Slashdot Mirror


ESA Cryosat Launch Reported Failure

hptux06 writes "Earlier today the ESA lauched their "Cryosat" satellite, designed to monitor ice levels across the Arctic/Antarctic. It's being reported a failure, disappearing 90 minutes after the launch. It cost £90M (160M US$) to build, and was supposed to spend three years determining the effects of global warming." From the article: "The satellite rode into space on a Rockot vehicle, a converted SS-19 intercontinental ballistic missile. The rocket, which in the Cold War would have been armed with nuclear weapons, had been modified for peaceful space duties with the addition of a Breeze-KM upper stage. Dr Matthias Oehm, chief executive officer of Eurockot, said they had not received the expected signals from either the spacecraft or the upper stage of the rocket that should have injected it into orbit. "

201 of 277 comments (clear)

  1. By the time... by squoozer · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...they get a replacement up there won't be any ice left to study.

    --
    I used to have a better sig but it broke.
    1. Re:By the time... by speculatrix · · Score: 4, Funny

      it's in a kind of geostationary orbit, snag is, at sea level.. but at least the images it takes are *really* detailed, even if they don't cover a wide area!

    2. Re:By the time... by praxis22 · · Score: 1

      I get to work on Monday there are going to be a lot of people with long faces. So it goes I guess, Nobody can build a rocket worth a damn these days.

  2. It's a conspiracy... by fragmentate · · Score: 3, Funny
    HEADLINE: Cryosat ($160M) Disappears 90-Min. After Launch

    Today, Environmentalists revealed their opinions of what occurred to the Cryosat satellite. They are confident that they now know, and can reproduce the conditions that led to the disappearance of Cryosat. Apparently global warming is to blame. The ship burned up from all of the friction caused by the particulates released by the refineries, and most modern conveniences. However, there is speculation that they were aiming for the hole in the ozone layer, and due to shrinkage of the hole it simply did not fit. Ed Begley Jr. was unavailable for comment. Mecha-Streisand will be called in to conduct the search for the wreckage, if any of it did not disintegrate in the acid layers of the atmosphere created by CFCs.

    When questioned about the emissions of the satellite itself, an environmentalist spokesperson had this to say, "We are but a small segment of the population, we don't pollute as much as everyone else because there are so few of us. So, with all that pollutions savings we felt entitled to a bit of smog creation."

    Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan postulated that this was all probably President Bush's fault.


    Will I get troll-modded again?
    1. Re:It's a conspiracy... by interiot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your post is in bold. So, yes.

    2. Re:It's a conspiracy... by ChadAmberg · · Score: 5, Funny

      Heard this story the other day, and it seemed appropriate.
      Workmate was telling me about one of his professors, who got out of the Soviet Union. While he was still behind the iron curtain, he was a quality control officer for the ICBMs aimed at the US.
      One day he was asked by one of his students what would have happened if the Soviet premier would have ordered a launch of these ICBMs.
      He replied "Nothing, maybe a few explosions within the silos, but not much more."

    3. Re:It's a conspiracy... by fragmentate · · Score: 1

      Unintentional.

    4. Re:It's a conspiracy... by macdaddy357 · · Score: 1

      No, they just forgot to remove the warhead from that old missile converted to a launch vehicle, and it blew the satellite to hell.

      --
      How ya like dat?
    5. Re:It's a conspiracy... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan postulated that this was all probably President Bush's fault.

      Considering the list of suspects that have been chanting "There's no such thing as global warming" as a mantra at Kyoto and has microwave lasers that could fry a satellite on its way to orbit at their disposal is pretty short, it's a slightly amusing one. I think I'll go with the technical error though.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    6. Re:It's a conspiracy... by ToasterofDOOM · · Score: 1

      It was all a conspiracy against black people! Those white racists, why I ought to ... WAIT! I'm white. oops. nevermind.

      --
      I am Spartacus
    7. Re:It's a conspiracy... by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 4, Funny

      $160M for a satellite? For $10M, I'll go down to Antartica every few years and let them know how the melting is coming.

      Hell, if they throw in another $5M or so, I'll take a torch and make damn sure they get the results they are expecting.

      --
      I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
    8. Re:It's a conspiracy... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      So exactly which nationality to you consider "They" to be in this context?

