destroy it. And no, I really wasn't thinking of this as a lead-in to saying "Somebody set up us the bomb", but it's precisely legitimate for this application... because you could deliver a bomb that way, and DART gives you better precision in getting it to your target, and can either get away for future use or clamp on tight and explode, depending on the military necessities and the prices of the hardware.

Re: DART Succumbs to Fuel Problems

[Frogbert]

+1 Ridiculously Obscure

Funny as it may be that might have been the most obscure joke on slashdot this year. Honestly who here didn't require that explaination.

Re:Gallons liters

[Anonymous Coward]

that doesn't make sense. does a british car not work on american roads because the roads are labeled with mile markers?

Os

[under_clocker]

They prob had it running windows for the os... I remember that windows 95 c had a warning about using it to opperate machinery and what not. All kidding aside...Partial success? hmm I think thats a case of 'glass is half empty- half full' and in my experience. There is win or loose no in between. LEt see, the football team that lost says "oh yea it was a partial win then we got our azzes kicked in the finaly half" Not that I like to use a football metaphore. so here is a better metaphore. "oops the nuclear bomb accidently went off and killed everyone before we could evacuate. but it was partial win we got all the computers shut down before the emp wave - a partial win"

OT:Teleportation

[apoc.famine]

One major problem with teleportation is the bandwidth needed. Consider: to teleport a person, you need to transmit the exact state of all their cells. If they show up with less oxygen, food, too much waste, etc in their cells, they can die. If their neurons don't have the *exact* chemicals in the *exact* placement as when they left, they loose some/all their memories.

I believe that the number of cells in the human body is on the order of 10e14, give or take a factor of 100. Even assuming 10e10 cells, not only do you have to transmit the exact chemical makeup of the cells, plus the exact placement of all the celuar 'bits', but also the exact dna/rna structure, because without that, cells won't be able to reproduce, and the teleportee would die off as their cells did.

I'm not caffinated enough to try to do the calculation, but outside of scanning in real-time, transmitting that data, and re-assembling the person, you still have the bandwidth restrictions listed above. I doubt it will ever be possible.

Re:OT:Teleportation

[sumdumass]

Well saying that the process could even be done, i think it wouldn't be too far out of reach as you described. It might not be possible to retain the persons soul (Indevidual personality and memories). Bandwidth and memory could be somewhat supplimented by using a template of some sort.

lets say that 80% of the required tranmission is somewhat identical to each person. you could go in advance and scan, store and simulate a transmision then transmit it to the destination. When you are ready to do the actualy transmision, the cell state and makup could be checksumed and the differences caculated on the other side and reduce the overall transmission by a significant factor. There will probably be some level of tolorance or acceptable room for error here too.

This brings in a facinating side line for it. If a person could actualy get scaned for a teleport and the details could be stored somehow, Could this become a way to hibernate persons for long space travel and have then retain thier muscle strength in zero gravity as well as reduce the need for supplies.

Or better yet, could this become a non invasive surgery? Scans from previous months could be stored and used to repair victoms of car accidents or gunshot wounds maybe even cancer by manipulating the teleporting material. Maybe it could return cell state to that of healthy, younger cells and increase life expectancy. You might need to manufacture "organic filler material" to supplant parts of it.

I think the key here is that the bandwidth needed could be acomplished easier when going from a computer to a scanner or reassembler and the longhaul transmission might not need to be as full or fast. I can easily see how we could clone using a system simular to t his too.

What are feet, again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Part of a metre or something, right?

Hey, isn't 300 feet also how far behind the rest of the industrialized world the U.S. is in math/science/infotech academic performance these days? or is that pounds...

I wonder why

[hey!]

this is being funded. I can understand why the engineers and scientists are interested, because it's a hard problem. By why is this a priority for the people writing the budget? Are we expecting to do so many space rendezvous sometime inthe future that we have to have an automated system?

I wonder if this isn't a step towards developing an antisatellite weapons system.

job loss?

