Solar Sail Launch Failure Confirmed

Three strikes and you're *out*... by TripMaster+Monkey · 2005-06-22 04:27 · Score: 1, Flamebait

From TFA:

The world's first solar sail spacecraft (search) crashed back to Earth when its booster rocket failed less than two minutes after Tuesday's takeoff, Russian space officials said Wednesday. In 1999, Russia launched a similar experiment with a sun-reflecting device from its Mir space station, but the deployment mechanism jammed and the device burned up in the atmosphere. In 2001, Russia again attempted a similar experiment, but the device failed to separate from the booster and burned in the atmosphere.

(Note to self: russians and satellites seem to be a bad mix...)

Seriously, though, this is a damned shame...although at $4 mil, this was a relatively inexpensive debacle. We could be ready to fail again in just a few years. :P

(One more thing: why are we linking to Fox News for our stories? I feel dirty now.)

--
____

~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

Re: Three strikes and you're *out*... by Black+Parrot · 2005-06-22 04:33 · Score: 2, Funny

> Seriously, though, this is a damned shame...although at $4 mil, this was a relatively inexpensive debacle.

And far better than other types of failure, such as if they had accidentally launched a tube with an ICBM in it instead of the one with the sail's rocket.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:Three strikes and you're *out*... by AKAImBatman · 2005-06-22 04:35 · Score: 1

I'm not really holding out for Solar Sails as a viable propulsion mechanisms, but it is a crying shame to have perfectly good hardware getting lost. Even if the propulsion didn't pan out as anything useful, it might still return a tremendous amount of useful data on space operations. Data that could be useful for other projects such as solar energy collectors or M2P2 propulsion.

Speaking of M2P2, anyone know of any research updates? The website is just as useless as ever for updates. Are they just sitting on the tech?

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Re:Three strikes and you're *out*... by Rei · 2005-06-22 04:38 · Score: 5, Informative

Russian rocket failure rates are about on par with US rocket failure rates; the only thing that I can think of offhand that they've had serious reliability problems with are their mars probes.

The problem is that this wasn't designed to be an orbital vehicle - the Volna is an ICBM, i.e., designed for lofting moderately heavy suborbital payloads. Russia wants a use for the ICBMs that they can't afford to maintain, and is trying to convert them for launching orbital payloads. I.e., Cosmos 1 and its predecessor are being launched on untested payload delivery systems (and hence the low price).

Cosmos 1 was funded by the insurance money from the previous failure, so don't think that this is the end. :)

--
The War of 1812... the good 'ol days when the federal government actually tried to save New Orleans.
Re:Three strikes and you're *out*... by stlhawkeye · 2005-06-22 04:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

(One more thing: why are we linking to Fox News [foxnews.com] for our stories? I feel dirty now.)
Probably because Fox News is a news source that can and does report objective stories frequently, despite its editorial slant. Just like CNN manages to report objective stories frequently despite it's editorial slant. Just like EVERY OTHER NEWS SOURCE manages to report objective stories frequently despite having an editorial slant.

Fox's slant is just unacceptable because it's right-leaning. Or, if you're a right-winger, Fox is "objective" and everybody else leans left. Whatever you have to tell yourself to avoid considering that what you believe might be crap.

--
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
Re:Three strikes and you're *out*... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 04:45 · Score: 0

(Note to self: russians and satellites seem to be a bad mix...)

Yeah, because we all know how poorly that whole "Sputnik" thing turned out.
Re:Three strikes and you're *out*... by AKAImBatman · 2005-06-22 04:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

Russian rocket failure rates are about on par with US rocket failure rates; the only thing that I can think of offhand that they've had serious reliability problems with are their mars probes.

FWIW, *everyone* has had massive failure rates with Mars Probes. The only difference is that NASA has more experience and has managed to get fairly good at avoiding many of the pitfalls that were believed to cause the loss of many of their probes.

Cosmos 1 was funded by the insurance money from the previous failure, so don't think that this is the end. :)

It may be the last time the insurance company underwrites them, though. ;-)

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Re:Three strikes and you're *out*... by Rei · 2005-06-22 04:54 · Score: 5, Interesting

It depends. How thin you can make the solar sail is of critical importance. For example, a 12 micron solar sail will be superior to chemical rockets, mass-wise, for missions of longer than 2 months, and superior to ion drives for missions longer than two years. A one micron solar sail, however, will become superior to chemical rockets in just over five days, and ion drives in two months. I have some issues with their calculations (they assume constant solar flux, for example), but it still drives home how, if you can get a very thin sail, your accelerations can be incredible. Also, at least in theory, they'll be cheap to produce and difficult to have just fail on you. Not that I don't like the concept of M2P2 ;)

For comparison, Cosmos 1's sail is 5 microns (although it's not designed to be permanent). I was thinking the other night about a possibility (who knows if it is realistic). You could produce your sail in three layers:

1) A heavy, strong, flexible backing a dozen or so microns thick that will erode with sun exposure

2) A thin, durable, structurally weak layer less than a micron thick

3) An atomic-scale coating of aluminum

Of course, at regular intervals, you'd have to lay down a thick durable layer to keep the structure from tearing. The reasoning behind my idea is that you can create, stow, and deploy the sail in a heavy, durable fashion; however, once it has been in space for a few days/weeks, it becomes incredibly lightweight from solar exposure (but doesn't tear because it is no longer experiencing any significant forces beyond the uniform solar radiation pressure). You would unfurl with the heavy backing to the sun, and only switch to the aluminized side once the craft has lost mass.

--
The War of 1812... the good 'ol days when the federal government actually tried to save New Orleans.
Re:Three strikes and you're *out*... by saider · 2005-06-22 04:55 · Score: 5, Funny

Cosmos 1 was funded by the insurance money from the previous failure...

Explorer : I want to buy some insurance for a satellite that I plan on launching on a Soviet...er....Russian ICBM.

Insurance Agent : What dollar value is your craft valued at?

Explorer : The launch vehicle and orbiter total to about 4 million dollars. So what's the premium going to look like?

Insurance Agent : 4 million dollars.

--

Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
Re:Three strikes and you're *out*... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 05:00 · Score: 0

(One more thing: why are we linking to Fox News for our stories? I feel dirty now.)
Then take a bath, hippie.
Re:Three strikes and you're *out*... by InVinoVeritas · 2005-06-22 05:01 · Score: 2, Funny

It isn't lost... it's obvious Count Dooku simply staged the crash to throw off his pursuers. He (and the craft) are safely on Coruscant as we speak.
Re:Three strikes and you're *out*... by MyLongNickName · 2005-06-22 05:05 · Score: 1

Insurance Agent : 4 million dollars.

No. The insurance agent has to make a profit: $4.1 million.

--
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Re:Three strikes and you're *out*... by Frangible · 2005-06-22 05:06 · Score: 1

One thing to also keep in mind is that most all of the news reported is AP news that is simple read/rebroadcast by the major news outlet. If there is bias in that, that is from the AP, not Fox, CNN, etc.

Now it's entirely correct that pretty much all of Fox's commentators are Republican, yes... but I fail to see how that makes their copy-and-paste AP news any more or less valid than CNN.
Re:Three strikes and you're *out*... by TripMaster+Monkey · 2005-06-22 05:06 · Score: 1, Funny

SirHaxalot -> Pingular -> TripMasterMonkey

That's an adorable little conspiracy theory you've got there...entirely wrong, but adorable just the same.

Doesn't that tinfoil hat chafe?

^_^

--
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Re: Three strikes and you're *out*... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 05:10 · Score: 0

It makes you wonder; if there had been a war, how many of those ICBMs would have been failures?
Re:Three strikes and you're *out*... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 05:11 · Score: 0

What CNN editorials are you referring to? Lets just look at a study on how frequently journalists on different networks interject their own opinions:

Fox: 68%
CNN: 4%
MSNBC: 27%

On specific topics, the difference was even more extreme.

Iraq:
Fox: 73%
CNN: 2%
MSNBC: 29%

Election coverage:
Fox: 82%
CNN: 7%
MSNBC: 27%

It's not like this should be a shock to anyone who ever watches both networks. CNN doesn't editorialize when journalists are reporting; Fox's main selling point is the opinions expressed by its journalists. People watch Fox to see journalists outraged by obscure college professors or the removal of a feeding tube.

I'm not saying that it's good or bad that journalists editorialize. But lets not pretend that "everyone does it the same amount". Watch each channel for a day, and the differences really stand out. Most conservatives who I've talked to who have actually watched CNN don't claim that the journalists usually editorialize liberally. They usually claim more insidious things, such as "selective reporting" to promote a liberal view.
Re:Three strikes and you're *out*... by SatanicPuppy · 2005-06-22 05:21 · Score: 1

That's not how it works.

You insure it for 4 million, at a premium of 4 million, and when it crashes they give you the 4 million, and keep the interest.

Their profits come from two sources: Things that were insured against that don't happen, and interest made on money taken in as premiums.

--
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Re:Three strikes and you're *out*... by aldeng · 2005-06-22 05:34 · Score: 1

I would like to thank you for a few things. First, thanks for quoting the article. No one seems to think it necessary to do that anymore. Second, thanks for spelling things correctly. Third, thanks for avoiding the usual GNAA/FP first post jackassery. Fourth, thanks for calling them on the Fox News link. Now they're gonna look a their refferal records and think that we're trying to hack them or something.
Re:Three strikes and you're *out*... by MyLongNickName · 2005-06-22 06:37 · Score: 1

You forgot to mention: When CNN was covering Iraq before the war, they neglected to mention that they were being censored by Hussein's minders.

However, according to the methodology of that study, they were doing a fine job of journalism.

whatever.

--
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Re:Three strikes and you're *out*... by Rei · 2005-06-22 07:07 · Score: 1

1) Please learn what editorializing means.

2) As far as journalistic integrity and standards go, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, wouldn't you agree? (Note: I didn't even start on Fox's cheerleading of every piece of bogus evidence and stifling of counterevidence that led up to the war... something that "liberal" CNN took part in as well, to a lesser degree)

--
The War of 1812... the good 'ol days when the federal government actually tried to save New Orleans.
Re:Three strikes and you're *out*... by MyLongNickName · 2005-06-22 07:26 · Score: 1

To answer:
1) The point is not editorializing does not equal good jornalism.
2) Learn what the phrase "people who live in glass houses..." means. I am not FOX. I am the one throwing the stone. If I start editorializing in my own news service, then your trite phrase will be applicable.

--
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Re:Three strikes and you're *out*... by baldass_newbie · 2005-06-22 07:26 · Score: 1

Wow, you cite a study from a group sponsored by a left wing group that says CNN has no bias.

Well, I guess that settles it then, there is no bias on CNN.

--
The opposite of progress is congress
Re:Three strikes and you're *out*... by shis-ka-bob · 2005-06-22 07:37 · Score: 1

Why not make a thin sail and try to evaporate Al at the same rate that it is being eroded. Even better, add some device to measure the thickness of the film and evaporate Al only where it is evaporating. This should allow you to keep a thin sail to catch the photons.

--
Think global, act loco
Re:Three strikes and you're *out*... by Rei · 2005-06-22 07:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

I assume you're prepared to provide counterevidence as to the validity of the study? Heck, are you even prepared to evidence that there's something wrong with Pew, let alone something wrong with People for Excellence in Journalism, let alone something wrong with the study? In short, you're claiming "guilt by association with an association that itself is associated with a group that I claim is liberal, and thus (yet another guilt by association) unreliable".

If you want to dispute the accuracy of the study, dispute the accuracy of the study. None of this "twice removed from a nebulous attribute" nonsense.

--
The War of 1812... the good 'ol days when the federal government actually tried to save New Orleans.
Re:Three strikes and you're *out*... by xeno-cat · 2005-06-22 08:02 · Score: 1

You might not be FOX, but you are certainly walking around thier house admiring the furnature, so I think the other posters comment should be something you could comprehend and address.

Taken "objectivly", using FOX as a source for news is simply ignorant. All news sources have a "slant". FOX news spins. FOX news exists to reinforce a certain world view. If you agree with that world view than watching FOX is certainly appealing, but don't think you being informed, because you are not, your being stroked.

Kind Regards

--
"A few great minds are enough to endow humanity with monstrous power, but a few great hearts are not enough to make us w
Re:Three strikes and you're *out*... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 08:03 · Score: 0

Investment income... but analogous to interest.
Re:Three strikes and you're *out*... by MyLongNickName · 2005-06-22 08:06 · Score: 1

Gosh... you read a lot into my statements. I've never stood up for Fox. Please show me one sentence where I have.

I have equal contempt for all the major news organizations.

But, thanks for playing.

--
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Re:Three strikes and you're *out*... by xeno-cat · 2005-06-22 08:42 · Score: 1

Just to orient you with the thread you are appariently lost in, here is the grand parent post that you replied to, adding something about CNN and censorship:

"Probably because Fox News is a news source that can and does report objective stories frequently, despite its editorial slant. Just like CNN manages to report objective stories frequently despite it's editorial slant. Just like EVERY OTHER NEWS SOURCE manages to report objective stories frequently despite having an editorial slant."

Now this is a discusion "thread", so we build on each others ideas. You were presenting information that build on the grand parents post regarding FOX as an objective news source.

"I have equal contempt for all the major news organizations."

This is where where fall down. All news organizations are not equal, so having equal contempt for them is a failure in logic at best and ignorant at worst. If you don't care about the world then I guess it doesn't matter how you feel about news and reporting. But then why bother posting about it on Slashdot?

Kind Regards

--
"A few great minds are enough to endow humanity with monstrous power, but a few great hearts are not enough to make us w
Re: Three strikes and you're *out*... by rsynnott · 2005-06-22 10:05 · Score: 1

I wondered about that; considering how common nuclear weapons control system failures are becoming (a computer in Cheyenne Mountain decided there was a nuclear attack underway a few years back, and a Russian computer told Yeltsin that a Norweigan weather balloon was a nuke). But I assume there were'nt any proper ICBMs on board, and they almost certainly wouldn't be armed if they were there...

--
Me (Blog)
Re:Three strikes and you're *out*... by rsynnott · 2005-06-22 10:07 · Score: 1

And they beat the US in a few things; they have very few manned failures.

--
Me (Blog)
Re:Three strikes and you're *out*... by Rei · 2005-06-22 10:40 · Score: 1

They've also had a lot less human-launch events. Their astronaut-loss rate on manned craft is roughly equivalent, assuming that we're not missing any due to Soviet secrecy. Their ground-crew loss rate is higher.

--
The War of 1812... the good 'ol days when the federal government actually tried to save New Orleans.
Re:Three strikes and you're *out*... by rsynnott · 2005-06-22 10:50 · Score: 1

Roughly 140 cosmonauts (not all Soviet; some were from various Eastern Bloc countries); 4 deaths. Roughly 227 astronauts; 14 deaths (18 if you count Apollo 1 and an X-15). But yep, the USSR killed more on the ground.

--
Me (Blog)
Re:Three strikes and you're *out*... by Rei · 2005-06-22 12:09 · Score: 1

The US had more astronauts launch more times. The shuttle alone has had over 600 human-launch events. Many cosmonauts flew only once. Notice that I used the words "human-launch events" (both in this post and the last), as opposed to "humans launched".

--
The War of 1812... the good 'ol days when the federal government actually tried to save New Orleans.
Re: Three strikes and you're *out*... by e_slarti · 2005-06-22 12:18 · Score: 1

They might've worked a long time ago... remember that the Soviet Union failed over a decade ago, and with the emphasis on keeping their respective peoples fed, I'm sure intense maintenance programs for their ICBM stock went by the wayside... Kinda like their security around their nuclear (note: not nukular) stockpiles...
Disappointing event, nonetheless. :(
Re:Three strikes and you're *out*... by baldass_newbie · 2005-06-22 12:29 · Score: 1

Please provide a scientific scale of opinion.
Serious. A definable, measurable scale of how we can determine the amount of opinion in news versus what might be termed content.

Hint: there's no such thing. Human beings tend to formulate and process information based on context. This contextualization colors our ability to process raw data and interpret events clearly.

So citing a study that seeks to show how much less 'bias' is on one network versus another is horseshit from the get-go. When you dig a little and find that liberal organizations are backing it, well, you can take your pseudo-scientific stand that gets you a +1 insightful from the wingnut mods, or you can realize that it's horseshit from a horseshit organization.

I took the latter approach.

Show me who your friends are and I'll tell you what kind of person you are.

--
The opposite of progress is congress
Re:Three strikes and you're *out*... by Rei · 2005-06-22 13:13 · Score: 1

Provide a scientific scale of opinion

Are you kidding? Do you not know what an opinion is? It's not something that you need a scale for - an opinion is "A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof". If I say "this document says that we should invade Iraq", that is a fact (assuming the document actually says that). If I say "We should invade Iraq", that is an opinion. Where's the gray zone? Are you expecting people to say "This document kind of says that we should invade Iraq"?

As mentioned earlier you only need to watch both CNN and Fox, whether you're liberal or conservative, to see that CNN doesn't do opinions; Fox does. Seriously - go home, and turn on fox news. Count the opinions - do it *yourself*. Then change to CNN, and do the same. Watch at least a couple hours of each, so you get different programs and statistical significance. Write down the opinions and jot how many stories were covered. Have you *ever* watched O'Reilly (Fox's highest rated)? Have you *ever* watched Larry King?

You can accuse CNN of *bias*, you can accuse them of *omission* or *imbalance*, but you can't justly accuse them of interjecting *opinions*. These words have meaning - don't misuse them.

When you dig a little and find that liberal organizations are backing it

I'm a strident liberal. Yet, if you did a little, you'll find that I'm getting free paid trips by a conservative president of a major oil company and once lived in the house of a conservative Republican congressman. Who's backing me? Once again, this "twice removed from my personal opinion of a groups political leanings" stuff is, to use your words, "Horseshit". Either cite a contrary study, conduct one for yourself, or "shut up". I hate debating with someone who says "there's something wrong with your detailed reference, but I'm not going to say what, and am just going to make assumptions".

By the way - here's another thing that this "liberal" study has to say about Fox:

At the same time, the story segments on the Fox programs studied did have more sources and shared more about them with audiences.

How horrifyingly liberal!

Once again: Put up, or shut up.

--
The War of 1812... the good 'ol days when the federal government actually tried to save New Orleans.
Re:Three strikes and you're *out*... by Xyrus · 2005-06-22 13:21 · Score: 1

How about a thin, durable, structurally strong layer? :)

Carbon nanotubes are pretty strong, and you can have them be pretty thin.

~X~

--
~X~
Re:Three strikes and you're *out*... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 20:10 · Score: 0

(Note to self: americans and launching people into space seem to be a bad mix...)
Re:Three strikes and you're *out*... by MichaelSmith · 2005-06-23 00:53 · Score: 1

I was surprised that the current spacecraft enroute to Mercury doesn't attempt to use light pressure at all.