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    9. Re:It's a conspiracy... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'd take that money, and then ask the petroleum companies for an additional 5 mil to take a freezer along with you and give them the results they were expecting.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    10. Re:It's a conspiracy... by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      Too much work. Let's burn it and say we produced the results they were expecting.

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    11. Re:It's a conspiracy... by Gyorg_Lavode · · Score: 1

      I'd take all their money, send someone else, and fake the results.

      --
      I do security
    12. Re:It's a conspiracy... by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Yes, you do get troll-moded. Since your "humor" basically assumes that anybody who takes global warming at all seriously is an idiot. Simply sneering at people who disagree with you is not satire, it's arrogant stupidity.

    13. Re:It's a conspiracy... by RayBender · · Score: 2, Interesting
      he was asked by one of his students what would have happened if the Soviet premier would have ordered a launch of these ICBMs. He replied "Nothing, maybe a few explosions within the silos, but not much more."

      That's pretty interestinng, but I really have to wonder. After all, the Soyuz rockets have the highest reliability of any launch vehicle anywhere (and the highest number of launches). Though I agree, essentially all of the recent ex-military launches (including a solar sail a while back) have been failures.

      --
      Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
    14. Re:It's a conspiracy... by flosofl · · Score: 1

      I'd say it was poking fun at people who have a smug, self-righteous air about them. You know the one's who get all prickly and can't laugh at themselves. The humor impaired.

      Like yourself, obviously.

      --
      "This calls for a very special blend of psychology and extreme violence" - Vyvyan "The Young Ones"
    15. Re:It's a conspiracy... by fm6 · · Score: 1

      I can laugh at myself when somebody says something insightful and/or funny. "You're a twit" doesn't quite qualify.

    16. Re:It's a conspiracy... by everphilski · · Score: 1

      The group that made the Soyuz (Energia) and the group that made ICBM's (don't know the name off the top of my head) were seperate groups. I can't vouch for the quality of Russian ICBM's, but you are right Soyuz rockets are great machines.

      -everphilski-

    17. Re:It's a conspiracy... by Rei · · Score: 1

      You work for Merck & Co, don't you? :)

      --
      "'If one must live then one must die.' - oh, the truth must be funnier than this..." -- MammÃt
    18. Re:It's a conspiracy... by nullforce · · Score: 1

      So, they launched it via ICBM? Like the kind the national missile defense is supposed to defend against? ;-) How about that? It really works!

    19. Re:It's a conspiracy... by Sh1tH3ad · · Score: 1

      sneer, sneer

    20. Re:It's a conspiracy... by Sh1tH3ad · · Score: 1

      You're a twit. LOL I find that pretty funny.

    21. Re:It's a conspiracy... by fm6 · · Score: 1

      I rest my case.

    22. Re:It's a conspiracy... by cheesybagel · · Score: 2, Informative

      Soyuz was designed by Sergei Korolev's design team as the R-7 ICBM. UR-100N (NATO designation SS-19) was from Vladimir Chelomei's design team (see Rokot). They also designed Proton, and that is a fairly reliable launcher. Proton is marketed by ILS.

    23. Re:It's a conspiracy... by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      I didn't read his comment as anti environment at all. Anti-enironmental-wacko, yes.

      Many of the fringes of the evironmental movement (including some relatives of my own) have the mistaken idea that anyone that disagrees with them doesn't care for the environment at all. There is no room for disagreement about degrees of the problem, or solutions.

      What is worse, particularly with the Babs comment, is the celebrities who are self appointed experts and think everyone else should drive Yugos, while THEY continue to drive big SUV's. They are celebrities, after all. Let the little people drive the crappy little cars. The hypocracy is amazing.

      There is a difference in a Conservationist and an Environementalist, although both are concerned about the environment. One example: A Conservationist will say it is fine to allow hunting as long as it is managed properly and you can maintain a healthy population. An Environmentalist will not allow hunting because it is "wrong", meanwhile the animal population will swing wildly up and down because natural preditors are gone.

      Of course the most obvious example is the forest fires in California. When we allowed cutting, we didn't have all this brush and dead trees, or these kinds of fires. Not allowing any management does more damage than actively allowing people to use the resources.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    24. Re:It's a conspiracy... by .killedkenny · · Score: 1
      The hypocracy is amazing.