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, if I screw up at work and cost my company 100 million dollars, I will be fired and quite possibly find it hard to ever work in the industry again.

When NASA scientists do it and waste 100 million dollars of taxpayer money that could be spent solving REAL problems here on earth, we just laugh it off and use the newspeak-esque term "limited success".

When NASA crashed a probe into mars because they forgot to convert units from metric to imperial, *why* did the scientists get to keep their jobs like nothing happened?

I think what bothers the public at large is that there is absolutely no accountability. I sure wish I had a job like that, where I could screw up in breaktaking magnitude and not have to answer for it to anybody.

Re:job loss?

[Anonymous Coward]

I sure wish I had a job like that, where I could screw up in breaktaking magnitude and not have to answer for it to anybody.

Perhaps if your job was as complex as building rockets and satellites, you would understand. When there is a failure, there are inquiries lasting months to determine what went wrong and how to prevent it from happening in the future. When you screw up, someone has to take the unwanted pickles off of their hamburger.

Re:job loss?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your response is a falacy; you do not have any idea what I do for a living (and it has nothing to do with fast food).

If you have to resort to personal attacks instead of rational argument, you have lost the debate.

Re:job loss?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your response is a falacy; you do not have any idea what I do for a living (and it has nothing to do with fast food).

What you do for a living obviously has nothing to do with satellites, either.

If you have to resort to personal attacks instead of rational argument, you have lost the debate.

Your entire post was an attack against the satellite industry, an industry in which I work. So please don't get on your high horse just because I zinged you after pointing out that there are always inquiry boards that spend an average of months investigating each and every failure.

Re:job loss?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, so they spend months investigating.

But then it happens again.

And again.

And there is no accountability for the people involved.

I could potentially screw up something as horribly complicated as a units conversion, and cost my employer at least millions (probably not hundreds of millions), and if I did, I would lose my job. Therein lies the difference between private industry and government. I would be held accountable. They are not.

Re:job loss?

[Anonymous Coward]

But then it happens again.

What do you mean "it"? Another DART mission is launched and it has excessively high fuel consumption due to the same cause? Or do you mean that, in one of the most complex fields, creating craft which can operate in the harshest of environments, that some undefined thing will go wrong on some future mission? Of course it will. No amount of investigation, or punishment, will eliminate human error -- especially in complex fields.

Therein lies the difference between private industry and government. I would be held accountable. They are not.

Completely untrue and unfounded speculation. Do you know people who have made mission-ending errors on satellite design or construction and what happened to their careers as a result? If not, STFU.

Orbital Sciences Corporation is "private industry" and many of their launches are for commercial customers (telecom). They have an enviable record of mission success, with 98% success rate on over 150 major space and rocket missions in the last seven years. But let one mission fail and all of the anti-government loonies, many of whom have never even seen a satellite, much less understand the complexities of the engineering that goes into satellites, start crawling out of the woodwork claiming that there is no accountability.

Re:job loss?

[Anonymous Coward]

"When NASA scientists do it and waste 100 million dollars of taxpayer money that could be spent solving REAL problems here on earth, we just laugh it off and use the newspeak-esque term "limited success"."

wow. You really have no idea what NASA has done to solve REAL problems, do you? Did you come to this conclusion before, or after you reached over to turn on your computer? Was that before or after you checked the weather forecast? after you turned off your satellite TV? before you ate your hydroponically produced vegatables? after your wife had her breast cancer detected? before you had laser angioplasty? after your loved one's anesthetic gasses were measured using astronaut-monitoring technology?

Was that thought before your friend interacted with you with his voice-controlled wheelchair? or was that after you used an ultrasound scanner to see your unborn child? before your MRI? after your cataract surgery? before being trained at your current job using an Interactive Multimedia Training tool? or was that after you used your wireless communication device? after your brother was cut from his car wreck using a lightweight cutter developed by NASA?