Given the high delta-V for the mission, and the proximity to the sun for much of its trajectory I would have expected that a small, rigid, sail would have been the go.

IMHO Spiralling slowly into (and away from) the sun is about the best job you could use a solar sail for.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Re:Three strikes and you're *out*... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-23 01:06 · Score: 0

despite it's editorial slant

"its".
Re:Three strikes and you're *out*... by Rei · 2005-06-23 03:55 · Score: 1

Yes, individual carbon nanotubes are quite strong. However, bulk nanotube-containing materials are still, in general, inferior to present-day alternatives. Nanotubes miles long woven into fiber, or high-strength nanotube epoxies are still sci-fi.

--
The War of 1812... the good 'ol days when the federal government actually tried to save New Orleans.
Re:Three strikes and you're *out*... by baldass_newbie · 2005-06-24 04:38 · Score: 1

You've got a lot of ignorance, arrogance and anger to overcome.
Good luck with that.

--
The opposite of progress is congress

Breaking news by kote-men-do · 2005-06-22 04:28 · Score: 0

Sail was shot by Martian pirate attack.

Re:Breaking news by richdun · 2005-06-22 05:11 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Ah ha! It was all part of the "War of the Worlds" premiere. Speilberg strikes again!

i'm sorry by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 04:29 · Score: 4, Funny

in soviet russia, solar sails fail you.

i didnt want to do this, but i had to. i dont know why.

i'm so sorry. all i've ever wanted was to be loved

Re:i'm sorry by Mehtuus · 2005-06-22 06:02 · Score: 1

Or it could be said, "All of your failed solar sails are be long to you..."

--
http://mehtuus.googlepages.com
Re:i'm sorry by TehHustler · 2005-06-22 06:15 · Score: 1, Troll

I'm sick of seeing this tired, overused joke. It wasn't funny the first time, and it's not funny this time. Just stop it, all of you PLEASE.

--

TheHustler
http://www.elmarko.org/ - Useless bilge
http://www.asylum-games.co.uk/ - Co-Founder
Re:i'm sorry by Vapebait · 2005-06-22 06:41 · Score: 0

I'm sick of all the overused /. jokes. I wish people would just try and come up with something original for once.
Re:i'm sorry by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 06:44 · Score: 0

all i've ever wanted was to be loved

Too bad you are a geek then. You are scorned by the political left, the political right, the wealthy, the poor, the middle class, and the women.

Oh, and most of the men, too. There may be a few other geeks who don't scorn you.

Have a nice day.
Re:i'm sorry by timster · 2005-06-22 06:57 · Score: 1

Yes! Then we'll make a Beowulf cluster of all the original jokes! But can we install Linux on it?

--
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
Re:i'm sorry by lupinstel · 2005-06-22 07:32 · Score: 0

Only old Koreans complain about these jokes.

--
Don't blame me, I voted for Cthulhu.
Re:i'm sorry by Gondola · 2005-06-22 07:40 · Score: 1

The thing is, this joke is actually relevant this time.

I've been around here a long time but I still sometimes get a chuckle out of the old jokes, if someone phrases it right.

Most people know that there is nothing new in this world, just infinite combinations of the old.
Re:i'm sorry by psychgeek · 2005-06-22 09:01 · Score: 1

You must be new here.... :)
Re:i'm sorry by Jetboy01 · 2005-06-22 12:02 · Score: 1

In soviet Russia, old Koreans complain about you!
Re:i'm sorry by GermanShorthair · 2005-06-22 12:35 · Score: 0

In Soviet Russia, you stop just all you of it!

--
Karma: Bad
Re:i'm sorry by ShortSpecialBus · 2005-06-22 15:30 · Score: 1

In Soviet Russia, tired overused joke sick of seeing YOU

--
//FIXME: Bad .sig
Re:i'm sorry by Junior+J.+Junior+III · 2005-06-22 16:11 · Score: 1

I want a second opinion... what's Netcraft have to say about this?

--
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Re:i'm sorry by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-23 03:44 · Score: 0

I wish people would just try and come up with something original for once.
we do! in Japan.

Obligatory by nurhussein · 2005-06-22 04:29 · Score: 0, Troll

After all, in Soviet Russia, solar sails propel *YOU*! Err... same as everywhere else.

Bring in all your Soviet Russia jokes now by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 04:30 · Score: 0

Yes really ..

Re:Bring in all your Soviet Russia jokes now by archmagusrm · 2005-06-22 04:31 · Score: 1

In Soviet Russia, the jokes bring in you!
Re:Bring in all your Soviet Russia jokes now by ouaibe · 2005-06-22 04:41 · Score: 1

In Soviet Russia, "fair" news balances you!
Re:Bring in all your Soviet Russia jokes now by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 05:38 · Score: 0

In Sovjet Russia, Failure confirmes solar sails

In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by Dancin_Santa · 2005-06-22 04:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

Let's say this happened in the US. The entire project would be shitcanned and study after study would be performed to show why and how the rocket exploded. Then it would be years before another rocket was sent up.

Meanwhile, the Russians dust themselves off and prepare the next launch vehicle for the earliest possible sendup of the sail.

We go to the moon in this decade... The space race was won by people with drive and ambition. These days NASA is full of over-educated monkeys who cringe at their own shadow.

Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by jellomizer · 2005-06-22 04:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

Well this is an unmanned satilight. No one was hurt (physiclally). In the issue of the shuttle deaths need to be minimized. Because every death in space makes people fear space travel.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by Monkey-Man2000 · 2005-06-22 04:37 · Score: 4, Informative

Except this is paid for by the Planetary Society, so who knows if they'll build another one. I suspect they will, but it's not because Russians are involved.

--
This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by ScentCone · 2005-06-22 04:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

These days NASA is full of over-educated monkeys who cringe at their own shadow.

No, NASA is funded by congressional representatives that are too timid to explain the value of the program to their constituencies. And those people are voted into office by people too unaware of the role that science plays in their lives. And those people are raised by parents who think the schools should be the parents, so the schools are so busy teaching Johnny how to Share His Feelings that they never get around to teaching him where his Cartoon Network signal comes from. Don't blame NASA, blame parents.

There, I fixed it.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by MooseByte · 2005-06-22 04:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

"These days NASA is full of over-educated monkeys who cringe at their own shadow."
They definitely need to find some middle ground. The incredibly complex shuttle, in all fairness, was driven more by military/national security design constraints. Meanwhile the "faster, cheaper, leaner" approach of the last decade proved to be a bit too fast and loose.

Then again I wonder if they ever really could get back to the Apollo days? That seemed the best balance to me, but would the American public tolerate several astronauts burning up on the pad due to pure pressurized oxygen sparking up the capsule?

Think of the field day the media (and slashdot) would have over a mistake like that today.

Private enterprise *may* be our best hope in finding the proper spot on the cost/risk curve, but then where's the profit in much of the basic space science we'd all want to see done?
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by Antonymous+Flower · 2005-06-22 04:39 · Score: 1

the soviet era officially ended over a decade ago, FYI
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 04:42 · Score: 0

Reporter:
We go to the moon in this decade... The space race was won by people with drive and ambition. These days NASA is full of over-educated monkeys who cringe at their own shadow.
How do you see this impacting NASA's ability conduct itself in a forward moving manner?

Maverick Cowboy:
Well you all know, I'm pretty sure we all know someone who is smarter than they actually are that tries to trick us with tomfoolery. This is EXACTLY why we need tort reform.
Heh Heh Heh
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by djbentle · 2005-06-22 04:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

Ripped from the post above:
"The world's first solar sail spacecraft (search) crashed back to Earth when its booster rocket failed less than two minutes after Tuesday's takeoff, Russian space officials said Wednesday.

In 1999, Russia launched a similar experiment with a sun-reflecting device from its Mir space station, but the deployment mechanism jammed and the device burned up in the atmosphere.

In 2001, Russia again attempted a similar experiment, but the device failed to separate from the booster and burned in the atmosphere."

Maybe, after the third solor sail experiment failure in as many attempts, it's time to do some of that studying and a little less blindly launching failure after failure. But what do I know.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by GlassUser · 2005-06-22 04:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

And those people are raised by parents who think the schools should be the parents, so the schools are so busy teaching Johnny how to Share His Feelings that they never get around to teaching him where his Cartoon Network signal comes from. Don't blame NASA, blame parents.

You're at least partly dead wrong. I'm formerly home schooled, and I'd crap my pants to get into NASA (I live five minutes from JSC, so I'm ready when they are). I will home school my own children, and I'll make good and sure they know how important NASA and associated programs are to us. I'm not alone, I know many home schooled kids who take astronomy classes from an aerospace engineer and astronomer.

You might be more on target if you aimed that at the california village-grown fools.

--
funny munging
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 04:45 · Score: 1, Funny

'satilight'?
'physiclally'?

I thought I told you to STOP POSTING!!!
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by mhmealling · 2005-06-22 04:48 · Score: 1

>Then again I wonder if they ever really could get
>back to the Apollo days? That seemed the best
>balance to me, but would the American public
>tolerate several astronauts burning up on the pad
>due to pure pressurized oxygen sparking up the
>capsule?

Why would you want to back to the Apollo days? That program wasn't sustainable, wasn't oriented toward producing anything that was economically viable and never intended on letting ordinary citizens go. Apollo just produced flags and footprints. I'm not interested unless the end goal is very large numbers of ordinary citizens, not government employees, living, working and making money in space.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 04:55 · Score: 0

Do you live outside the U.S.?
If you don't, stop posting. You're embarassing everyone.

If you do, go back to school. You're embarassing everyone.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by MooseByte · 2005-06-22 04:59 · Score: 1

"Why would you want to back to the Apollo days?"
Because it was the last time we managed to get someone off this rock and onto another one. And it succeeded with a combination of national drive, creativity, risk, and science that I wish we could find among ourselves again.

"I'm not interested unless the end goal is very large numbers of ordinary citizens, not government employees, living, working and making money in space."

Which to me means we first have to get people off this rock and onto another one. I think a lunar base, started very small and expanding onward from there, would be a perfect focus for perfecting the tech and other resources (national/international will) to actually achieve the goals you state. They are my goals too.

And the Apollo program was the last time we pulled that off.

All this lunar base talk makes me want to watch "Space 1999" again. :-)
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by ScentCone · 2005-06-22 05:01 · Score: 3, Interesting

You might be more on target if you aimed that at the california village-grown fools.

Um... hence my reference to "those people that..."

You're way in the minority, and I'm glad you're out there. But the vast majority of public school kids are basically uninformed, and worse, lack any critical thinking skills whatsoever. Enough of them vote (uncritically), or bitch at their legislators based on shallow, emotional, short-attention-span-driven reactions to things that we get ridiculous spending priorities. Our high tech/space programs do more to expand our tech economy, help with looming security issues, and keep us ahead of our competition in so many ways... if only the average kid was taught to think in terms of causal relationships and rational economics. Oh well.

I'm glad to hear about astronomy being taught by an engineer in the home-school environment. Unfortunately, too many of the home-schooling families I'm aware of do so because they don't think normal schools put enough Jesus into astronomy, etc., so it's in some ways worse than the public schools. That certainly varies.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 05:08 · Score: 0

That's right, because in Soviet Russia, give up theys YOU!

*shrug*
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by Sir_Eptishous · 2005-06-22 05:12 · Score: 1

Right.
The reason they do the studies and research about why things don't work is because most of the money for NASA is from the taxpayers. If it was private then things would probably be different, not that I'm for a privatized NASA.

Whats interesting is that the American public and politicians don't give a crap when billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars go for questionable (at best) military endeavors and projects that even the Pentagon says are a waste...

Hey, whats a few hundred billion among friends?

--
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by bskin · 2005-06-22 05:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

We go to the moon in this decade... The space race was won by people with drive and ambition. These days NASA is full of over-educated monkeys who cringe at their own shadow.

Over-educated? They're fucking rocket scientists. A lot of education is generally considered a prerequisite. NASA's problems would seem to have a lot more to do with bureaucracy, politics, and lack of budget than, say, knowing too much.

--
hot foreign sheep.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by BewireNomali · 2005-06-22 05:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

i agree with the lunar base. quite frankly i don't see what the problem is. It's not new tech to get us to the moon. we can even retrofit some of that vintage shit with new computers and call it a day (oversimplification). Is it a cultural hindrance? Are we not ready as a species to start inhabiting other celestial bodies?

There are biological constraints. Living on the moon for a while means that one will not be able to come back to earth. This is the first time that humans have encountered that constraint. maybe that's what it is?

I'm totally with the lunar base. In fact, they should start with target practice. Send living modules, food, water, and air modules... design them to withstand impact and pockmark the surface of the moon with them. GPS those suckers and design satellites to pick up the signals. Then start landing in the first of several teams. The first team will have four backup modules that have already been launched in case of catastrophic failure. It'll be redundant many times over. Wimax the moon and beam them cable and pr0n so they won't be bored after a long day of lunar mining. The technology ALREADY exists. The only thing is that there is no short or middle term money to be made, which is fine. That's what governments are for.

Re: solar sail. Anyone know if a proof-of-concept has ever flown? What are the practical applications other than for deep space probes?

--
un burrito me trampeó.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 05:41 · Score: 0

Sounds like they need to fix their rockets, but since none of their tests has got as far as actually opening up its sail, I don't think you can blame the sail itself...
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 05:47 · Score: 0

What school did you go to? I need to know so I don't send my children there. Thanks!
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by amightywind · 2005-06-22 05:48 · Score: 1

Meanwhile, the Russians dust themselves off and prepare the next launch vehicle for the earliest possible sendup of the sail.

You can criticize lots of things about the US space program, but not for open analysis of failures. It is just good engineering to fix problems and not hide them.

I for one am heartened that a Russian sub-launched missile failed so ignominiously. One wonders how credible their nuclear deterent really is. Perhaps now is the time to hit them with a first strike!

--
an ill wind that blows no good
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by TigerNut · 2005-06-22 05:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

You're missing some critical points there:
2005: Booster fails - the solar sail never gets a chance.
2001: Booster separation fails - the solar sail never gets a chance.
1999: Deployment mechanism jammed - the solar sail never gets a chance.

The solar sail part of the experiment hasn't had too many flight hours so far, due to component failures almost completely unrelated to the solar sail craft itself. They're not launching failure after failure... they're having launch failures, which is not the same thing.

--
Less is more.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by Ucklak · 2005-06-22 05:55 · Score: 1

There was a cartoon on Fox in the mid 90's called EEK, The Cat. Like most cartoons, it has adult messages intertwined within the content. This one had an element of slapstick violence like the classic Looney Toons.

There was one episode about how Political Correctness is getting way out of hand and eventually violence in cartoons will be legislated away wo there you will have a non-offensive circle character walking happily with a non-offensive character but with a different color.
The two of them will hold hands while one of them will accidently falls of a building and falls comfortably into a pillow.

This is getting off topic but from what I'm seeing in 'kid' shows today (like Barney,etc...) they're already changing classic stories to be PC.

Just saw this with my kid:

Barney's version of Jack and the Beanstalk:

Fe Fi Fo Fum
I'm a giant and here I come
---

Should be:
Fe Fi Fo Fum
I smell the blood of an Englishman
Be he alive or be he dead
I'll grind his bones to make my bread
---

On 'Out of the Box' from Disney:

Hansel and Gretel lose their way in the forest to find a helpful old wizard that takes them back home.

--
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by geekoid · 2005-06-22 05:59 · Score: 1

He didn't mention home schooling.

POint in fact, most home schoolers are better educated then public school kids.
to address a point that is always posted against home schooling, most home schooled kids are better behaved socially then public school kids.

I find your crack about Californias to be offensive.

Just for the record, my kids attend public schools, where my wife volenteers, and then they do additional studing at home.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by sp0rk173 · 2005-06-22 06:01 · Score: 1

You're 100% dead wrong. He was referring to schools taking on the role of parents, spending less time on academic pursuits and more time on hand-holding bullshit that should be done by good, effective parents.

Sooooo coool down Johnny Homeschool. No offence was meant towards you and your wacko ideals.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by ivanmarsh · 2005-06-22 06:01 · Score: 1

Seems to me we've lost our share of spacecraft over the years and we're still sending them up there.

Wasn't Hubble supposed to be scrapped a couple of hunderd times by now?

Aren't we still launching the shuttle? I think we've lived through a few problems with those haven't we?
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by djbentle · 2005-06-22 06:05 · Score: 1

Well, mostly it was just a joke, but the original poster did mention the booster failure, not a solar sail failure, so we weren't talking about just the solar sail.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 06:06 · Score: 0

Parents kinda crapped out on teaching reading comprehension, didn't they buddy?
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 06:07 · Score: 0

Do you still attend 4th grade? You whine about trivial things like you are.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 06:16 · Score: 0

It's not likely they went without insurance. If (and likely) it was insured, it's a pretty safe bet they'll go again.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by CaymanIslandCarpedie · 2005-06-22 06:17 · Score: 1

Perhaps now is the time to hit them with a first strike!

I think the US has thier own issues to work out. A Russian sub launches an ICBM and nobody knows where it went or what happened to it???? Hello! Norad! You awake???

--
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by xilet · 2005-06-22 06:20 · Score: 1

I had totally forgotten about Eeek the cat, great show.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by kfg · 2005-06-22 06:20 · Score: 1

They're fucking rocket scientists.

If only this were true.

KFG
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by 3rd_Floo · 2005-06-22 06:20 · Score: 1

I'm sorry to nitpick here, but the oh infamous Dan Goldin pushed for 'faster, better, cheaper'.

NASA research level employees, from my own experience, are not the problem, its bureaucracy and the lack of interested from much of the general public that is the problem. In the Apollo days space excited the general populace. Nowadays, the general public almost has forgotten one of the 'A's in NASA, and seems to be losing what interest it has in the 'S' portion. That is the true downfall of NASA, the majority of the public who funds it stopped caring as a whole.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by isomeme · 2005-06-22 06:28 · Score: 1

One would hope that the Planetary Society had some sort of insurance or contract covering loss of the payload, in which case they'll just take the insurance/refund money and fund the replacement mission with it.

As a member of the PS myself, I'll be rather pissed off if they didn't take such precautions.

--
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 06:30 · Score: 0

"the Russians dust themselves off"

Unfortunately this isn't far from the truth.

"who cringe at their own shadow"

Maybe the public and the media flog them every time they make a mistake?

"The space race was won by people with drive and ambition"

I thought the Challenger explosion was due to excessive recklessness and a don't worry attitude?
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by whitehatlurker · 2005-06-22 06:34 · Score: 1

Parent says: "the soviet era officially ended over a decade ago, FYI". Bravo! I was wondering if someone would remember this. Please mod parent up.
Of course, the irony is that this factoid shows the whole thread to be incorrect in that Soviet Russia did give up.