      I like the story about the new, exclusive, Yuppified subdivision they built in Viginia about a decade ago - big, rambling homesites in a beautiful nature preserve - one of the big selling points was that they had left huge swatches of pristine forest among the homesites. That made it a haven for rich, liberal, environmentalist-types, who clearly saw that building a 30-room estate here was a way to preserve the land and the furry creatures who lived there.

      Well, the big houses were built, with curved driveways, lush, rolling yards, and beautiful, tasteful landscaping. The thing about the expensive landscaping, though - the deer loved to eat it. A few deer could devour $6000 worth of landscaping in a night. It was a real problem. Nothing seemed able to deter the ravenous hunger of the deer - they would tear down fencing or jump over it.

      After most of the new homeowners had replaced their landscaping 3 or 4 times, they'd finally had enough. The furry woodland creatures were public enemy #1. The Yuppie liberals hired PROFESSIONAL HUNTERS to clear out the deer from their woodland preserve. Yes, shoot to KILL those shrub-eatin' monsters! We cannot possibly bear the embarassment of over-nibbled Forsythia!

    25. Re:It's a conspiracy... by Juliuz · · Score: 1

      We'll know for sure as soon as slashdotters in the area get their EMP-fried hardware replaced.
      (Or was the JB Golden Eye EMP-satellite pure fiction... :S)

  3. Global Warming Myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It was a waste of money anyway. Global Warming is a crock invented by anti-capitalist socialist marxist liberals to deter America's economic success and progress in the world.

    1. Re:Global Warming Myth by timeToy · · Score: 1

      Ah ah ah. Slashdot crowd and I, really appreciate this kind of smart sarcasms, too bad you post it anonymously, you could have make progress toward an excellent karma !

    2. Re:Global Warming Myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      gaining karma == appealing to Slashdot liberal groupthink.

      No thanks. I will take freedom of inquiry over appealing to the crowd any day.

    3. Re:Global Warming Myth by anonomouse · · Score: 1

      well, if you know you are unappealing to the crowd, it is a good thing to hide your name. you could even hide under a bridge, if you are not already doing so...

    4. Re:Global Warming Myth by interiot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Other countries are going ahead with the Kyoto Protocol, so America's economic success isn't realy part of it. And there is lots of lots of data that points towards human-induced global warming, it's pretty hard to deny anymore.

    5. Re:Global Warming Myth by Kiaser+Wilhelm+II · · Score: 1

      YHBT YHL HAND

      --
      Lord High Crapflooder The Right Honourable Vlad Craig Esther McDavenpherson III
      Destroyer of Mercatur.Net
    6. Re:Global Warming Myth by Forbman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But China and India aren't part of the Kyoto Protocol. It's a flawed model, actually, trying to address the future while only looking at the past. China and India will far surpass the US in eco-spewing in the next 20 or so years.

    7. Re:Global Warming Myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      "mostly batshit insane" is the answer to your wondering.

    8. Re:Global Warming Myth by TomHandy · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So is the standard of US behavior now essentially "If China and India won't do it, then neither will we"? When did our standards become so low as to play by these kinds of childish rules? What happened to doing things solely because they're the right thing to do, and also to lead by example?

    9. Re:Global Warming Myth by fortunate_monk · · Score: 2, Funny

      When you say "the liberal media resorts to putting filth and porn on TV to get ratings.", can I assume you are refering to FOX?

    10. Re:Global Warming Myth by fortunate_monk · · Score: 1

      Except that the ice on Mars is made of CO2, a somewhat different chemical than the water ice that makes up ice caps on earth. CO2 is somewhat more volatile than H2O which helps explain why such dramatic changes in the southern polar Martian ice caps have occured, making these two processes very different. The top search returned in your link to Google points out the difference between the two types of ice by the way. Besides, I thought you said global warming was a myth?

    11. Re:Global Warming Myth by TheBrutalTruth · · Score: 1
      You are a a typical american asshole (yes - I am american) America is the worlds $avior!

      Is Deomcracy why we have the best TV's? - but the worst education, worst environment - Oh, I forgot, we are rich.

      Go back to your pro Bu$h camp - hate fags, stop abortion, spread Big Screens, whatvever.

      The former Soviet Republics are doing FUCKING GREAT under democracy - thank you - let's make sure the whole world loves money more than their brothers or the envrionment.