Was that brilliant thought about how useless NASA is before you installed your fire detector? or was it after you installed the composite break pads on your minivan? after your kids showed you their new virtual reality game, or after you sprayed that squeaky hinge with WD-40.

I would argue that NASA is solving REAL problems here on earth. "If we knew what it was that we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?" -Albert Einstien

I believe that anybody that thinks that the products and their spinoffs that have been produced by NASA are not all around us.....is an idiot.

Mod Parent up

[johnny cashed]

This is a complex issue. The Kurs system was developed and manufactured in Ukraine. After the breakup of the Soviet Union, Ukraine was free to charge whatever they wanted for the system. Toru was designed (in Russia) as a manual backup system. KURS being primary and automatic. Ukraine inherited the intellectual property of the Kurs system and Russia could not just copy it, they had to license it or buy it from Ukraine. To put this in context, the former Soviet Union was going thru an economic meltdown. So they have little money to develop a new system or license the old Kurs system, or even buy them from Ukraine, which is having its own economic problems, and probably couldn't produce them on a timely basis as well. There is no simple answer for this, and it wasn't because the russians were cheap, they just had no money. Computers are made up of a lot of components, and if your suppliers are unable to supply parts, you cannot make the computers. The broken Soviet Union was an economic mess. Think of what would happen if the US broke up in to 50 independent states. What a clusterfuck that could be (or maybe will be). This link for more on the crash: http://human-factors.arc.nasa.gov/ihh/spatial/pape rs/pdfs_se/Ellis_2000_collision_in_space.html/

NASA has

[i41Overlord]

It must be incredibly hard, if NASA have trouble with it.

Pet peeve time mode = ON

When referring to an organization as a whole, it is a singular noun. In this usage, NASA is a singular noun, and therefore the sentence should read, "It must be incredibly hard, if NASA has trouble with it".

Only when referring to the individuals with an organization is it a plural noun. Such a usage would be "Ford were in agreement on their decision to choose a new CEO". In that case you're obviously referring to more than one entity at Ford, since it takes more than one person to be in agreement.

Re:NASA has

[myowntrueself]

Freaking pedant.

What is usually meant by this usage of the singular in English is something like:

"If (those) NASA (guys) have trouble with it."

Something that can usually be fully understood and comprehended by native English speakers.

So I've either riled up a dedicated *pedant* or I have assisted in the education of someone who has English as a second (or third or n) language.

Re:NASA has

[i41Overlord]

I'm sorry if you don't have a firm grasp of the English language. I'm here to help.

These links may help you speak what is probably your primary language:

http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/public-affairs/uon-sty le-book/singular-plural.htm

http://alt-usage-english.org/intro_d.shtml#Groupno unssingularorpluralcompanyisvcompanyare

Re:NASA has

[myowntrueself]

actually its a good job you pointed it out or else I could have gone through my whole life meeting blank stares to such unintelligible phrases as 'to boldly go where no man has gone before'. I mean how can anyone extract sense from that jumble of words?

Actually, I believe that language is defined by common usage; if people understand what is said (or written) then it works and is therefore, by definition, correct usage.

Natural languages do not come from books (or websites).

Re:NASA has

[i41Overlord]

Actually, I believe that language is defined by common usage; if people understand what is said (or written) then it works and is therefore, by definition, correct usage.

Nice attempt at revising the definition of "correct usage". If the majority of people use incorrect grammar, it doesn't make that grammar any more correct, it only highlights the fact that the majority of people don't have a firm grasp of the language.

Such reasoning reminds of the lame attempt at legitimizing street slang and calling it "ebonics".

Re:Gallons liters

[mschaffer]

Well, if you put 15 liters into a tank that will hold 15 gallons, you will not get nearly as far. You may think you have a full tank (i.e. there are 15 units of liquid) but you have much less than a full tank.

My point was that NASA probably screwed-up the units for their fuel inventory on the craft.

link bad

[johnny cashed]

for some reason, I cannot link directly. Search the site for "mir crash" (no quotes) and it is the first link.