--
.. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by Moofie · 2005-06-22 06:37 · Score: 1

"Just for the record, my kids attend public schools, where my wife volenteers, and then they do additional studing at home"

I hope you don't help them with their spelling homework.

"additional studing"? I don't even want to ask...

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by PriceIke · 2005-06-22 06:41 · Score: 1

> I find your crack about Californias to be offensive.

Are there more than one? Did it subdivide while I was away?

--
It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by bani · 2005-06-22 06:51 · Score: 1

I find your crack about Californias to be offensive.

You mean there's more than one?

Just for the record, my kids attend public schools, where my wife volenteers, and then they do additional studing at home.

I sure hope you don't teach them spelling.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by rickbrodie · 2005-06-22 06:53 · Score: 1

Oh dear god! I really don't know whether to laugh or cry. What have you americans *done* to yourselves; and more pertinently: (how) can it be undone?
More seriously... In times gone by, people found themselves in a situation that they didn't like (take the highland clearances for example) so they left to try their luck in a new country. Possibly the problem is that they didn't leave human nature, but brought it with them and have begun the whole process over again. Now, however, there are no new "empty" countries left to flee to.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 06:54 · Score: 0

I can't decide what's worse:

A ROCKET SCIENTIST who can't figure out how to build a decent rocket for $15,000,000,000 a year (like one that could get out of Orbit or at least get us back to the moon like they could 30 years ago)

- or -

A bureaucrat that supposedly works for us that would let a Rocket Scientist piss away $15,000,000,000 a year of our tax money without producing a single satisfactory Rocket.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by DerekLyons · 2005-06-22 07:15 · Score: 1

The incredibly complex shuttle, in all fairness, was driven more by military/national security design constraints.
No, it wasn't. The Shuttle design was already converging on the 60k payload and had already settled on the TAS (Thrust Augmented Shuttle - I.E. SSME's and some form of first stage augmentation, which became the SRB's) by the time the military came along. The miltary requirements upped the size of the cargo bay amd increased the size of the wings - but the 'dense' orbiter requiring high performance TPS was already a design 'feature' by that time.
The belief that the Shuttle once actually was cheap and easy until the military came along is a false one.

Meanwhile the "faster, cheaper, leaner" approach of the last decade proved to be a bit too fast and loose.
No, it hasn't. FBC has just about the same loss/failure rate as the 'Battlestar' probes that proceeded them.
Then again I wonder if they ever really could get back to the Apollo days?
I hope to hell not. The Mercury-Apollo sequence was driven by the need to provide stunt after spectacular after 'first'. It's only by luck that we only had one fatal accident and two immediately life threatening ones. It's only become clear in recent years how many diving catches prevented other mission or life threatening problems - the only difference in the attitude towards safety between the NASA of the 60's and the NASA of the 21st century is the names on the memos.
Private enterprise *may* be our best hope in finding the proper spot on the cost/risk curve, but then where's the profit in much of the basic space science we'd all want to see done?
With private enterprise providing the vehicle and transport - the goverment can concentrate on science while the commercial entities still make money. (Exactly as is done in say - oceanographic research, or geology, or artic exploration, or dozens of other disciplines.)
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by DunbarTheInept · 2005-06-22 07:19 · Score: 1

Maybe it wasn't a misspelling. Maybe he puts his kids out to stud. Sick, sick, if you ask me.

--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 07:20 · Score: 0

This is not fucking insightful.
You are stupid and uninformed.

The launch of the Cosmos 1 was privately funded and they paid for the Russians to launch it.
Sure, the Russians will try again... if somebody PAYS them to do it.

Stupid.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 07:29 · Score: 0

OMG we have heard of any major cities blowing up either! that must mean they everyone in that city was killed, so no one could get the word out of its destruction
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by Frymaster · 2005-06-22 07:34 · Score: 1

One would hope that the Planetary Society had some sort of insurance
insurance? for a rocket made in russia? you could maybe get a policy for flood and theft, but beyond that i don't think any insurer would touch the thing.

--
2 1337 4 u!
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by Geekboy(Wizard) · 2005-06-22 07:35 · Score: 1

I am one of those california village-grown fools, and it pisses me off. Everything useful I have had to teach myself, which sadly includes trying to figure out the basic backstory for shit.

I know I'm not as smart as I should be, but I don't know what I'm unaware of :/. Hows that for a shitty oxymoron. *grumpy*
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by mapmaker · 2005-06-22 07:48 · Score: 2, Funny

I'd crap my pants to get into NASA
You'd better, as it's a job requirement for astronauts. :)
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 07:50 · Score: 1, Informative

Not quite.

While the technology DID exist, in many ways it does not exist now. Even if we dusted off the origial drawings and specs, they were deigned to work with materials and components that were available at the time. Many of those parts no longer exist, and the indutry to produce them has moved on. So any such massive rockets would have to be redesigned using modern components, by a new generation of engeineers. They could learn from the older ones, but it would still be non-trivial.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by astar · 2005-06-22 07:50 · Score: 1

I think this shot would have been the first proof of concept of the solar sail idea to have successfully flown. There was a previous try that failed. Nasa thought about it in the 1970's and will fly some in the 2010's.

Solar sails are useful even for interstellar flights, if you have a big laser kept at home to drive it. Presumedly a smaller laser would take you past Jupiter to the outer planets.

This last shot wanted to demonstrate steeribility.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by RexRhino · 2005-06-22 07:55 · Score: 1

This is an the project of the U.S. based Planetary Society, the Russians were simply contracted to do the job (and launching a probe created by a private company, and doing it for a profit, couldn't be more non-Soviet).

Of course the Russians are dusting themselves off... they got paid in advance. But if you read the article, you would see "A government panel will investigate possible reasons behind the failure of the three-stage rocket's first-stage engine".

I understand that there are going to be people who post without bothering to read the article, but when those people are being modded +5 Insightful, I think it is a sign that Slashdot is no longer the effective at moderating itself. Does anyone out there any sites that are like Slashdot used to be?
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by Rickler · 2005-06-22 07:59 · Score: 1

+2 for grammar nazi good work. you make the internet a better place.

--

The human race is artificial intelligence created using object orientated programming.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by Jeremi · 2005-06-22 08:04 · Score: 1

Let's say this happened in the US. The entire project would be shitcanned and study after study would be performed to show why and how the rocket exploded

It sounds like you are comparing the explosion of a $100 billion space shuttle (and the loss of 7 lives) to the failure of a $4 million unmanned ICBM. Apples and oranges.

--

I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by kitzilla · 2005-06-22 08:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

> Meanwhile, the Russians dust themselves off and prepare the next launch vehicle for the earliest possible sendup of the sail.
Which seems reasonable, considering this is a low-budget, unmanned project. It's cheaper to risk splashing another probe than spend hundeds of millions on post-mortem analysis.

It would suck, though, if this were a manned program and the Russian Federation went for the "earliest possible" relaunch without deciding what the hell went wrong.

The Soviets might have done this. They were, after all, the folks who sent firefighters into Chernobyl protected only by raincoats. Not a tendency worth lauding, no matter how much Slavic pluck and pride it might demonstarte.

This isn't a space race. There's no need to recklessly throw man and machine to the wind. Besides, where's the money going to come from? We're being bled dry by our new colonial wars overseas. It costs big bucks to haul our flag atop a new pile of foreign rubble every couple of years.

Sure, NASA has gotten a bit stodgy. They should worry less about losing the odd probe or two and more about how to make the International Space Station do something more useful than transfering our wealth into low orbit.

When it comes to strapping schoolteachers atop a mountain of liquid oxygen and rocket fuel, though, NASA should be as cautious as seems reasonable. There are people in those shuttles. Let's take every care to be sure they don't join the space sail at the bottom of the sea.

--
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 08:22 · Score: 0

They're fucking rocket scientists. A lot of education is generally considered a prerequisite

So you're saying one needs an advanced degree to have sex with a rocket scientist? I bet there are a lot of hookers in the Cape Canaveral region who'd disagree with you on that.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by mi · 2005-06-22 08:29 · Score: 1

raised by parents who think the schools should be the parents, so the schools are so busy teaching Johnny how to Share His Feelings
Actually, all of these "sensitivity" programs are crammed down the parents' throats.
Don't blame NASA, blame parents
More like "blame teachers' unions" -- like that of all trusts, those people's top priority is preserving their members' incomes by stiffling all competition -- such as from home or private schooling.

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by Ucklak · 2005-06-22 08:31 · Score: 1

Terraform Mars!!

--
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 08:46 · Score: 0

You mean you decided to breed? Oh Christ, you've ruined my day.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 09:00 · Score: 0

It never hurts to help! Kumbiya, Sharkey!
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by ToasterofDOOM · 2005-06-22 09:16 · Score: 1

... CowboyNeal?

--
I am Spartacus
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by nCnt++ · 2005-06-22 09:21 · Score: 1

bkskin has a point. You don't get jet propulsion smarts on the streets.

--
Have you ever noticed the best /. comments are long and the best Chuck Norris jokes are short?
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 09:43 · Score: 0

They're fucking rocket scientists.

If only this were true.

Ummm, a person that has a doctorate in a scientific field and either works on or designs rockets or their associated systems is by definition a "Rocket Scientist". It is not an estimation of their intelligence or usefulness, it's just a phrase describing their job.

So were you just being an ass or did you really not understand what the word meant?
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by kfg · 2005-06-22 09:48 · Score: 1

Many of my friends are rockets scientists. Some of them work on the shuttle, but not for NASA.

Most of the people at NASA are not rocket scientists. In fact most of them are not scientists at all and hold no scientific degrees of any kind.

You do not even seem to know what the word "scientist" means.

KFG
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by stuktongue · 2005-06-22 10:13 · Score: 1

Perhaps now is the time to hit them with a first strike!

I'm "six nines" sure this was meant as a joke, and I like jokes as much as the next guy, but I find this to be one of the most appalling things I've ever read on Slashdot, and I've read a lot of appalling shit.

I wonder how a resident of Russia reacts to this sort of stupidity? I can only hope he or she realizes this is nothing but a pathetic attempt at humor by a person either too young or too ignorant to know the seriousness of the subject of which he speaks.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by rsynnott · 2005-06-22 10:43 · Score: 1

I don't understand why, precisely. The astronauts/cosmonauts know they're doing something dangerous, every time they go up. Just as those involved in supreme sports know, those who fight in wars (and don't even get a chance to opt out) know... About 2 or 3% of people who've gone (or tried to go) into space have died. Everyone KNOWS it's dangerous.
I severely doubt that the shuttle was grounded because of danger to astronauts; rather, it was grounded because space-shuttles are expensive (and probably, at this stage, irreplacable; they're down to three now, and if they hadn't had a lot of spare parts lying around, they'd be down to two). Apollo 1 and 13 didn't delay that programme very long...

--
Me (Blog)
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 10:59 · Score: 0

The inability to create a proper sentence in your native language is not just a "trivial thing". It is a basic life skill.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 11:44 · Score: 0

Please tell me you're joking? The teacher's unions actively prevent home schooling? How the fuck do they do that?

Moreover, 'sensitivity' programs are crammed down parents throats because teachers are scared to death that little johnny, whose parents failed to teach him the difference between reality and fantasy, is going to gun down the class.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by cduffy · 2005-06-22 12:13 · Score: 1

[...] i don't think any insurer would touch the thing.

Lloyd's would, but they'd charge you enough to make it worth their while.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by mbius · 2005-06-22 12:17 · Score: 1

Over-educated? They're fucking rocket scientists.

Point taken. But "did the fucker explode" is a pretty low-level binary-valued interrogative.

--
you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
Prime UID Club
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by mahmud · 2005-06-22 12:30 · Score: 1

Dude. Humor is the natural way to deal with situations and matters of grave seriousness. Moreover, I was born in USSR, and didn't find gp's joke offensive at all.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by mi · 2005-06-22 13:30 · Score: 1

The teacher's unions actively prevent home schooling? How the fuck do they do that?
By spreading the FUD about the "inadequacy" of home schooling and by lobbying to make it illegal. It is, in fact, illegal in "more progressive" countries like Germany.

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by GlassUser · 2005-06-22 16:09 · Score: 1

I know I'm not as smart as I should be, but I don't know what I'm unaware of :/. Hows that for a shitty oxymoron. *grumpy*

A wise man once told me that one of the first steps toward wisdom is realizing how little you know now, and how little you will ever know.

--
funny munging
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 17:34 · Score: 0

Just to extrapolate what parent said one step further: don't blame parents, blame ourselves.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by tez_h · 2005-06-22 23:15 · Score: 1

Over-educated? They're fucking rocket scientists.
Yeah, but they're hardly brain surgeons.
Now, I'd like to see a story about a neurological experiment failing.

-Tez

--
Haskell, the static-typed, lazy, polymorphic, programming language.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by i41Overlord · 2005-06-23 16:17 · Score: 1

It sounds like you are comparing the explosion of a $100 billion space shuttle (and the loss of 7 lives) to the failure of a $4 million unmanned ICBM. Apples and oranges.

So a Space Shuttle costs $100 billion, huh?

That's not even close.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-24 07:33 · Score: 0

"The space race was won by people with drive and ambition"

Who were you referring to?

First satellite: sputnik
First animal in space: sputnik 2, Laika
First human in space: Yuri Gagarin
First space walk: Alexei Leonov
First to far side of moon: Luna 3
First soft landing on the moon: Luna 9
First human on the moon: Neil Armstrong

Contradiction? by Daedalus_ · 2005-06-22 04:31 · Score: 4, Interesting

Is it me, or does the Fox article contradict itself?

First it crashed....

MOSCOW -- The world's first solar sail spacecraft (search) crashed back to Earth when its booster rocket failed less than two minutes after Tuesday's takeoff, Russian space officials said Wednesday.

...but now it's in orbit and sending signals?

U.S. scientists had said earlier that they possibly had detected signals from Cosmos 1 but cautioned that it could take hours or days to figure out exactly where the $4 million spacecraft was. The signals were picked up late Tuesday after an all-day search for the spacecraft, which had suddenly stopped communicating after its launch, they said. "It's good news because we are in orbit -- very likely in orbit," Bruce Murray, a co-founder of The Planetary Society (search), which organized the mission, said before the Russian space agency's announcement.

??

Re:Contradiction? by Neurowiz · 2005-06-22 04:37 · Score: 5, Informative

No, that's a legit contradiction. If you go to the Planetary Society's website, you'll find that they are still hunting and there are clear signs that something is screwed up, but the spacecraft may have made it to orbit:

http://planetary.org/solarsailblog
http://www.planetary.org/solarsail/latest_update.h tml

I'm kind of suprised that the Russians are so quick to call "fail" on this, given the conflicting data, but they had a bad karma space day yesterday, what with their other launch of a military payload failing as well.

--
Neurowiz
Re:Contradiction? by Limburgher · 2005-06-22 04:38 · Score: 1, Troll

Were you looking to find consistency and accuracy from Faux News?
That's so sweet. :)

--
You are not the customer.
Re:Contradiction? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 04:38 · Score: 0

Sounds like it fits in with their "We Report, You Decide" mantra.
Re:Contradiction? by Pentavirate · 2005-06-22 04:39 · Score: 1

They had made those announcements before Moscow had announced that it had crashed back down to earth, though it is confusing how it is worded.

--
www.joshferguson.org
Re:Contradiction? by CheshireCatCO · 2005-06-22 04:40 · Score: 1

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. It's a poorly written article.

CNN claims that they don't know what has happened to the spacecraft. The Russians say it crashed, but the controllers in Pascadena say it's alive. If they're really getting signals, I believe the latter until the Russians can find the debris.
Re:Contradiction? by glsunder · 2005-06-22 04:48 · Score: 5, Funny

Is it me, or does the Fox article contradict itself?

Nah, they're just being Fair and Balanced.
Re:Contradiction? by Richard_at_work · 2005-06-22 04:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm kind of suprised that the Russians are so quick to call "fail" on this, given the conflicting data, but they had a bad karma space day yesterday, what with their other launch of a military payload failing as well

The reason that the Russians are quick to call a fail on this is due to when the booster failed. The craft may have made it to *AN* orbit, but with booster failure at 83 seconds, its unlikely to be a usable orbit for testing the sail in. If the sail cant be tested for whatever reason, then its failed, regardless of whether its in orbit or at the bottom of the ocean.
Re:Contradiction? by Rei · 2005-06-22 05:24 · Score: 5, Funny

I thought their slogan was "Fox News: We Decide, You Nod Your Head In Agreement Or Yell At The Screen, But Either Way Our Ratings Climb"

--
The War of 1812... the good 'ol days when the federal government actually tried to save New Orleans.
Re:Contradiction? by Neurowiz · 2005-06-22 05:32 · Score: 1

True, that's a good point. The launch failed, but the mission might still be salvageable, depending on the orbit achieved. If it's not too low an orbit, would be interesting for them to use the sail to change their orbital characteristics, depending on if there's enough DV generated by the sails...

--
Neurowiz
Re:Contradiction? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 05:45 · Score: 0

AP wrote it, so I guess you're showing your ass for nothing.

Don't forget to wipe.
Re:Contradiction? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 06:07 · Score: 0

HAHAHA OMG U R SO FUNNY!!!!111oneone Faux News, OMG THAT IS SO COOL. Can I use that?!?! I mean, that is the cooles thing. I want to tell me friends right away to call it Faux News, cause is like fake or something right? Those damn rebulicans and neocons, I HATE EM I tell ya. They are EVIL!
Re:Contradiction? by Tongo · 2005-06-22 06:10 · Score: 1

Probably has nothing to do with the fact it was an AP story does it....
Re:Contradiction? by elgatozorbas · 2005-06-22 07:35 · Score: 1

Is it me, or does the Fox article contradict itself?

...crashed back to Earth when its booster rocket failed less than two minutes after Tuesday's takeoff, Russian space officials said Wednesday.
...
...U.S. scientists had said earlier that they possibly had detected signals from Cosmos 1"
Russians say A, Americans say B. The article doesn't contradict itself, Russians and Americans just disagree.
Re:Contradiction? by iabervon · 2005-06-22 08:41 · Score: 1

Actually, according to Reuters, the Russian officials only said that the spacecraft was not delivered to its planned orbit, and that they don't know if it is in some other orbit or has crashed. So Fox overstated the failure report, which only said that the craft is not in the planned orbit with a flaky transmitter, but is actually somewhere else, due to the launch vehicle failing. This is consistant with the report of a weak signal, and the search for it both in orbit and on the ground.
Re:Contradiction? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-23 01:49 · Score: 0

Did someone wake up with a case of Asperger's this morning?
Re:Contradiction? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-27 02:13 · Score: 0

Congratulations on your recent winning Non Sequitur! Yours was chosen from among hundreds of thousands of entries here on Slashdot.