      --
      Enlightenment is a pipe dream. So where's the pipe?
    12. Re:Global Warming Myth by cammoblammo · · Score: 1

      Nah... Funny mods don't count toward karma.

      Which I find a bit annoying, because most of my most insightful comments come in the form of sarcasm.

      Oh well. Nobody likes a karma whore.

      --

      Cogito, ergo sig.

    13. Re:Global Warming Myth by Spectra72 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Nothing happened to it..because the fairy tale history of an altruistic United States you seem to pine for never existed. Except maybe in the history they teach kindergarteners. America is good, Washington never told a lie...blah blah blah.

      Try looking at a history book once. Nation-states have never done anything simply because it was the right thing to do and they wanted to lead by example. Nation-states do thing because their government feels it is in their best interest. Now, that may in fact coincide with the "right" thing to do and it may in fact appear to be leading by example, but those are never the deciding factors.

      Seriously, list some of the things down through history that you think the US has done "soley because" they were the right thing to do. I'd like to see why your version of history is so great that it has you pining for the good ol' days.

    14. Re:Global Warming Myth by TomHandy · · Score: 1

      Hey, hold on. I don't think I ever said that the history of the US was peachy-keen; quite the opposite of course. I agree with pretty much everything you said. But I would think that the US has slowly at least moved towards doing some thing in its history precisely because they were the right things to do. Certainly most things have multiple reasons (i.e. a lot of the accomplishments of the Civil Rights movement). And I'd certainly hope that just because the US has a crummy history on a lot of issues wouldn't be reason enough to not try and strive for doing things because they are right in the future. Just because we've been bad in the past shouldn't be a reason to not try and be good in the future.

    15. Re:Global Warming Myth by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      No, it's against teh ZOGMFAMILYVALUES and hence it's evil and communistic.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    16. Re:Global Warming Myth by Skye16 · · Score: 1

      Oh man! The double troll! The first was naught but a ruse, and the second? BAM! Right in the teabaggin' unit!

    17. Re:Global Warming Myth by Sh1tH3ad · · Score: 1

      Gee or we could become communist like those wonderful countries Russia and China where anyone who speaks out gets sent to the gulag or China where they cure drug addiction with a bullet to the head. Yep I'm sure these are your examples of "heaven" The USA is the worlds saviour just like the other poster said. You other whining bitches are only free because we have the threats that keep you that way. I personally wish all of Europe would get what they want, a communist dictatorship that rules with a boot on the neck of it's citizens. You whining bitches need to either quit whining or start refusing our fucking free handouts to you. You all make me want to puke.

    18. Re:Global Warming Myth by Sh1tH3ad · · Score: 1

      and who decides what "the right thing to do" is? You ? Screw off ya wanker.

    19. Re:Global Warming Myth by spacecowboy420 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are confused about communism. Communism doesn't neccessarily surpress freedom. Human nature surpresses freedom. Those in power seek to maintain their power - in any government. Communism is flawed because it seems to encourage mediocrity. Capitalism conquers that, but encourages greed. Most governments are flawed in one basic way or another - there is entrophy in any system, the flaws will amplify over time. As Thomas Jefferson said:

      1787 Nov. 13. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure." (to W. S. Smith, B.12.356)

      Basically to retain freedom, you must reset the system from time to time. Radical? - maybe. Undeniable? - definitely.

      --
      ymmv
    20. Re:Global Warming Myth by Wavicle · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm tired of hearing your fucking shit. When China signed the kyoto protocol, they were the world's #3 CO2 producer, producing 3100 tons of CO2 to the United State's 5900 tons. Tiny fraction my ass. Why the hell would China NOT sign the kyoto protocol? It allows them to produce energy cheaper than any other major economic power.

      --
      Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
      Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
    21. Re:Global Warming Myth by Sh1tH3ad · · Score: 1

      You are confused about communism. Communism doesn't neccessarily surpress freedom. Human nature surpresses freedom. Those in power seek to maintain their power - in any government. Communism is flawed because it seems to encourage mediocrity. Capitalism conquers that, but encourages greed. Most governments are flawed in one basic way or another - there is entrophy in any system, the flaws will amplify over time. As Thomas Jefferson said:

      I am not confused about communism at all. Since it does not work, it requires force and violence to retain it in any country where it is instituted, so Communism by it's very nature is a jack booted society run by the cruelist of dictators. Just look at the countries that have been forced into communism, they were brought in by the violence of the core countries. And they are kept there by force. Note all the people killed in East Getmany trying to escape communism to the West. There's no mistaking communism. Don't be fooled by your little dictiaonary.