You will receive a lifetime supply of Suck It Sauce - not only does it provide the USDA Recommended Daily Allowance of Vitamin Go Fuck Yourself, it softens skin and makes a great back hair remover also.

Re:Good news, everyone! by jellomizer · 2005-06-22 04:31 · Score: 2, Interesting

Dont confuse news and comintary. When a News station gets an actuall news braudcast wrong they take a lot of heat, like CBS. What Fox News does is that don't offer much news they offer a bit of news and a lot of political comintary. Being Comintary it can be wrong, uninsightful, and just downright dumb. without the station taking heat for it.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.

In other news... by It+doesn't+come+easy · 2005-06-22 04:31 · Score: 5, Funny

Chief Spokesperson for the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) today confirmed that the new and improved Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center (CMOC), first announced last January, is fully functional. "We had our first real world test yesterday when an ICBM launch was detected from an as yet unidentified submarine in the Barents Sea. I am happy to report that the threat was eliminated without incident."

--
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.

reason by kswtch · 2005-06-22 04:32 · Score: 1

> The world's first solar sail spacecraft (search) crashed back to Earth

where does it hit the surface of our planet? And anybody know why the boosters failed?

Re:reason by It+doesn't+come+easy · 2005-06-22 04:38 · Score: 1

Yes, I know why the booster failed...

--
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
Re:reason by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 04:39 · Score: 0

It is a bit too early to do a root cause to be sure what the problem was.

Where does it hit? Or where did it hit?

Both questions are valid. Did it hit yet, or did it make a very low orbit?

If it already hit land (or water) the odds are that it hit in the arctic prior to making orbit. If it made orbit, the odds are that we won't know where it hit.
Re:reason by iced_773 · 2005-06-22 04:50 · Score: 1

If it did make it to a low orbit, we might be able to use ground-based lasers to send it up to the orbit it was supposed to have.

Either that, or we could accidentally send it clear to Pluto.
Re:reason by dfn5 · 2005-06-22 06:01 · Score: 1

And anybody know why the boosters failed?

Who doesn't know why it failed? Just yesterday when I was talking to someone about the launch I wondered if those Russian ICBMs even still work. It came as no surprise to hear today that they don't.

--
-- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.

Has it? by spot35 · 2005-06-22 04:33 · Score: 5, Informative

Just read this on the Register. Seems they are still receiving faint signals...

Re:Has it? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 04:45 · Score: 0

Probably just a jetliner going across the sky with cellphones blazing.
Re:Has it? by owlstead · 2005-06-22 05:07 · Score: 1

They might want to consider asking Seti for help :)

Damn shame by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 04:33 · Score: 0

This is a double shame:

A promising technology fails AND we endure comments that are bound to be at least 50% bad "In Soviet Russia..." jokes.

Wasting Money by harrypelles · 2005-06-22 04:33 · Score: 0, Troll

This is just my opinion, but I think all this crap the space programs are shooting off into space is a total waste of money that could be much better spent on any number of things (research, healthcare, internet security). ESPECIALLY when they crash and burn. Why not just say effit.

Re:Wasting Money by __aaclcg7560 · 2005-06-22 04:40 · Score: 1

One day the Earth will be so overpopulated because diseases have been wiped out because of microgravity research and manufacturing that the world government will have to offer incentives for people to move to Mars. The footpath to Mars is being constructed one crash at a time. Be thankful.
Re:Wasting Money by harrypelles · 2005-06-22 04:44 · Score: 0

Well, okay, I guess I can see your point in that. It's just fustrating, that's all.
Re:Wasting Money by mako1138 · 2005-06-22 04:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

This is just my opinion, but I think all this crap the space programs are shooting off into space is a total waste of money that could be much better spent on any number of things (research, healthcare, internet security).

You do realize that: research = all this crap the space programs are shooting off into space
Re:Wasting Money by Durinthal · 2005-06-22 04:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

No progress without trying, and that has to include the possibility of failure.
Re:Wasting Money by timster · 2005-06-22 05:12 · Score: 2, Informative

This particular venture was privately financed, so it essentially amounts to a bunch of people getting together and flying a really expensive kite. So now is a time we can skip the "space is waste" crap.

--
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.

Ouch! by MudButt · 2005-06-22 04:33 · Score: 2, Funny

I went into a deep depression after the loss of my $200 R.C. WWII fighter from Hobby Lobby... I wonder if these guys will bounce back.

Why failed?! by mynickwastaken · 2005-06-22 04:33 · Score: 0

Slashdot Effect?

Sub launch? by Vertdang · 2005-06-22 04:33 · Score: 1

Wasn't this thing launched from a submarine?Wouldn't it have been easier to do a ground launch so, well, people could watch the thing fail after 2 minutes?

/pictures sub captain: "ok, she's off, lets get out of here, and no one watch it."

--
Statesmen serve to better the country and help the people.
Politicians serve to better themselves and help friends.

Re:Sub launch? by AKAImBatman · 2005-06-22 04:47 · Score: 1

The article is light on details, but my guess is that the booster was probably similar to a Boeing Sea Launch system. (Wikipedia says it was a Volna ICBM. The Boeing system is really just the Zenit strap-on boosters from the Energia superbooster.) The booster probably doesn't have too much power on its own, and does best if orbit can be obtained without much need for ajusting the orbit when you get up there. Now Russia is in a fairly lousy place for launches (thus the crappy location of the ISS in orbit), so a sea launch platform allows the rocket to take off from a more useful latitude.

That's my guess, anyway.

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Re:Sub launch? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 05:22 · Score: 0

Submarines have windows?
Re:Sub launch? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 05:37 · Score: 0

Scott Evil: Wait, aren't you even going to watch them? They could get away!

Dr. Evil: No, no, no. I'm going to leave them alone and not actually witness them dying. I'm just gonna assume it all went to plan. ...What?
Re:Sub launch? by Rei · 2005-06-22 05:38 · Score: 2, Informative

Nope - the craft is going into a polar orbit, so it's actually slightly better to launch up north (they want a polar orbit so that they can get sun all of the time). The reason why it was launched from a submarine was because converted Russian ICBMs are cheap - Russia wants to get rid of them.

--
The War of 1812... the good 'ol days when the federal government actually tried to save New Orleans.
Re:Sub launch? by enosys · 2005-06-23 08:24 · Score: 1

Well, if the missile was designed to launch from a submarine it's a lot easier to launch it that way than to adapt it so it can be launched from land and build a launch pad.
Also remember that something launched from a submarine could be watched from nearby land, a ship or an aircraft.

MP and the Holy Grail by ZerocarboN · 2005-06-22 04:34 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Listen, lad. I've built this kingdom up from nothing.
When I started here, all there was was swamp. The king said I was
daft to build a castle in a swamp, but I built it all the same,
just to show 'em. It sank into the swamp. So, I built a second
one. That sank into the swamp. So I built a third one. That
burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth
one stayed up. An' that's what your gonna get, lad -- the strongest
castle in these islands.

Wow, very synonimous!

misappropreations by TrippTDF · 2005-06-22 04:34 · Score: 5, Funny

they could have spent the same 4 million to become Batman, and still have money to spare.

Re:That's what you get with potheads... by __aaclcg7560 · 2005-06-22 04:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

The Russian rocket failed 83 seconds into the flight. So the potheads are Russians. At least they were willing to give the idea a shot for the right price. Unlike another space agency that is really good at sitting on their thumbs.

Don't Give Up Hope by ndansmith · 2005-06-22 04:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

There is still plenty of reason for hope. All that happened was that the booster failed. We still don't know how the actually sail technology will perform, since the systems are unrelated.

Re:Don't Give Up Hope by UrgleHoth · 2005-06-22 04:53 · Score: 1

From what I heard on the radio, the first stage failed. It does not matter if the systems are unrelated, because if the rocket fails, the payload won't go far... up.

--

Dogma - "let's just say we'd like to avoid any empirical entanglements."
Re:Don't Give Up Hope by saider · 2005-06-22 05:06 · Score: 1

Unrelated except for the fact that the booster is designed to get the sail into space.

--

Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
Re:Don't Give Up Hope by thepoch · 2005-06-22 06:25 · Score: 2, Funny

My only 'hope' is that I don't wake up tomorrow with a big fricking solar sail next to my house. I don't think I can stand the media attention.
Re:Don't Give Up Hope by DerekLyons · 2005-06-22 07:23 · Score: 1

There is still plenty of reason for hope. All that happened was that the booster failed. We still don't know how the actually sail technology will perform, since the systems are unrelated.
If the booster failed to put it into a high enough or circular enough orbit, then atmospheric effects will be enough to mask the effects of the attempts to sail. The systems are indeed related.
Re:Don't Give Up Hope by Zoxed · 2005-06-22 07:28 · Score: 1

> There is still plenty of reason for hope. All that happened was that the booster failed. We still don't know how the actually sail technology will perform, since the systems are unrelated.

Errrr.. well if 1 booster stage fails, then the chances are that it will/has already fallen back to Earth. AFAIK there is no way a solar sail could pull the craft up into a stable orbit.
Re:Don't Give Up Hope by MyLongNickName · 2005-06-22 07:39 · Score: 2, Funny

Maybe if everyone simultaneously pointed their flashlights at it....

--
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Re:Don't Give Up Hope by feepness · 2005-06-22 07:51 · Score: 1

What I believe the original poster intended to say was "We still don't know how the actual sail technology will perform when the idiots get an actual working prototype out of the damn gravity well." (just kidding!)

He didn't mean this particular solar sail had a chance... though as people said above there is an teensy weensy chance.
Re:Don't Give Up Hope by terrymr · 2005-06-22 07:55 · Score: 1

We're talking about an early shutdown of the first stage, it could be that the subsequent stages were enough to loft the payload to a sufficiently stable orbit. People on the ground thought they detected the orbit insertion burn ... so it doesn't seam like the rocket just shutdown and fell back to earth right away.
Re:Don't Give Up Hope by DerekLyons · 2005-06-22 08:18 · Score: 1

We're talking about an early shutdown of the first stage, it could be that the subsequent stages were enough to loft the payload to a sufficiently stable orbit.
Possible, but extremely unlikely - as it appears 25% of the first stage performance was lost.
People on the ground thought they detected the orbit insertion burn ... so it doesn't seam like the rocket just shutdown and fell back to earth right away.
Nobody is claiming that it fell back to earth - only that it's almost certainly in too low of an orbit to be useful.

Re:Good news, everyone! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 04:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

You'll note that last week, when the Terri Schivo autopsy results were revealed, Fox's headline didn't mention the fact that her brain had atrophied or that she was likely blind. Rather, it stated something along the lines of "Autopsy results show that Schivo's husband had not poisoned her". Even when reporting the news, Fox will add their commentary whenever possible.

Granted, they didn't with this article, but if they could have made Tom DeLay look good in this article, they would have.

Re:Good news, everyone! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 04:36 · Score: 1, Interesting

'comintary'?
'actuall'?
'braudcast'?
'What Fox News does is that don't offer much news they offer a bit of news and a lot of political comintary.'?

Dear GOD, your posts make my eyes bleed!
Stop posting NOW!

Re:Good news, everyone! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 04:36 · Score: 0

They can be even worse if they offer a little news and a lot of commentary.

They're getting conflicting information by jfengel · 2005-06-22 04:37 · Score: 1

U.S. scientists had said earlier

It's that old past perfect tense. The scientists had said one thing, but now that's over and the Russian scientists are saying a different thing.

So either the US scientists were wrong (and they never got a signal; the article says "possibly") or they couldn't find it, then they found it, then they lost it again.

There's really no contradiction; they may or may not have found it, but it sounds like it's gone now.

How dissapointing... by nightcrawler.36 · 2005-06-22 04:38 · Score: 2

Regardless of the challenges involved, I'm always extremely dissapointed to hear of a space reserach oriented failure. Of all the things in Science that need to work, I see space technology as something that we're so far behind due to wars, money and simple lack of interest or foresight. I saw myself living on a space station by now when I was a kid. Looks like I'll just be throwing in a 2001 Space Odyssey DVD instead.

--
- nightcrawler "Reality is an illusion, albeit a ver persistent one..." -A.Einstein

Re:How dissapointing... by Chibi+Merrow · 2005-06-22 05:01 · Score: 1

If you think war has prevented anything regarding space sciences development, then you're not living in reality. Practically every major development in space has come directly from military needs.

--
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them

Obligatory Jedi reference by Spy+der+Mann · 2005-06-22 04:38 · Score: 1

The force was NOT strong with this one.

Re:Obligatory Jedi reference by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 05:13 · Score: 0

"Look, there goes another one!"

"Hold your fire - there are no life forms" ...

"Ah, what the hell..."
Re:Obligatory Jedi reference by tezbobobo · 2005-06-22 23:42 · Score: 1

Incorrect: should of
Still incorrect: should've
correct: should have

Firstly, 'right' is a moral judgement. The word you are looking for is either correct or proper. Incorrect is the opposite. Secondly, the phrase is 'should ought to have' as in, 'you should ought to have told the authorities ma'am.' As well, in correct spelling and technical writing one should never cntract spellings.

I defer in this to Janet Whitcut, senior Research Editor to the Longman Dictionary.

Incorrect facility named. by NDPTAL85 · 2005-06-22 04:38 · Score: 1

The most important facility at Cheyenne Mountain is the SGC, or StarGate Command.

--
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.

Re:Incorrect facility named. by elrous0 · 2005-06-22 05:50 · Score: 1

I hear they have the Ark of the Covenant crated up in there somewhere.
-Eric

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Re:Incorrect facility named. by c0p0n · 2005-06-22 07:06 · Score: 1

Sure, next to the Orb of Apollo.

--

Your head a splode
Re:Incorrect facility named. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 07:26 · Score: 0

...and your mama.
Re:Incorrect facility named. by Abreu · 2005-06-22 09:26 · Score: 1

Dont forget the Lance of Longinus and the frozen bodies of the greys who crashed in New Mexico

--
No sig for the moment.
Re:Incorrect facility named. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 13:32 · Score: 0

and paul bunyan's shriveled nuts...

I'm seeing a trend in these headlines... by Infinityis · 2005-06-22 04:41 · Score: 2, Funny

Ok, so no broadcast flag...and the solar sail didn't launch...

What next?

Jack Kilby still alive!
Court changes ruling: GIS data can be kept secret!

All your yesterday Slashdot are belong to us!

Fox = Slashdot != Planetary Society by n54 · 2005-06-22 04:41 · Score: 5, Informative

Why the hell does Slashdot base their "news" on Fox rather than going to the source itself?

Here's the latest (as of this moment) weblog entry from the Planetary Society itself as written by Emily Lakdawalla:

"Jun 22, 2005 | 07:49 PDT | 14:49 UTC The morning after

I showed up here at POP at about 7 am local time. I'm the only one here in the building at the moment. It was a very late night after a very long day yesterday, and we all knew that if anything there would be more people asking questions today; we needed the rest.

Over our night and their day there has been some information coming out of Russia. To recap where we stand: yesterday the launch appeared to happen roughly on time. The Navy reported first stage firing. Then the signal of the spacecraft was detected over the temporary ground station at Petropavlovsk. But it wasn't detected over Majuro, which had us concerned. And then U. S. Strategic Command reported that they did not see our spacecraft in the sky. Later in the afternoon, we heard back from our man in Majuro that he thought actually he may have detected a weak signal. And then we heard the same from Panska Ves via Lou. That all seemed to add up to a consistent story that while there may have been a problem on board, our spacecraft likely was in orbit.

Since then, there has been a new report circulating from Russia:

ITAR-TASS is now quoting officials of the Russian Navy and the Makeyev design bureau as saying that the Volna first stage unexpectedly shut down 83 seconds after lift-off, adding that unlike the standard Volna SLBM the "space version" does not have an automatic destruct system for such an eventuality.

About this, Lou made a statement last night:

Project Director Louis Friedman cautioned that some data point to a launch vehicle misfiring, one that would prevent the spacecraft from achieving orbit. He said, "That the weak signals were recorded at the expected times of spacecraft passes over the ground stations is encouraging, but in no way are they conclusive enough for us to be sure that they came from Cosmos 1 working in orbit." The Russian space agency indicated that the Volna rocket may have had a problem during its first or second stage firing. "This," Friedman noted, "would almost certainly have prevented the spacecraft from reaching the correct orbit."

What this means is that we are still dealing with a very wide range of possibilities for what could have happened yesterday, made even wider by the fact that it kind of sounds like some of the information that we have is contradictory. If the launch vehicle failed, how did we detect signals at Majuro and Panska Ves? On the other side, if the launch vehicle had a problem but still managed to put the spacecraft into some orbit, why didn't Strat Comm see it last night? We don't know what to make of it. We hope to get more information from Lou in an hour or two. Stand by for that."

--
this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]

Re:Fox = Slashdot != Planetary Society by stlhawkeye · 2005-06-22 05:03 · Score: 0

Why the hell does Slashdot base their "news" on Fox rather than going to the source itself?
It's an Associated Press story, you dipshit. Are you seriously asking why we want our news from the actual press instead of somebody's blog?

--
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
Re:Fox = Slashdot != Planetary Society by n54 · 2005-06-22 05:20 · Score: 4, Informative

"It's an Associated Press story, you dipshit. Are you seriously asking why we want our news from the actual press instead of somebody's blog?"
For your information it is not "somebody's blog" but the Planetary Society's weblog on the Cosmos 1 launch/project. In other words: directly from the source (the people actually at the hub of information: the Planetary Society) rather than possibly misinterpreted, misunderstood, and generally dumbed down reporting be it by AP, or Fox, or Slashdot.
In a situation where one has conflicting data and reports I think most people would like to get their information directly from those who have the most of it.

--
this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
Re:Fox = Slashdot != Planetary Society by ugmoe · 2005-06-22 05:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

The "Source" is very clear!
What this means is that we are still dealing with a very wide range of possibilities for what could have happened yesterday, made even wider by the fact that it kind of sounds like some of the information that we have is contradictory. If the launch vehicle failed, how did we detect signals at Majuro and Panska Ves? On the other side, if the launch vehicle had a problem but still managed to put the spacecraft into some orbit, why didn't Strat Comm see it last night? We don't know what to make of it. We hope to get more information from Lou in an hour or two. Stand by for that
Re:Fox = Slashdot != Planetary Society by n54 · 2005-06-22 06:10 · Score: 1

ugmoe you are quoting back to me from what I posted originally, perhaps this was a reply to someone else?

--
this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
Re:Fox = Slashdot != Planetary Society by ErikZ · 2005-06-22 14:30 · Score: 1

Big Dramatic Launch. The rocket soon shoots out of visual range.

Then everyone breaks for lunch.
"Hey, does anyone know where our spacecraft is?"

'Sorry, tracking the craft wasn't included in the package. Good luck with that though.'

--
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.

For those who don't like FOX by tenor_clef · 2005-06-22 04:42 · Score: 1

Here's a link to The Globe and Mail

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM .20050622.w2sail0622/BNStory/specialScienceandHeal th/

Re:For those who don't like FOX by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 05:33 · Score: 0

Jesus H. Christ! You people are so prejudiced against Fox News that you won't even read an Associated Press article posted there? This isn't some political commentary featuring opinions you might not agree with - it's just plain old news reporting.

This is just another indication that the political leanings of Slashdot readers aren't based on reasonable consideration of issues, but rather indoctrinated kneejerk hatred of people and companies that sometimes represent a view they disagree with, even when those people or companies happen to be providing unbiased information or perhaps even a positive service.
Re:For those who don't like FOX by Moridineas · 2005-06-22 05:38 · Score: 1

That's some response :-p

I can understand disliking Fox's editorial sections, but do you have any complaints about their news reporting, especially in a scientific article?
Re:For those who don't like FOX by neonleonb · 2005-06-22 05:51 · Score: 1

Personally, I would like to avoid supporting them, since they are so clearly biased. That's a good reason not to read any of their news.
Re:For those who don't like FOX by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 06:44 · Score: 0

> I can understand disliking Fox's editorial sections, but do you have any complaints about their news reporting, especially in a scientific article?

Yes. Their complete lack of integrity in any matter translates into slipshod reporting everywhere. They have no credibility on ANYTHING WHATSOEVER.

Simple logic by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 04:43 · Score: 0

The first-stage engine failed in a three-stage design. If it were possible to reach orbit with just the first stage, they wouldn't need the other two, wouldn't they?

Re:Simple logic by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 04:56 · Score: 0

Unless they needed the later stages to get into the "proper" orbit. There was some indication that the craft was in orbit, just not where they were expecting it to be. At least that's what they were saying late last night.
Re:Simple logic by terrymr · 2005-06-22 07:51 · Score: 1

In particular there was some evidence that the orbit insertion burn took place ... if thats the case then clearly the early shutdown of the first stage was followed by ignition of the later stages. Often with rockets what looks on instrumentation as an early shutdown, can be anything from catastrophic failure of the combustion chamber to simply an instrumentation problem. Without knowing the extent of other information received it's hard to guess what happend.

Laughing by Cthefuture · 2005-06-22 04:43 · Score: 3, Funny

You just know that right now there are some aliens up there watching and laughing their asses off. They probably record everything we do and broadcast their own reality series back to their planet(s). "Tonight on funniest earth out-takes..."

Come on you Vulcan bastards, come down here and help us pathic morons!

Seriously though, I think current world events (including the decline of Russia's military and America's focus on homeland dipshiatery) has lead to lack of interest/funding/training in space-related activies. The result is inevitable.

--
The ratio of people to cake is too big

Re:Laughing by richdun · 2005-06-22 05:16 · Score: 1

Bah, that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. Vulcans don't laugh, duh.
Re:Laughing by Brandybuck · 2005-06-22 07:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

Seriously though, I think current world events has lead to lack of interest/funding/training in space-related activies. The result is inevitable.

Actually, I think we're going about it the right way. It's up for private interests to fund space now, and they will do it. But only when it makes economic sense. I think that's going to be very very soon.

We've already been the moon. We've already demonstrated a resuable orbiter. So what are we proving with all those additional billions of dollars? Now is the time for NASA and the government to step back.

If the government had been in charge of highways in the same way they're in charge of space exploration, then the only automobiles we would have would be billion dollar state owned behemoths lumbering along grossly polluted roads. Every decade or so an automobile would blow up killing a half dozen courageous autonauts, whereupon congress would wring its hangs worrying if driving was a good idea to begin with.

--
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Re:Laughing by surelyserious · 2005-06-22 17:11 · Score: 1

You just know that right now there are some aliens up there watching and laughing their asses off.

We prefer to be called Little Green People.

--
"We're millions of miles from earth, inside a giant white face, what's impossible?"

Pity... by Shads · 2005-06-22 04:43 · Score: 1

... the technology is a nice idea. The US needs to do the sending up, the russians haven't had much luck with these.

--
Shadus

Re:Pity... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 05:05 · Score: 0

The US needs to do the sending up

Compare the number of human lives that have been lost as a result of US rockets failing at launch with the number that have been lost as a result of Russian failures.

Hmm, maybe Russia's record is pretty good if you look at it that way...
Re:Pity... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 05:09 · Score: 0

For less than $4,000,000. I doubt that. Best cheap option is to keep letting the Russians try and adapt the ICBMS.
Re:Pity... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 05:57 · Score: 0

Dude, the way that Russian Rockets were designed back in 60s hasn't changed much. In last 50 years USA still hasn't caught up, better get your facts right. USA engineers in space industry illustrate how NOT to do things and are a good symbol of failure either due to bad designs or bad management decisions.
Re:Pity... by 21mhz · 2005-06-22 10:04 · Score: 1

First, number of lives lost is not a good indicator of reliability, due to, ahem, shortage of the statistic base.

Second, several horrible disasters at launch pads puts the Russian number rather high.

--
My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.

Re:Good news, everyone! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 04:44 · Score: 0

Hell, yes! All those Americans who can't even spell in their own fucking language drive me nuts! MWBLARRAraAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaH

So much for cold war escalation. by holt_rpi · 2005-06-22 04:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

I guess all those sleepless nights about being nuked by a Russian sub were all for naught.

I mean, if they can't even make a simple booster rocket on a modified SLBM fire correctly, how are they supposed to get MIRVs up to a height to fall (albeit haphazardly) on US soil?

Re:So much for cold war escalation. by saider · 2005-06-22 05:00 · Score: 3, Funny

I mean, if they can't even make a simple booster rocket on a modified SLBM fire correctly, how are they supposed to get MIRVs up to a height to fall (albeit haphazardly) on US soil?

That's what Canada was for.

--

Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
Re:So much for cold war escalation. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 05:13 · Score: 0

Simple. Launch 100 of them and some are bound to make it.
Re:So much for cold war escalation. by leonardluen · 2005-06-22 08:49 · Score: 1

there is a vast difference, an ICBM doesn't need to reach orbit. but these ICBM's were converted to reach orbit(something they weren't intended to do) in order to launch satellites

i am sure it is easy to design something that works well for its designed purpose, but doesn't do a very good job when you try using it for something entirely different.
Re:So much for cold war escalation. by bleckywelcky · 2005-06-22 17:05 · Score: 1

That was my initial knee-jerk reaction. However, I would like to know why the unit failed before I make a real decision. Several people have noted that these are (SL) ICBMs and are not designed for orbital flight. However, the differences between sub-orbital and orbital flight are not all that different (as far as environment, duration of loads and vibrations, heat flux from propulsion, etc). About the only thing that comes to mind right now is that the payload they are lifting is probably a lot less massive than their original weapon payload (hence the higher altitude for the same booster). So, the structure, propellant grain, separation seams and charges, etc were not originally designed to experience these greater accelerations. And the work to modify them to handle these greater accelerations might have been faulty. In fact, with the evidence I have right now (none), that would be my prediction for the cause of failure.

The Soviets/Russians have always done good engineering (with failures along the way as much as anyone else). With the failure of these two launches, I would not give up my fear of their past or current nuclear capabilities.
Re:So much for cold war escalation. by ArgieNomad · 2005-06-22 17:14 · Score: 1

i am sure it is easy to design something that works well for its designed purpose, but doesn't do a very good job when you try using it for something entirely different. Can't-avoid-thinking-about-goatse-or-something-imp roperly-similar

--
I just read /. for the sigs

Sadly, no. by spune · 2005-06-22 04:47 · Score: 3, Interesting

Ann Druyan, Carl Sagan's widow, the owner of Cosmos Studios and the funder of the project, informed me in a conversation several months ago that should this attempt fail, the Planetary Society would be lacking in funds for another attempt, and that Cosmos Studios is financially unable to fund another attempt, either. So someone else would have to foot the bill for another go at solar sails.

Re:Sadly, no. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 07:38 · Score: 1, Funny

From the solar sail weblog:

Annie Druyan: "I may know now why this mission was so affordable."

Then why. . . by smooth+wombat · 2005-06-22 04:47 · Score: 0, Redundant

does this story posted at 12:08 PM EST say that the controllers in California say "the craft appeared to be "alive" and sending signals to tracking stations."?

"We have no evidence that anything is wrong with the spacecraft at all," said Bruce Betts, the Planetary Society's director of projects, late on Tuesday.

Either Fox is slow with the news (big surprise)* or the folks in the project and in Russia still don't know for sure.

* Whenever there has been some kind of sudden, breaking news, I switch between CNN and Fox to see who has it first. As a rule, CNN is always first on reporting it and does, overall, a much better job of actually reporting what is taking place.

P.S. To see some of the stories you've been missing, check out my journal.

--
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower

Re:Then why. . . by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 05:22 · Score: 1, Funny

It's flamebait because it is an Associated Press story, not a FoxNews story. FoxNews simply picked it up, as every other news channel did. You fucking moron.
Re:Then why. . . by mrn121 · 2005-06-22 05:25 · Score: 1

There needs to be an "Offtopic but needed to be said" rating for threads such as the AC one here.
Re:Then why. . . by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 05:30 · Score: 0

Nice journal ad there at the end, you fucking liberal cocksucker. Does the Bush re-election still sting that much? Fucking hippie.
Re:Then why. . . by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 05:32 · Score: 0

Pissing off the religious right at every opportunity and proud of it

I respectfully submit that your entire personality is based on flamebaiting people. The only surprising thing is that every one of your comments isn't moderatored as -1 Flamebait.

You are very obviously a young man that hasn't experienced much of the world. You think you know the answers to everything and get very angry when people don't bow to and agree with your superior knowledge. You are a loose cannon know-it-all and to be blunt, nobody enjoys being around you for a very long time.

An intelligent person upon reading this would take it as constructive criticism and spend at least a few minutes on introspection. You, on the other hand, will discount it completely as a partisan response and continue on with your angry existence. Best of luck to you and even more luck to those that are forced to associate with you.
Re:Then why. . . by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 05:43 · Score: 0

You could always try taking your downmoddings like a man and learning from your mistakes, instead of replying to your own posts to whine about them. Your post sucked. It was an obvious troll against Fox News, when the truth of the matter was that Fox was just printing an AP wire story, and if you had actually read both the Fox article and the CNN article, you would have seen that both articles mentioned receiving signals from the craft:

The Fox article says,
U.S. scientists had said earlier that they possibly had detected signals from Cosmos 1 but cautioned that it could take hours or days to figure out exactly where the $4 million spacecraft was. The signals were picked up late Tuesday after an all-day search for the spacecraft, which had suddenly stopped communicating after its launch, they said.
The article posted on CNN hours later gives more information about those signals - information that likely became available on the AP wire after those hours had passed.

Anyway, instead of crying that a Fox News troll didn't get an automatic +5 Supergenius like it normally does, maybe you should appreciate that there actually *are* a few Slashdot users with an unbiased grip on reality.
Re:Then why. . . by linuxrunner · 2005-06-22 05:58 · Score: 0, Offtopic

It was done so because CNN sucks... And pissing off morons like CNN watchers is fun. I mean, look at your response. Ha.

Oh.. check out my sig.

--
www.slightlycrewed.com - Because aren't we all?
Re:Then why. . . by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 06:03 · Score: 0

Ha! Ha!

Loser.
Re:Then why. . . by smooth+wombat · 2005-06-22 06:15 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Yeah, I guess actually getting news at it happens without having to wait for the spin is a bad thing.

After all, the CNN article had quotes from the people actually running the project whereas the FOX article had some nebulous quotes from various people in Russia who couldn't figure out where the sail might be.

Oh, and in case you're going to think about using some quote about how FOX is beating CNN in the ratings, just remember, FOXs ratings are based on those who happen to watch FOX during any given mintue. CNNs cume rating still blows FOX out of the water.

--
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Re:Then why. . . by bigtallmofo · 2005-06-22 06:47 · Score: 1

Why do you care?

--
I'm a big tall mofo.
Re:Then why. . . by pgriff · 2005-06-22 06:57 · Score: 1

I'm not sure that this example is a great one to cite as the linked article was produced by the Associated Press and not Fox news themselves.
Re:Then why. . . by DerekLyons · 2005-06-22 07:27 · Score: 1

does this story posted at 12:08 PM EST say that the controllers in California say "the craft appeared to be "alive" and sending signals to tracking stations."?
Because the Planetary Society are a bunch of confused amateurs with little experience in the task they are attempting. They are making press releases based on hope and speculation - not facts.
"We have no evidence that anything is wrong with the spacecraft at all," said Bruce Betts, the Planetary Society's director of projects, late on Tuesday.
Which isn't really a lie... But it diverts attention away from the fact that they have no evidence that anything is right either.

Re:proof positve by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 04:48 · Score: 0

I hope God shoots you with his lightning breath and laser eyes.

Re:Good news, everyone! by Breakfast+Pants · 2005-06-22 04:48 · Score: 1

"it can be wrong, uninsightful, and just downright dumb"

Kind of like your post, where you spelled commentary wrong what like six thousand times?

--

--

WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?

Proof positve of alien life perhaps by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 04:49 · Score: 0

{ roll eyes } Yeah, whatever. This is supposedly the same God that gave us the brains to figure out how to do this in the first place. That's like giving a child a candy bar, then punishing him for attempting to eat it -- unless you're trying to tell us that space is the next Forbidden Fruit.

If your diatribe had any accuracy into it, then every thing that we've launched into space would have come down in a massive fireball just so He could prove His point. Maybe we humans ended up being more resilient that He expected?

So exploring what's around us means that we're building a new Tower of Babel? We're meant to be isolated to this little island in the stars? How does that make us any better than rats in a cage? Oh, there's a nice thought! We're God's rats because He doesn't want us to explore past the boundaries of His little rat maze.

If you really believe that, then you are proof that exterrestrials exist because you're not from this world.

{CARTMAN}Dude, you need to lay off the cough syrup. Seriously. I'm worried about you, man.{/CARTMAN}

Fine, troll me down. But equating a failed rocket launch to God being pissed off at us is like equating a kite that won't fly to Mother Nature having her period.

Faster, Faster, Faster...Slower, Slower, Slower by King+tweak · 2005-06-22 04:49 · Score: 1

Stopped.

In Soviet Russia... by chipster · 2005-06-22 04:49 · Score: 1

...Netcraft comfirms that they fail it.

spell check by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 04:49 · Score: 0

dude. youre spelling is atroshious.

Re:spell check by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 06:55 · Score: 0

*atrocious*
Re:spell check by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 08:38 · Score: 0

WOOOOOSH!!!

What about the Sail? by htrp · 2005-06-22 04:50 · Score: 1

So the poor investors in this project are basically screwed? The solar sail could've worked perfectly... but it's the russian booster that failed (3 times for their own solar sail projects) Anyone else see a track record here? perhaps it would've been better to subcontract the launch out to someone else?

Re:What about the Sail? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 06:03 · Score: 0

Probably not, most private ventures like this usually have some kind of insurence attached to them. Wether or not this one did, I have no idea.

Re:Good news, everyone! by Foobar+of+Borg · 2005-06-22 04:50 · Score: 0, Troll

Granted, they didn't with this article, but if they could have made Tom DeLay look good in this article, they would have.

I guess they figured that the original title of the article, "Russian Launch Failure Proves That the Evil Bush Haters Want to Destroy America", was too ridiculous even for Faux News fans. [Quietly holds blowtorch to Karma]

re: Insurance for failure? by Mr.+Cancelled · 2005-06-22 04:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

I had the same thought as the original poster when it was first announced that the Soviets would be launching this... They have a lot of "oops's" over there.

Dunno if it's the vodka, or the Chechnyan terrorists, or the depressing prospects, but the Soviets seem to have a lot of large scale failures when it comes to these kinds of things.

So does NASA, or whoever, get an insurance policy when they sign up Russians to launch something like this? Something that will guarantee some form of reimbursement when/if a launch failed?

And if not, what prevents the Russions from just pocketing the monies they have been given, launching some dud rocket up a few hundred feet before dropping it into the ocean, and then saying "Sorry, but your launch failed, and you have nothing to show for it. Thanks for the money, BTW - We hope to do business again with you soon"?

Not that the infamous Russion integrity and low-crime nature would ever allow for something like this to happen, but still my curiosity was peaked when I heard this launch failed.

Re:proof positve by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 04:51 · Score: 0

Look don't mod me down because I am giving you my Christian opinion. I thought the days of persecution were over, I guess I was wrong. You had better pray to your Pagan Gods that we fail in reestablishing the Christian foundations of America.

Re:Good news, everyone! by DrAegoon · 2005-06-22 04:51 · Score: 1

The source is the Associated Press. Fox News is just one of many places that reprints the AP's stories.

That said, this just looks like the same story everyone's been printing since the first problems were discovered. If you read the Planetary Society's updates and blog it sounds like the information about the rocket cutting out 83 seconds into flight is old news that may not be accurate. The Planetary Society hasn't given up yet and there are weak signals that suggest it made it to orbit, they just aren't sure what orbit it made it to.

At this point it looks like there are two possibilities:
1) The Russian Navy report that the first stage cut off early is right, the signals received by the ground stations are false, and the craft is effectively lost.
or 2) That the Planetary society really did receive signals from an orbitting Cosmos 1, the Russian Navy is wrong, and there is still a chance to point the antennae at a different part of the sky and find the craft operating correctly in the wrong place.

I'm hoping for the latter, but Russia's track record seems to suggest the former.

Not true, a faint transponder signal was picked up by Harry+Balls · 2005-06-22 04:51 · Score: 1

This article http://www.theregister.com/2005/06/22/solarsail_si gnal_spotted/ details that a faint transponder signal of the spacecraft has been picked up, but officials speculate that the spacecraft may be in a wrong (read: low) orbit.
NORAD has been asked for help in locating the exact orbit of the spacecraft.

--
Dedicated Linux servers (root access) $45 p.M.

War Machines! by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · 2005-06-22 04:52 · Score: 2, Informative

Space technology is behind because of wars? I think you're confused. The rockets we see see today are the direct descendants of rockets like the V2. The moon landings were a direct result of competition between the US and the USSR during the cold war - that's why they're no longer happening. The space race is beginning to warm up again because countries like China are threating American military superiority in space.

--
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.

Re:War Machines! by nightcrawler.36 · 2005-06-22 05:49 · Score: 1

Chill out holmes! I'm not confused... I know exactly what I'm talking about. You took what I said out of context. I like a good war just like the next war monger. In fact, I see tremendous advantages to wars. But we do spend alot of money on unnecessary political and social problems. Far too many for many to type here. Besides, we are coming up with other ways to put a satellite in orbit than just brute forcing it into the atmosphere. MONEY and CREATIVITY is required to see these things happen. Expand your level and experience and don't just see 'ROCKETS' as our only solution. There are many.

--
- nightcrawler "Reality is an illusion, albeit a ver persistent one..." -A.Einstein
Re:War Machines! by geekoid · 2005-06-22 09:40 · Score: 1

" There are many."

such as?

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:War Machines! by nightcrawler.36 · 2005-06-22 13:23 · Score: 1

Such as?? c'mon! you sound like an intelligent person. I don't have to spell it out or list them all. Just look in the news--geez. Smart person like you'll figure it out. ;)

--
- nightcrawler "Reality is an illusion, albeit a ver persistent one..." -A.Einstein

Re:Good news, everyone! by stlhawkeye · 2005-06-22 04:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

You guys act like no other news sources have a political bias in their reporting.

When a poll showed Senator Kerry ahead of President Bush in the 2004 Presidential elections, CNN reported, "Kerry pulls ahead of Bush in latest poll."

When President Bush reclaimed the lead, they reported, "Bush apparantly leads Kerry."

Now, this was an isolated incident. A qualifier like "apparantly" was not used in any other poll reporting for either candidate being ahead. But it happened, it continues to happen, and it will happen again.

We just don't care here because we're mostly liberals and what seems to a right-winger as a "liberal bias" looks to us like the objective truth. It matches our worldview, why would we question it or suspect there of being any bias?

This same phenomenon is responsible for conservative embrasure of FoxNews. Much of what they read on Fox matches their worldview, and other news outlets appear, to them, to be absurdly biased.

In other words, it's a matter of perspective, and frankly I've found Fox's reporting to be no more egregiously biased than any other. I'm sure somebody will respond to this post with 15 examples of horrible, unforgivable sins of journalism by Fox. I'll be there's hundreds that could be cited in the last 30 days alone. But comparing how Fox spins its stories to how any other large news outlets spins it's stories, I really haven't seen that Fox's trangressions are measurably less forgivable.

And "spin" usually comes in the form of reporting selected truth and omitted selected other truth. Of accurately reporting one side of an issue and often ignoring the opposit side. And the worst is when anchors and journalists recite what one large, unsourceable, unverifiable, and undefined group of people "say" or "think" and ignoring the other. For example:

"Critics of Senator Kerry claim that he (insert thing that would make me not want to vote for Kerry here)."

By not reporting what supporters of Senator Kerry say on the same topic, the anchor/journalist/reporter has spun the story against Senator Kerry.

Another technique is to appear impartial by inaccurately or incompletely reporting the other side, or cherry-picking weak arguments or obvious red herrings, while ignoring stronger arguments.

"Critics of Senator Kerry have suggested that his anti-war rhetoric during Vietnam makes him unfit for office. Supporters counter that Senator Kerry looks good in a suit."

This crap happens all the time, and it's all biased journalism. It just doesn't seem biased when you agree with the slant.

--
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib

Re:Good news, everyone! by fifedrum · 2005-06-22 04:55 · Score: 1

that's right, because CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS don't do exactly the same thing, with a different twist.

Up-do-date Information (?) by ClippyHater · 2005-06-22 04:56 · Score: 4, Informative

http://planetary.org/solarsailblog/index_05.html http://planetary.org/solarsail/latest_update.html

I agree by essreenim · 2005-06-22 04:56 · Score: 0

I'm also looking forward to when Dexter invents a missile that can reach the sun and shut down its thermo nuclear reactions hence causing it to die.

I subsequently look forward to Dexter (Dexter is lets see...Russian..why not?) releasing the manual on how to build his missile to Dimitri who unsuccesfully bribes the world for money and hence launches the missile into the sun... I for one am thankful to see space science fail!! : )

commence negative modding..

I don't buy it... by Ingolfke · 2005-06-22 04:56 · Score: 1

Does anyone really believe that this mission failed, or for that matter that this solar sail aircraft was only intended to "orbit the earth". Yeah right. We all know the Russians have developed a solar sail space craft capable of faster-than-light travel but don't want to let the rest of the world know about it yet.

My tinfoil hat is itchy... that means I'm right.

Re:I don't buy it... by Krimszon · 2005-06-22 05:43 · Score: 1

The reason they can't find it: it's already in a different quadrant...
Re:I don't buy it... by maccam94 · 2005-06-22 14:42 · Score: 1

Don't you see? The reason for the contradiction between the Russians and the Planetary Society is because the Russians secretly altered the path to leave the Earth's orbit, then claimed it crashed. However, the Planetary Society isn't in on it, and they are still recieving the signal from the spaceship which is now traveling away from the Earth. This explains the weaker than expected signal.

Apples and Oranges by Wyatt+Earp · 2005-06-22 04:57 · Score: 1

Manned space flight and exploration space flight are not economically viable.

Space flight that tosses up comm, weather and remote sensing birds is economically viable because that leads to revenue streams, everything else is space flight because the Nation-State throwing up the birds can afford it technically and financially.

Apollo died off because the Great Society and Vietnam were leading to budget fighting in Congress and Senator Mondale from MN was deadset against Apollo and he also lead the charge against Shuttle, reduced budget reduced Shuttle and thus we have Shuttle today.

Even if Apollo hadn't been ended in in '70 which lead to the last Moon shot in '72 the Oil Crisis starting in '74 would have ended it.

As for Apollo producing just flags and footprints, thats a pretty ignorant stance on the scientific and technical achivements the engineers and scientists involved came up with.

Re:Apples and Oranges by Moofie · 2005-06-22 06:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

"Manned space flight and exploration space flight are not economically viable."

How is this statement different from saying in 1490 that "Manned crossing of the Atlantic and exploration of the globe are not economically viable."

I think your contention is very, very short sighted.

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Re:Apples and Oranges by Martin+Blank · 2005-06-22 06:59 · Score: 1

Those explorations very often brought back at least information about (if not examples of) new gold and silver deposits, spices, and new people to whack in the head with the dominant religion and culture of the explorers. In addition, while the ships were not cheap, the crews were less expensive to train and outfit than are space exploration crews.

Space travel is limited to a week or so at the most, with orbital stays no more than about six months in most cases. Training those crews is very resource-intensive, and the loss of a ship is a strike to national prestige. In the golden days of exploration, the loss of a ship was worrisome, but far less public, and an accepted part of extending one's territory overseas.

--
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Re:Apples and Oranges by Moofie · 2005-06-22 07:31 · Score: 1

It's hard, so we should just not do it? Again, I think your point of view is a very short sighted one.

There is no more frontier on this planet. Economic expansion has, throughout history, come from exploring and exploiting frontiers. Why would we just stop now?

Space exploration is cheap relative to any other Federal expenditure. If we can get NASA to enable, rather than hamper, private space exploration, it'll get even cheaper.

Space travel is dangerous, but there are thousands if not millions of people who would gladly take the risk. The rewards are literally uncountable.

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Re:Apples and Oranges by Wyatt+Earp · 2005-06-22 08:07 · Score: 1

Again, Apples and Oranges.

We can send unmanned probes to find the metals and resources that in 1492 took men.

So yea, today Manned Space flight are not economically viable.
Re:Apples and Oranges by Wyatt+Earp · 2005-06-22 08:15 · Score: 1

Well, yea there is more frontier on Earth. The oceans have not been mapped for resources to the level of the surface. We really have no idea how much petrochemical reserves there are we can access.
Re:Apples and Oranges by Martin+Blank · 2005-06-22 08:37 · Score: 1

Pardon me. I never said that we shouldn't do it. I merely was refuting your comparison of space travel and exploration of the planet 500 years ago.

I am a full supporter of the manned space program. I have been repeatedly frustrated over the years with multiple cancellations of programs in order to fund the ISS operational when it has such limited value. I do believe that we should look to our past for simpler concepts such as the introduction of a Saturn V-class heavy lift booster to assist in putting large space station segments in orbit, as well as looking to the future for development of new technologies that bring the promise of space travel to ever-lower tiers of the populace.

At the same time, I applaud those who seek to find alternate methods into space, whether it be joyrides skipping the top of the atmosphere or reaching orbit or beyond. I think it's important that these entrepreneurs be allowed as much as possible to proceed with their visions. I encourage thinking about new propulsion methods such as ion drives and solar sails, and I hope that one day I can look around from my seat in an orbital transport and see multiple spacecraft cruising off for different areas.

My point of view extends well into the future of humanity, and it involves risk and loss, necessary costs for the expansion of mankind through space exploration. Where robots make sense to go, send them. Where it is feasible to send humans, put them in place. Give them the tools to do useful, productive work, but don't keep them there unnecessarily, wasting resources better spent on other aspects of the space program.

--
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Re:Apples and Oranges by Moofie · 2005-06-22 08:47 · Score: 1

Some day, robots will be able to mine minerals and bring them back here. However, TODAY, the only viable possibility is human exploration.

So, no, you're still wrong.

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!

Space Is Expensive...If You Want To Succeed. by ausoleil · 2005-06-22 04:59 · Score: 3, Informative

As far as space launches go, this was an incredibly inexpensive one. However, that does not say that it was cheap for the Sagan folks. Hopefully, they will bounce back and get their bird up into space sooner rather than later.

To those who criticize NASA, which is hamstrung by its own bureaucracy and an overall lack of fncding, one would be remiss to fail to point out that they have indeed placed two probes on Mars recently, vehicles that have vastly exceeded their life-expectancies and remain useful and operational.

That also extends to the Space Shuttle. Those who constantly criticize it are either ignoring or are ignorant of its history: the Shuttle was a compromised design due to politics rather than technology, and NASA has been "stuck" with a vehicle it would rather not have initially had. On that point, the current design of the shuttle was certainly not what NASA wanted. As the mnost complex mechanical system on the planet, it is bound for failure, and it will not surprise me when all of them are lost in flight accidents.

That's why SpaceShipOne excited me so much on a personal level. It was a successful project, done relatively inexpensively and proved that private funding could succeed in putting a bird up in to technical space. By itself, SS1 is hardly a blip in space history, but it will serve as impetus to what comes next. Fresh eyes coming up with new solutions is a great idea.

The bottom line is this: Today, space flight is expensive, at least if you want a high probability of success. While it is tragic that the Solar Sail probe was lost, it does serve as yet another reminder that "on the cheap" programs prove that you get what you pay for. If you want to go to space, bring copious amounts of cash. It may seem wasteful in the midst of success, but in the midst of failures such as this, the costs suddenly become reasonable.

Because... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 05:00 · Score: 0

it is shorter and focuses on the important points? Not everyone wants to know when Emily woke up this morning or her brand of coffee.

uuhhh by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 05:01 · Score: 0

"Moscow, we have a problem"

Monty Python by kaellinn18 · 2005-06-22 05:01 · Score: 5, Funny

Reminds me of the scene from the Holy Grail. Edited to make it relevant to the situation.

Other countries said we were daft to build a solar sail and launch it into the atmosphere, but we built it all the same, just to show 'em. It burned up in the atmosphere. So, we built a second one. That burned up in the atmosphere. So, we built a third one. That launched, failed to boost, then burned up in the atmosphere, but the fourth one... stayed up! And that's what you're gonna get, lad: the strongest solar sail in this system.

--

--------
This isn't the sig you're looking for. Move along.

Re:Good news, everyone! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 05:02 · Score: 0

The insinuation that the news outlets you mention are liberal is absurd.

The problem is that these days, reporting cold hard facts is seen as "liberal", because those facts usually point to wrongdoings by the Bush administration. If Bush weren't such a putz, network news wouldn't seem so "liberal".

required comment... by bad_outlook · 2005-06-22 05:02 · Score: 1

YOU FAIL IT!!!

--
bad_outlook
--
Is this vague enough for you?

they are old ICBM's by nietsch · 2005-06-22 05:06 · Score: 1

that they lanch from their intended facility. Given what it's designed mission was, I am quite relieved that these things don't work too well.
It is a pity for the new customers though.

--
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you

Re:That's what you get with potheads... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 05:09 · Score: 0

Unlike another space agency that is really good at sitting on their thumbs.

Yeah, like the Indians and Chinese. What's that? You weren't referring to them? :-/

It's not dead yet by smooth+wombat · 2005-06-22 05:09 · Score: 1, Redundant

Not according to this article which was posted at 12:08 PM EST.

From the article:

But controllers at the Pasadena, California, office of the Planetary Society, the mission's U.S. backers, said the craft appeared to be "alive" and sending signals to tracking stations.

"We have no evidence that anything is wrong with the spacecraft at all," said Bruce Betts, the Planetary Society's director of projects, late on Tuesday.

My original comment was modded down because someone didn't like my comment about my observed comparison between CNN and Fox so I'm reposting the link.

--
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower

Re: Insurance for failure? by freshman_a · 2005-06-22 05:09 · Score: 1

First, learn to spell "Russian" (it's 'a' not 'o')

Second, the Russians were the first ones in space (Sputnik), and it's not like the US has never had a failed launch (read: Columbia)

--
Slackware

Analysis by MyLongNickName · 2005-06-22 05:10 · Score: 1

I, for one, blame the metric system for the Russian's problems. They need to start using furlongs and hogsheads like the rest of us civuhlized people.

--
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year

Fair and Balanced by grahamsz · 2005-06-22 05:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

I dont know any other news source that open claims that it is unbiased.

Fox make that claim when it's obviously untrue - it's hard to respect them after that.

Re:Fair and Balanced by OreoCookie · 2005-06-22 05:25 · Score: 1

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/may_ra tings_yearoveryear_numbers_22122.asp
Re:Fair and Balanced by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 16:27 · Score: 0

Here's some basic math for you.

Fair + Balanced != Unbiased.

Fair means they show both sides of a debate. They do.

Balanced means quite the same thing, only it lends itself more to the topics they discuss... since they go for the same 'big news' as anybody else, they're no more, nor less balanced than anybody else.

Nowhere in "Fair and Balanced" does it state that they are without bias. Their pundits can be as much of partisan hacks as they desire and still be fair and balanced.

That said, I think Fox News' news coverage is top rate. If you watch their "News analysis", you're a moron. Then again, the same is true of CNN and MSNBC's news analysis too. It's just there's more of it on Fox...
Re:Fair and Balanced by grahamsz · 2005-06-22 19:01 · Score: 1

To me fair suggests that they show both sides of a debate... it's questionable if they do. Look at their troubleshooter segments for example.

Balanced suggests that they equally represent both sides of a debate...which would suggest, to me, that it was without bias.

Personally I find they spend too much time on "curiosity stories" like runaway brides and braindead women, which would be better spent on things like international politics. I won't deny that Fox News has a higher "entertainment" value than CNN or BBC but that doesn't make them a good news source.

Re: Insurance for failure? by m50d · 2005-06-22 05:15 · Score: 1

Someone above said this launch was funded with the insurance from the previous one, so it seems the planetary society insures things. It's not always done, I remember when the first Arianne 5 exploded the irreplaceable satellites aboard were not insured.

--
I am trolling

Does this mean... by zappepcs · 2005-06-22 05:27 · Score: 1

that the west really had nothing to worry about after all during the cold war?

--
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People

Re:Does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 09:06 · Score: 0

I really have to agree with this comment. From what I have seen these missile failures happen on a fairly regular basis. I would have hated to be anywhere near a ground launch site during the cold war had it turned hot.
Re:Does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 11:50 · Score: 0

Really, and the reporter who was walking around Nagasaki the week after the bomb was dropped living till 90.

We've been ganked!

Donating $$$ for the next Solar Sails attempt by otisg · 2005-06-22 05:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

If all it takes is $4M, I'd donate $50 to a team who has the knowledge and drive to give this another try soon, and I don't think I'm alone.

--
Simpy

Re:Donating $$$ for the next Solar Sails attempt by p3d0 · 2005-06-22 06:02 · Score: 2, Informative

Ok, then let's slashdot this link.

--
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
Re:Donating $$$ for the next Solar Sails attempt by p3d0 · 2005-06-22 08:29 · Score: 1

Rather than expect people to find this rather obscure remark, I re-posted it here. Mods, do whatever you think is fair.

--
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....

Re:was it.. by dgos78 · 2005-06-22 05:31 · Score: 0

wow. you people with mod points have no sense of humor or a pole up your ass.

--
SYS 64738

Non sequitur, Will Robinson! Non sequitur! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 05:32 · Score: 0

"Hey, that Russian launch failed."
"God DAMN, NASA sucks ass!"

Brilliant.

Receiving faint signals.... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 05:36 · Score: 0

That's never stopped me from asking a woman out. :)

$87,000,000,000 + by drewzhrodague · 2005-06-22 05:38 · Score: 1

How many space vehicles could be put into orbit with $87 Billion? How 'bout $1 billion? How 'bout half a billion?

Here, pass me some microwave popcorn.

--
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.

It was failure of rocket, not solar sail....... by unclocked · 2005-06-22 05:41 · Score: 1

Any idea if planetary soc is comming up with one such solar sail? May be russians will compensate this failure with a free launch.

Re:It was failure of rocket, not solar sail....... by Grey_14 · 2005-06-22 06:28 · Score: 2, Funny

Isnt the second rule of thermodynamics, "There is no free launch?"
Re:It was failure of rocket, not solar sail....... by whitehatlurker · 2005-06-22 06:40 · Score: 1

The subject shows why sails are needed - rockets fail far too often [grin].
Lofting with balloons would be a better way to go.

--
.. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.

Update from the Plantery Society by Rei · 2005-06-22 05:41 · Score: 5, Informative

The Planetary Society has the following to say:

10:30 am PDT, June 22 (17:30 UTC)

The Planetary Society as issued the following statement on the fate of Cosmos 1, the first Solar Sail Spacecraft:

In the past twenty-four hours, the Russian space agency (RKA) has made a tentative conclusion that the Volna rocket carrying Cosmos 1 failed during the firing of the first stage. This would mean that Cosmos 1 is lost.

While it is likely that this conclusion is correct, there are some inconsistent indications from information received from other sources. The Cosmos 1 team observed what appear to be signals, that looks like they are from the spacecraft when it was over the first three ground stations and some Doppler data over one of these stations. This might indicate that Cosmos 1 made it into orbit, but probably a lower one than intended. The project team now considers this to be a very small probability. But because there is a slim chance that it might be so, efforts to contact and track the spacecraft continue. We are working with US Strategic Command to provide additional information in a day or so.

If the spacecraft made it to orbit, its autonomous program might be working, and after 4 days the sails could automatically deploy. While the chances of this are very, very small, we still encourage optical observers to see if the sail can be seen after that time.

We await further developments and information coming out of Russia, STRATCOM, and the tracking stations.

--
The War of 1812... the good 'ol days when the federal government actually tried to save New Orleans.

Re:Update from the Plantery Society by LifesABeach · 2005-06-22 07:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

Talk about mixed emotions. I'm reading about a Russian ICBM choaking with its first stage; AND it is carrying a really neat science package with it!
Re:Update from the Plantery Society by Anonym1ty · 2005-06-22 08:04 · Score: 1

While the chances of this are very, very small, we still encourage optical observers to see if the sail can be seen after that time
Let me get this right... If anyone on Earth sees their space craft please let them know by calling 1(888)NOT-GONE so they can aim their antennas at it.

ALTERNATE:

Since this was launced from a sub... Maybe some guy hit the wrong launch button and accidentally launced an ICBM. The explosion was the self destruct after they realized it wasn't the cosmos1. Now they just say the spacecraft blew up while they try to figure out how to explaine this to the higher ups?

--
See the Pictures of the Flood of '08
Re:Update from the Plantery Society by g1zmo · 2005-06-22 08:16 · Score: 1

If the spacecraft made it to orbit, its autonomous program might be working, and after 4 days the sails could automatically deploy. While the chances of this are very, very small, we still encourage optical observers to see if the sail can be seen after that time.

So, uh, we think we lost our rocket but we're not exactly sure. We did see it go up into the air but then Boris tripped over the power cord and the screen went blank for a minute. So if everyone could poke their head out the window every now and then for the next 3 or 4 days and let us know if they see our rocket flying around, that would be great. Thanks a bunch!

--
I have found there are just two ways to go.
It all comes down to livin' fast or dyin' slow. -REK, Jr.
Re:Update from the Plantery Society by Mysticalfruit · 2005-06-22 08:16 · Score: 1

A more likely senario is that since the Russian navy has been severly underfunded for the last dozen years or so, regular maintenance that should have been performed on this booster wasn't.

--
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
Re:Update from the Plantery Society by maccam94 · 2005-06-22 11:08 · Score: 1

Since it will be in a lower orbit, won't the sail act like a normal sail and stop its forward motion? [fall]
Re:Update from the Plantery Society by mahmud · 2005-06-22 12:07 · Score: 1

Huh? There is no atmosphere in orbit, even if it's the low one.
Re:Update from the Plantery Society by Rei · 2005-06-22 12:22 · Score: 2, Informative

maccam94 was correct. There is no cutoff point to the atmosphere. The lower it orbits, the more drag it will encounter. That's why LEO satellites must continually use propellant to boost their orbit; this is called stationkeeping (different types of stationkeeping apply to GEO satellites which are so far out that atmospheric drag is mostly a non-issue)

How much drag will it enounter? It depends, not only on how low it is, but how elliptical the orbit is. The orbit should still be polar, however, and the spacecraft will be mostly orienting its sails to the sun, so hopefully it won't have too extreme drag if it's up there. I suppose it depends on how much of an angle to the sun they're at. Total hypersonic drag is mostly proportional to cross-sectional area.

--
The War of 1812... the good 'ol days when the federal government actually tried to save New Orleans.
Re:Update from the Plantery Society by maccam94 · 2005-06-22 14:19 · Score: 2, Informative

Well, many comments say that it is in a very low orbit. I'm not sure of the details on how high it goes, but the stage one rocket failed after just over a minute, so it probably didn't get very high, am I right? So there is still going to be some atmosphere around. Then, during the automatic opening of the sails, they will probably be torn to shreds, because aren't they really really thin? This could knock it out of its orbit (at least alter it) as they tear from the supports. I just hope it doesn't land on my house :-P

Potheads by drewzhrodague · 2005-06-22 05:42 · Score: 1

In Soviet Russia, the potheads smoke YOU!

--
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.

No wonder it failed... by lordkobold · 2005-06-22 05:49 · Score: 0, Troll

Someone should've told those jokers that there's no air in space.

Re:No wonder it failed... by daveycr · 2005-06-22 05:54 · Score: 2, Funny

There's an Air in Space Museum...

Large Scale Nondeterminism by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 05:50 · Score: 0

Actually, given that nobody has any firm information about whether or not the launch vehicle failed, we're now living in a superposition of the states of 'sail is in orbit' and 'sail crashed'. That's why the signal is so faint ;)

You heard it first on /.

Fox "News" - Re:Three strikes and you're *out*... by VP · 2005-06-22 05:51 · Score: 1

Probably because Fox News is a news source that can and does report objective stories frequently, despite its editorial slant.

What the so-called "Fox News Channel" does, goes well beyond an "editorial slant." I know of no other news program, where the management sends memos to the reporters on how to present the news. Check out the documentary Outfoxed to get a glimpse on the practices in that organization.

In addition, there are blatant misrepresentations and outright lies spouted as fact on the various FNC programs. One example: Barbara Boxter made a statement accusing Bush (I think) of having "disdain for the truth." O'Reily didn't hear it right, and maintained that she had said "disdain for the troops." He shut down a caller on his show, who tried to correct him.

Now, anyone can make a mistake, or hear something incorrectly. However, normal people check facts, and then apologize, if they have made a mistake. I challenge you to find a place where O'Reily has apologized for his mistake.

So no, Fox's slant is not "unacceptable because it's right-leaning," it is unacceptable because it is aimed at destroying what the United States stand for. For those who think I am exagerating, think about this: without truth, there is no "American way of life."

Noooo by geekoid · 2005-06-22 05:52 · Score: 1

apparently the force* was to strong...

*(G * m1 * m2) / (d2)

at least it was constant.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Solar wind ships predicted in the 1950s! by objekt · 2005-06-22 05:52 · Score: 1

Nice image, too! Trip to Saturn, anyone?

http://www.ephemeranow.com/av/av090.htm

--
-- Boycott Shell

Re:Solar wind ships predicted in the 1950s! by Vapebait · 2005-06-22 06:47 · Score: 0

For the last time, solar sails are not powered by the solar wind.
Re:Solar wind ships predicted in the 1950s! by objekt · 2005-06-22 07:00 · Score: 1

Oh.

So what are they powered by, then?

--
-- Boycott Shell
Re:Solar wind ships predicted in the 1950s! by Vapebait · 2005-06-23 08:17 · Score: 0

Photons.

Failure seems to be confirmed now. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 05:54 · Score: 1, Informative

http://planetarysociety.org/solarsail/latest_updat e.html
10:30 am PDT, June 22 (17:30 UTC)

The Planetary Society as issued the following statement on the fate of Cosmos 1, the first Solar Sail Spacecraft:

In the past twenty-four hours, the Russian space agency (RKA) has made a tentative conclusion that the Volna rocket carrying Cosmos 1 failed during the firing of the first stage. This would mean that Cosmos 1 is lost.

While it is likely that this conclusion is correct, there are some inconsistent indications from information received from other sources. The Cosmos 1 team observed what appear to be signals, that looks like they are from the spacecraft when it was over the first three ground stations and some Doppler data over one of these stations. This might indicate that Cosmos 1 made it into orbit, but probably a lower one than intended. The project team now considers this to be a very small probability. But because there is a slim chance that it might be so, efforts to contact and track the spacecraft continue. We are working with US Strategic Command to provide additional information in a day or so.

If the spacecraft made it to orbit, its autonomous program might be working, and after 4 days the sails could automatically deploy. While the chances of this are very, very small, we still encourage optical observers to see if the sail can be seen after that time.

We await further developments and information coming out of Russia, STRATCOM, and the tracking stations.

Cold War? by uberdave · 2005-06-22 05:56 · Score: 1

So, let me get this straight. The Soviet Union can launch a submarine based ICBM, and WE CAN'T TRACK IT???? Whatever happened to NORAD? What about the DEW line and Pine Tree line? Is Cheyenne mountain just a TV set nowadays? Man! I want my tax money back.

--
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad

Re:Cold War? by Cat_Byte · 2005-06-22 06:27 · Score: 2, Informative

Well considering it was a known launch of a scientific vehicle I'm sure we didn't have to waste tax payer $$ to track the thing with satellites. 2nd of all, if the thing opens up to about 30 meters (I seem to recall that being the size of the sails), it is probably very small while still packed. Once stage 1 failed I'm sure nobody thought it would be making it to orbit so any tracking would be on the rocket itself I would think. But thats just me talking.

You were probably joking but you should look into what happened to the funding for things like NORAD. It is actually quite interesting to see posted line by line spending = half of the budget during some years yet nobody questions it. MIB $$? ;)

From here

A bottom-up line-item aggregation in the Meteorology program area successfully reproduces with negligible divergence the DoD estimates from 1980 through 1986, and from 1991 through 1994. However, there is a gross discrepancy from 1987 through 1990, during which the DoD estimate is nearly twice the total that can be derived through line-item aggregation. There is no apparent explanation for this, as a close examination of budget documents reveals no meteorology or oceanography related programs not included in the line-item estimates.

Many more interesting facts on that page and some others on a quick google search of '+NAFTA +funding'

--
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.

Re:proof positve by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 06:05 · Score: 0

So, if you don't believe that God doesn't want us in space, you're a PAGAN? You're only a good Christian if you believe that we are bound to stay within earth's atmosphere?

This is one of those very few moments where words fail me. I'm in awe of your shallowness.

Donations to Planetary Society for another attempt by p3d0 · 2005-06-22 06:05 · Score: 3, Informative

If you want to see them try again, donate here.

--
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....

It didn't by chance run into a U2 on it's way up? by ivanmarsh · 2005-06-22 06:07 · Score: 1

Sorry... very ashamed of myself.

On a positive note... by AccordionGuy · 2005-06-22 06:07 · Score: 2, Funny

...this means that Count Dooku shall be denied an escape vehicle!

AP knows why it failed by frovingslosh · 2005-06-22 06:08 · Score: 1

One of the widely available stories about this on the Internet is by Associated Press. An AP graphic that acompanies it and quotes it source as "The Planetary Society" has a very interesting quote that, if accurate, might shed some light on the failure: "At an altitude of 500 miles from the gravitional center of the Earth Cosmos 1 discards its protective cover" . Given that that would cause Cosmos 1 to discard the protective cover as soon as it got control at launch, the failure is assured.

--
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.

Re:AP knows why it failed by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 06:30 · Score: 0

forgive me if im wrong, but 500 miles from the gravitational center of the earth is still inside the earth.

wikipedia: The Earth is approximately a slightly oblate spheroid, with an average diameter of approximately 12,742 km

12,742 / 2 = approx 6400 km radius = approx 4000 miles

kinda conflicting, but their 'altitude' is 3500 miles beneath their starting point

back to sleep now...
Re:AP knows why it failed by frovingslosh · 2005-06-22 08:25 · Score: 1

That's my point. I didn't really need to check with wikipedia to figure it out. But if the AP story is accurate (and I read it on the Internet so it must be true) then the craft would have ditched the shield as soon as it could, causing the problem.

--
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.

You're comparing apples with oranges (and pears) by OglinTatas · 2005-06-22 06:11 · Score: 1

This wasn't a man-rated rocket. In the U.S. non-man-rated rockets (like Russian non-man-rated rockets) have a significant failure rate (2%, I think. According to this post, it was 25% for Arianne 5 in 2002. The Delta rocket program is not scrapped when a rocket fails (neither is Arianne).

You are comparing this with shuttle losses, which do shut down the program while investigations are carried out and suggested remedies are implemented. The idea with man-rated rockets is to _minimize_ risk to humans. The technology is obviously there to put people into space with a 2% failure rate, and I'm sure there would be plenty of astronauts willing to accept those risks, but it would be a public image nightmare for NASA and the United States to accept those odds and do nothing to improve them.

Now the pear: this is a non-government organisation which bought space on a Russian rocket to put their payload into space. The question is not whether they have the cajones to dust themselves off and try again (as you say the Russians do) but rather can they get the money to do it again. It is an expensive venture. (And how do you say "cajones" in Russian?)

--
More music, fewer hits

Re:Apples and Oranges, and grapefruit apparently by hanshotfirst · 2005-06-22 06:14 · Score: 1

Even if Apollo hadn't been ended in in '70 which lead to the last Moon shot in '72 the Oil Crisis starting in '74 would have ended it.

I don't see how the oil crisis would have any effect on launching a Saturn V. Unless oxygen and hydrogen are considered fossil fuels.

--
Why, oh why, didn't I take the Blue Pill?

Turrerists. by Leeesher · 2005-06-22 06:22 · Score: 1

Serves them right... it was probably God punishing them for hating our Emerecan Freedim.

lowest bidder syndrome by BlueStraggler · 2005-06-22 06:29 · Score: 1

According to this summary of launching costs (PDF), the cost per pound to orbit on these Russian ICBMs is shockingly low -- $211 per pound. The nearest competitor in small launch vehicles costs $3313 per pound. I guess you get what you pay for.

Re:lowest bidder syndrome by geomon · 2005-06-22 06:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

I guess you get what you pay for.

True, but at the rates you have cited you can lose 10 payloads and still be cheaper than the nearest competitor.

That is the rationale. I can't say that it is *better* in this particular case, but it is one way to manage costs. If your payload can be replicated fairly inexpensively, then it is the best way to manage your costs.

--
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"

No. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 06:31 · Score: 2, Funny

In soviet russia, the tired oversued jokes stop you.

Take that.

Re:No. by infinityxi · 2005-06-22 08:07 · Score: 0

oversued? don't tell me Yakov Smirnoff patented it.

--
Turn based strategy game that runs over XMPP. Phalanx

Re:proof positve by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 06:32 · Score: 0

Everybody ignore this guy, and don't base your opinion of Christianity on him. Christ's mission was one of compassion and mercy, not one of condescension and arrogance.

Signal heard, I guess by davidmcw · 2005-06-22 06:34 · Score: 1

http://tinyurl.com/8qmvt - I guess they have heard a signal although its not confirmed yet???

--
Just because your paranoid doesn't really mean they aren't out to get you

Why launch off of a sub? by ebvwfbw · 2005-06-22 06:46 · Score: 1

Seems idiotic to me. Why choose sea level to launch a vehicle into space? Why not choose a site in the mountains or the existing Kazahkstan base? I guess they had their reasons.

Re:Why launch off of a sub? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 07:01 · Score: 1, Funny

Why not choose a site in the mountains...

And how are you going to get the sub to the top of a mountain, smart guy?
Re:Why launch off of a sub? by gsasha · 2005-06-22 07:31 · Score: 1

Er, wouldn't it be enough to haul just the rocket? The launching device shouldn't be that heavy... and if the launch needs to be done from underwater, probably a lake would suffice.
Re:Why launch off of a sub? by anubi · 2005-06-22 08:17 · Score: 1

They may have been looking for a particular point on Earth to launch from so they could inject into a particular orbit easily, as well as use the Earth's rotation to their best advantage.
Remember, the closer to the equator you get, the faster you are moving.

And they may wanna launch so that if there is a failure, the debris will scatter over a relatively harmless ares.

I understand these are the main reasons we in the USA like to launch from Cape Canaveral ( Kennedy ) in the State of Florids. It is on the southernmost land mass of USA, as well as the launch direction will be to the East so as to take advantage of the rotation of the Earth, which also means that if we do have a launch failure, or need to dispose of spent boosters, they drop relatively harmlessly over the Atlantic Ocean.

We even have our "Sea Launch" stuff where we haul the rockets off to an equatorial locale to get the best launch window for inserting birds in orbit. A little fuel spent positioning ourself at the best spot saves a lot of fuel spent accelerating the rocket - as in a rocket, you have to spend fuel accelerating fuel you have to burn... and after all that fuel is burned, not much energy actually got used accelerating the cargo.

--
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
Re:Why launch off of a sub? by SlightlyOldGuy · 2005-06-22 09:18 · Score: 1

Reason 1: To get close to the equator.
Reason 2: It's an already-built launch system. Remember the Cold War? These things were built to lob nukes at U.S. targets.
Re:Why launch off of a sub? by ebvwfbw · 2005-06-22 15:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

Reason 1: To get close to the equator.
Know your geography before answering. The Barents sea is almost as far North as you can get. See here.

Look at the top of the map, it is there. North of Russia. Reason 2: It's an already-built launch system. Remember the Cold War? These things were built to lob nukes at U.S. targets.

This is like using a model T ford to drive to work in. Already built and that is what it is for. I wouldn't recommend it, however. I am very familiar with that sub BTW. Again, I have to ask why? My point about Kazhakstan - they use it all the time now and that is exactly what they do there. They are very good at it. They are the guys that handle the International Space Station stuff right now. They could have used this as a practice shot for new guys and never known the difference.
Re:Why launch off of a sub? by ebvwfbw · 2005-06-22 15:34 · Score: 1

It is good that you are thinking some. I have some comments:
They may have been looking for a particular point on Earth to launch from so they could inject into a particular orbit easily, as well as use the Earth's rotation to their best advantage.

Remember, the closer to the equator you get, the faster you are moving.

Yea, I did in fact "remember". Know your geography before answering or at least look it up first. The Barents sea is about as far north as you can get. It is north of Canada if you drew a line around. See here It is that part at the top, north of Russia and where it says Finland to the left.

And they may wanna launch so that if there is a failure, the debris will scatter over a relatively harmless ares....

Florida was chosen as the ideal spot because of where it is and the US was just getting into the rocket biz. They had some spectacular explosions back in the early 1960's and a famous one in 1985. Given that it seems they had their choice of where to launch, that would be close to the last place in the world I would choose.

By the way, a bit of trivia. Florida is not the southernmost land mass of the USA. Hawaii is as far as states go and Guam is even more southern but it is a territory. Hawaii also has some tall moutains BTW, indeed my point.
Re:Why launch off of a sub? by anubi · 2005-06-23 16:37 · Score: 1

Mea Culpa!!!
Thanks for pointing out the Barents Sea being so far North thing.

Sorry I replied so late.. yes, it actually took that long for your reply to "sink in". I must be getting really dense, and quite embarassed about the ignorance of geography I expressed in my post, as your reply was crystal clear once I got my act straight. Thanks for pointing it out.

I now owe you two valuable lessons you taught me...

(1) Barents sea is about as North as you can get... irregardless of my ignorance of where I thought it was...

(2) I should better review my knowledge for correctness before posting, so I don't have to write apologies like this.

--
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
Re:Why launch off of a sub? by ebvwfbw · 2005-06-24 07:10 · Score: 1

I should better review my knowledge for correctness before posting, so I don't have to write apologies like this.
Don't worry about it. It happens to all of us (even some very famous newspapers like the NY Times, they have issued a lot of them the past few years). It is just that some of us are better at admitting they are wrong. Some people (most politicians) never want to admit they were wrong. Nobody got hurt, nothing bad happened.

You may be right about the place but for a different reason. Since it is so far North, maybe they thought they could take advantage of the magnetic field somehow. The rocket scientists I have talked to since are all at a loss. They thought it was stupid too.

3 weak signals heard by amichalo · 2005-06-22 06:49 · Score: 1

this site says that three ground stations in Alaska, California, and in the Pacific heard faint signals, suggesting the slight possibility that the craft is in a lower than expected orbit but may deploy it's solar sails in 4 days.

--
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.

Re:3 weak signals heard by fishbowl · 2005-06-22 07:04 · Score: 1

"suggesting the slight possibility that the craft is in a lower than expected orbit but may deploy it's solar sails in 4 days."

Lower than expected = the bottom of the ocean?

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.

Re:That's what you get with potheads... by mdmarkus · 2005-06-22 07:02 · Score: 1

And w' Carl, that's an undead pothead, no less!

Only on Slashdot by Detritus · 2005-06-22 07:03 · Score: 3, Funny

Only on Slashdot can the Russians fuck up a launch, and then some idiot uses it as "evidence" of NASA's incompetence, and gets modded up for it.

--
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat

Hey, Terrorists by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 07:13 · Score: 0

Norad's busy with this stupid space sail. Come on, kill those american bastards

Re:Good news, everyone! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 07:14 · Score: 0

And you just proved the grandparent's point

Re:Fox "News" - Re:Three strikes and you're *out*. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 07:14 · Score: 0

I personally find facts much better than the truth. Remember, the truth is not necessarily what happened but is instead an individual's perception of the facts.

11:45 PDT update by Luminary+Crush · 2005-06-22 07:15 · Score: 1

From the Planetary Society blog:

So here's the key point: despite some contradictory information still being out there, it's looking really likely that what we're dealing with is some kind of launch vehicle failure. Wherever Cosmos 1 is -- in a weird orbit or in pieces on the ground somewhere -- clearly something didn't go right during the launch. We are as curious as the rest of you about what happened. But the fact that it is looking like it was a launch vehicle problem has some important implications for where the investigation goes from here.

Remember, our launch vehicle was a converted ICBM, launched by the Russian Navy. As soon as there is an issue with a foreign launch vehicle, The Planetary Society -- which, though it's international, is based here in the U.S.A. -- has to keep our hands off any investigation, because of U.S. law called "ITAR." ITAR stands for International Trafficking in Arms Regulations, and basically it governs the transfer of militarily interesting information between the U.S. and any foreign country. Since nearly all space vehicles have heritage in military vehicles, ITAR also tends to govern interaction between people in the space business here in the U.S. and other countries (and this covers not just Russia but all foreign countries, including Canada and Mexico, everybody). So while we're eager to learn new news, all we can do is to wait for the Russian investigation to proceed, and listen to what they have to tell us once they've drawn their conclusions.

So, what RKA (the Russian space agency) has said so far is that the launch vehicle failed 83 seconds into liftoff, and that the second stage of the rocket didn't separate. But, Lou told us, the data that indicates all of this has been inspected, but not really analyzed. And it's the Russians' job to analyze that stuff. It's safest for us not to speculate too much.

More in a moment.

Re:Apples and Oranges, and grapefruit apparently by shakezula · 2005-06-22 07:15 · Score: 1

The Saturn V's first stage (the biggest thrust producing stage) was fired with Kerosene and Liquid Oxygen.

--
I know what you're thinking. Did I forward 65,535 packets or 65,536 packets?

It's obvious... by cobrabyte · 2005-06-22 07:22 · Score: 0, Troll

Past attempts to unfold similar devices in space have failed.

In 1999, Russia launched a similar experiment with a sun-reflecting device from its Mir space station, but the deployment mechanism jammed and the device burned up in the atmosphere.

In 2001, Russia again attempted a similar experiment, but the device failed to separate from the booster and burned in the atmosphere.

It's obvious that the Russians do not want this kind of technology in space ...

I am going to start praying for Russian Cosmonauts in the future before any launches ... they evidently don't have a prayer.

-c

Amazing how you turn that around by snaussage · 2005-06-22 07:42 · Score: 1

Lets see... The russians presumably have a failed launch, and you use it to criticize NASA... How twisted people have become these days in search of the opportunity to criticize any US government agency.

Re:Good news, everyone! by Retric · 2005-06-22 07:55 · Score: 1

Now I lean to the right on a lot of issues but I still find FOX way over the top. Take 15min of fox news and count the number statements or uses of inflection with obvious bias. Now compare that with 15min of CNN.

CNN 2 right 1 left
FOX 43 all right

FOX was bout as a means of spreading right wing propaganda and it's been doing that ever since. Yes it's a free country but once the news becomes so biased the country stops being free. You need to debate some issues to make an informed decision vs. spouting propaganda to get votes.

Russian Blows - everything they launch goes BOOOOM by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 07:55 · Score: 0

Sorry, but if the US was launching the rocket, it wouldn't have failed. Of course, it would have cost $40 million as well, but hey, who's counting.

Re:Apples and Oranges, and grapefruit apparently by Wyatt+Earp · 2005-06-22 08:09 · Score: 1

In addition to the RP-1 used in the Saturn V, the oil crisis caused all sorts of problems for the US economy and inflation which had budget impacts on the Federal Government.

Solid-fuel rocket not likely to "shut down" by GPS+Pilot · 2005-06-22 08:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

the Volna first stage unexpectedly shut down 83 seconds after lift-off

Isn't the Volna a solid-fueled rocket? If so, it's not nearly as likely to "unexpectedly shut down" as a liquid-fueled rocket. Indeed, the main reservation NASA had about adding solid-fuel boosters to Shuttle was that they can't be shut down, or even throttled-back.

--
That that is is that that that that is not is not.

Re:Solid-fuel rocket not likely to "shut down" by n54 · 2005-06-22 09:50 · Score: 2, Informative

Seems the Volna is a liquid-fueled rocket (I didn't know but wanted to find out).

More detailed information on it from http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/r29.htm

"Model: R-29K. IOC: 1978. Country: Russia. Other Designations: RSM-50. Department of Defence Designation [my edit: and NATO designation]: SS-N-18 Mod 2. ASCC Reporting Name: Stingray. Article Number: 4K75K. Manufacturer's Designation: R-29K. Popular Name: Volna. Launch System: D-9. Complex: 4K75K.

First flight 1977.

Manufacturer: Makayev. Total Mass: 34,388 kg. Core Diameter: 1.80 m. Total Length: 14.40 m. Span: 1.80 m. Standard warhead mass: 820 kg. Maximum range: 7,980 km. Number Standard Warheads: 1. Standard warhead yield: 450 KT. Standard warhead CEP: 1 km. Boost Propulsion: Storable liquid rocket. Cruise Propulsion: Storable liquid rocket. Guidance: Inertial."

--
this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
Re:Solid-fuel rocket not likely to "shut down" by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-23 01:01 · Score: 0

Depends... A design incorporating solid fuel (not to be confused with "solid rocket fuel" as former lacks oxydiser in mix) and fluid oxidator flowing thru "burning chambers" of fuel is possible. Even a crude solid fuel scramjet is possible. Not that I know of single one actualy designed and built.

Re:Apples and Oranges, and grapefruit apparently by hanshotfirst · 2005-06-22 08:53 · Score: 1

OK, the trickle-down budget impacts make sense.

--
Why, oh why, didn't I take the Blue Pill?

Californias by Abreu · 2005-06-22 08:57 · Score: 1

Well, now that you ask... yes, there's Alta California and Baja California

--
No sig for the moment.

Re:proof positve by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 09:09 · Score: 0

[feed trolls]
We won't mod you down, simply because you are posting as an AC. For the record, your version of Christianity is so warped as to make Pagans look Christian.
[/feed trolls]

Note to self -- describe this selfrighteous bigot at next Bible study. We need a good laugh.

Insurance? by Infinity+Salad · 2005-06-22 09:17 · Score: 1

Did the Planetary Society insure the craft? If they did, this isn't a massive setback and they could more easily build a new one. This is entirely possible, as you can get insurance for just about anything. (Insurance company motto: "There are no bad risks, just bad prices").

I wasn't able to find anything on this question.

Re:Insurance? by Infinity+Salad · 2005-06-22 13:09 · Score: 1

To answer my own question...
Apparently, they had insurance for one of their previous launches, so it is a definite possibility that they had it for this one. Of course, given their last booster rocket failure, you would hope they would have insurance for this go around. http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,45 482,00.html

Re:That's what you get with potheads... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 09:28 · Score: 0

Was there fuel in that rocket?

*takes another hit*

Hey...look at those dandylions..they're so...yellow!

*falls asleep*

I feel safer by Bio+Steel · 2005-06-22 09:29 · Score: 1

You know every LCBM and ICBM they launch that blows up and gets lost, every rocket that goes to mars and commits suicide, every computer that crashes. I feel a little safe that a long range nuke has no chance in hell of hitting me.

--
The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.

Re:Apples and Oranges, and grapefruit apparently by quietkey · 2005-06-22 09:29 · Score: 1

Wow! You mean there's actually a situation that trickle-down makes sense?

Will wonders ever cease?

Re:Fox "News" - Re:Three strikes and you're *out*. by Psiolent · 2005-06-22 09:47 · Score: 1

Remember, the truth is not necessarily what happened but is instead an individual's perception of the facts.

That is certainly a definition of "truth" that I'm not familiar with. Here are some examples of how others define "truth":

the state of being the case
the body of real things, events, and facts
the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality

Now, there may be many different usages of "truth" not necessarily found in dictionaries and the like, but I would argue that the generally accepted definition of "truth" relates more to facts than to perception.

I suppose we could start discussing the philosophy of reality and truth and whether we can ever really know anything as a fact, or even whether anything really exists at all. In such a context perhaps your statement might be more acceptable.

Then again, maybe you were being sarcastic.

CNN Reporting Faint Signals by frank249 · 2005-06-22 09:57 · Score: 2, Informative

CNN now reporting that something went wrong:However, weak signals received by tracking stations in the Pacific Ocean, Russia and the Czech Republic seemed to show it had made it into orbit... "The good news is we have reason to believe it's alive and in orbit," said Murray, a former director of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. "The bad news is we don't know where it is."

"We have no evidence that anything is wrong with the spacecraft at all," said Bruce Betts, the Planetary Society's director of projects, late on Tuesday.

--

Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.

Re: Insurance for failure? by rsynnott · 2005-06-22 10:28 · Score: 1

That's because Ariane 4s were so incredibly reliable; who'd have guessed they'd mess up the Ariane 5 software? (AMong other things, it apparently sent out signals to control fins it didn't have; it was more or less a copy of the Ariane 4 one)

--
Me (Blog)

Between crests by Trinition · 2005-06-22 10:37 · Score: 1

That's probably the signal the barely submnerged craft is emitting between the crests of waves as it floats aimlessly about the Barents Sea.

Insurance? by Trinition · 2005-06-22 10:42 · Score: 1

I would hope the Planetary Society had some sort of insurance orequivalent guarantee form the RSA so that they could be restored to an equivalent financial state and try again.

Or! Maybe, as in Contact, the solar sail only cost $2M and the solar sail built in secrecy is already on the backup launching pad!

Condolences to the planetary society by FhnuZoag · 2005-06-22 10:52 · Score: 1

First Beagle 2, then this. Man, this sucks.

Re: Insurance for failure? by Andrew-Unit · 2005-06-22 11:00 · Score: 1

and it's not like the US has never had a failed launch (read: Columbia)

I think you mean Challenger. Columbia was destroyed during reentry.

What about Antartica? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 11:55 · Score: 0

More seriously... In times gone by, people found themselves in a situation that they didn't like (take the highland clearances for example) so they left to try their luck in a new country. Possibly the problem is that they didn't leave human nature, but brought it with them and have begun the whole process over again. Now, however, there are no new "empty" countries left to flee to.

Antartica. If you "flee" there, no one will bother to follow you, trust me. If you do go, please carry a plaque describing yourself, so that future historians can identify you when they find you frozen in the ice ten centuries from now. :-) Have a good trip!

ok I'll bite by bussdriver · 2005-06-22 13:18 · Score: 1

I wish things were that simple. your point is just a more complex version of the old "both of them do it about the same." Sure that will sell it more with slashdot...

1) no matter who does it, or what degree, its still bad and everything possible should be done to aspire to perfection. We can't settle on the uter crap out there now. Its clear that competition in this field doesn't lead to better reporting. (viewers are to blame too)

2) Fox is clearly more bias. I used to get Brill's Content (remember it?) and that proved it.
Fox has gotten more slick but is just as far right as ever. CNN has lost quality, and may have moved more to the right or stayed the same.
MSNBC still sucks.

3) Many of the news choices are not done the way you think they are. Politics are hardly ever the deciding factor. In this last decade, things have changed so the bean counters are making more of the choices, and I'll leave it to you to figure the impact of that...
They can be swayed with comments/complaints, its all about $, and they need viewers for that as well as advertizers.

--
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news

Re:That's what you get with potheads... by rsynnott · 2005-06-22 13:52 · Score: 1

It was a commercial flight. They did it becuase they were paid to do so...

--
Me (Blog)

God is a friend of mine by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 16:40 · Score: 0

She's a personal friend of mine. She said that this guy now has a few demerits against him, but she's not going to throw him to the bitch downstairs just yet. And she said that although she likes the idea, she doesn't have lightning breath or laser eyes. (She's got a nice rack on her, though.)

See if you find this offensive! by coopex · 2005-06-22 17:02 · Score: 1

Bart: Thank you, thank you. [walks up to Russian man] So, you're from Russia huh?
Russian: Da.
Bart: Ya drunk yet?
Russian: [depressed] Da.

--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Re:Fox "News" - Re:Three strikes and you're *out*. by coopex · 2005-06-22 17:05 · Score: 1

My archeology teacher always said "Archaeology is the search for fact. Not truth. If it's truth you're interested in, Doctor Tyree's Philosophy class is right down the hall."

--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Bad mix? :) by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-22 18:55 · Score: 0

So can we say, americans and manned spacecrafts are bad mix aswell? :) At least russians loose just robots.

As the man said on 'the dish' by MattParkins · 2005-06-22 19:09 · Score: 1

Failure is easier to deal with than regret. I hope they try again.

Solar sails and micrometeors? by CarpetShark · 2005-06-22 19:41 · Score: 1

I'd love to know what the plan is with solar sails and micrometeors. They seem terribly fragile.

Do we just let them rip holes in certain sections of the sail? Wouldn't that unbalance the sails?

Presumably they're supposed to be furled whenever the craft is at risk of micrometeor strikes? But can we detect micrometeors that easily and reliably?

Re:Solar sails and micrometeors? by jovetoo · 2005-06-22 22:49 · Score: 1

Would it matter? What would the effect be of a micrometer hole in the sail?

If the sail is constructed so that small holes won't rip it, I think micrometeors could be safely ignored. Since the hole is so small compared to the total surface, the change in light pressure should be negligable.

Re: Insurance for failure? by freshman_a · 2005-06-23 01:07 · Score: 1

I think you mean Challenger. Columbia was destroyed during reentry.

Meh... yeah, Challenger. I stand corrected. I always get those 2 names confused for some reason. You would think I'd know better seeing as how I watched Challenger fall apart on TV when it happened...

--
Slackware

A small correction by n54 · 2005-06-23 03:35 · Score: 1

"... and a Russian computer told Yeltsin that a Norweigan weather balloon was a nuke"

It was actually a rocket. The best (i.e. most correct) short and concise description I've found on google is this one (a segment from the page http://www.freezerbox.com/archive/article.asp?id=2 85 ):

"The most famous example of this danger occurred on Jan. 25, 1995, when Norway launched a weather research rocket to explore the Northern Lights phenomenon. When Russia's radars picked up the missile trajectory, it seemed to have been fired from a U.S. submarine in the Norwegian Sea-long suspected by the Russians as a likely first move in a U.S. surprise attack. Russian nuclear forces scrambled into position and bunker commanders inserted their launch keys, awaiting the order to turn them. Yeltsin, reportedly fuming drunk at the time, opened his nuclear briefcase and consulted with the frenzied General Staff. With their nerves screaming, together they watched the missile trajectory slowly turn away from any conceivable Russian target. When the crisis finally ended, they had less than two minutes to make a decision. (U.S. submarine-launched missiles can reach Moscow in 10 minutes.)

The Norwegian government had warned the Russian embassy in Oslo in advance about the test, but the information never made it to the Russian General Staff. As described by former CIA analyst Peter Vincent Pry in his book War Scare, it was "a clerical error" that brought the world closer to nuclear war than at any time since October 1962."

The rocket was actually fired from the norwegian Andøya rocket range http://www.rocketrange.no/arr/index.html which to my knowledge is the only permanent rocket range we presently have here in Norway, and one which is exclusively used for small (mainly scientific) payloads. Andøya is an island on the NNW North Sea coast of Norway at google maps here http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=69.115611,15.828552 &spn=0.752968,2.730103&hl=en (the island is in the dead centre of the link, zoom out to get your bearings). Totally OT it's a beautiful rugged island where one can also go on whale safaris.

I wanted to post this because the incident has aggregated myths about it the last ten years (helped by a lot of inaccurate reporting and media knee-jerk reactions/cynicism). The situation would be unlikely to escalate into nuclear war no matter which way one twists it. A single launch is a very unlikey surprise attack scenario, especially when not heading in the general direction of Moscow as Moscow is far to the south-east of the launch site and the rocket was heading north (Moscow is probably the only remotely intelligent target for such a far-out single strike scenario). But of course unenlightened media drained the story for all that it was worth and more. The result of the incident was the setting in place of a more robust and direct channel of communications between Norway and Russia as well as other appropriate changes.

A small note on the quote emphasising (as absolutely all media reports did) "When the crisis finally ended, theyless than two minutes to make a decision...". This would only be true if the missile actually headed towards Moscow, as it was it was travelling in the opposite direction which actually gave them more time the longer they waited. From the fact that they did resolve the "crisis" within 8 minutes it is likely that they did track the missile and saw this.

As to you saying:

"But I assume there were'nt any proper ICBMs on board, and they almost certainly wouldn't be armed if they were there..."

I think otherwise; the submarine most likely had ICBMs with warheads (although I doubt the Russian Navy would like to say either way) if the subm

--
this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]

Aliens don't want us to succeed by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-23 10:04 · Score: 0

Notice how whenever we do a solar sail test we have a "launch vehicle" failure!

I believe the aliens don't want us to have this key technology so they sabotage it every time!

Re:Good news, everyone! by pasamio · 2005-06-23 14:22 · Score: 1

I know, it got modded funny, I AGREE! Silly American lack of education :p

--
I always wondered where this setting was...

Someone hates you by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-23 14:54 · Score: 0

.. Just wait until you post a joke and 50 people rate your post as 'overrated' and 50 mod it up as 'funny'.

Slashdot Mirror

Solar Sail Launch Failure Confirmed

431 comments