    22. Re:Global Warming Myth by spacecowboy420 · · Score: 1

      So you are telling me that what has happened in these corrupt societies is a reflection of the original visionary? Without the little dictionary, there would be no communist societies - since the term would not exist. Since the term does exist as a produt of a vision, you should probably understand the original vision if you want to engage in broadbrush condemnation. Not doing so is like condemning various methods of transportation since people often die using them. Condemning commies went out with McCarthyism.

      --
      ymmv
    23. Re:Global Warming Myth by TheBrutalTruth · · Score: 1
      Spoken truly like someone who's world view comes from the daily Alabama newscast. Yes, the rest of the world is an awful, evil place. And they all beg for American money and intervention. So they can eat cheeseburgers.

      Thank$

      --
      Enlightenment is a pipe dream. So where's the pipe?
  4. Bummer by courtarro · · Score: 5, Funny

    I know it's off topic, but does anyone know why it's raining little bits of metal? I just raked the yard ...

    1. Re:Bummer by ikkonoishi · · Score: 1

      Put them on ebay, and pay someone to rake it for you.

    2. Re:Bummer by fm6 · · Score: 1

      No shit. Space debris, or anything punctured by it, is extremely valuable. Don't ask me why, but there are collectors who will pay good money for it. If you go out to start your car, and there's a weird vertical hole drilled straight through it, do not get it repaired!

    3. Re:Bummer by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 3, Funny

      If you go out to start your car, and there's a weird vertical hole drilled straight through it, do not get it repaired!

      Unless you're in L.A. on the morning of January 1st, then everyone on your block will have them.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  5. We know that Bush wasn't behind this... by Will_Malverson · · Score: 3, Funny

    I was going to post about how the rocket was probably shot down by the United States, to prevent global warming information from getting out, but then I remembered that shooting down a rocket is impossible.

    1. Re:We know that Bush wasn't behind this... by Arimus · · Score: 1

      Not impossible but shooting the right rocket down might just tax some of the more trigger happy brains ;)

      --
      --- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
    2. Re:We know that Bush wasn't behind this... by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      Looking for any information on how to get my Creative Audigy to not pop my speakers when I suspend or shutdown my PC

          Sounds like a DC imbalance problem. Try placing a resistor in parallel of each speaker output (connect them between the output and the ground); anything from 100k to 470kOhm should work. Use 1W resistors if you want to be completely safe, but common 1/4W ones will do perfectly fine in most situations. Pardon the offtopic!

    3. Re:We know that Bush wasn't behind this... by RichardX · · Score: 1

      Looking for any information on how to get my Creative Audigy to not pop my speakers when I suspend or shutdown my PC

              Sounds like a DC imbalance problem. Try placing a resistor in parallel of each speaker output (connect them between the output and the ground); anything from 100k to 470kOhm should work. Use 1W resistors if you want to be completely safe, but common 1/4W ones will do perfectly fine in most situations. Pardon the offtopic!


      Sounds obvious, but you may also want to check what output levels you've got on. If you've got anything in the line in or mic turned up, that may be responsible.
      Disclaimer: IANAWhoever Would Actually Know About These Kinds Of Things.

      Apologies for the interruption. We now return you to your irregularly programmed schedule.

      --
      Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
    4. Re:We know that Bush wasn't behind this... by RedLaggedTeut · · Score: 1

      I was going to post about how the rocket was probably shot down by the United States, to prevent global warming information from getting out, but then I remembered that shooting down a rocket is impossible.



      So, it was HAARP
      --
      I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
    5. Re:We know that Bush wasn't behind this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      In unrelated news, the Pentagon announced that its much critisized anti-ballistic missile system has achieved its first successful test shootdown today. Whitehouse officials rejoiced at the success, heralding it as a sign that the interests of the United States are now even more secure. An unnamed Whitehouse employee and former oil company lobbyist said, "See, all those millions of dollars finally paid off!"

      It's funny, laugh!

    6. Re:We know that Bush wasn't behind this... by SonicBurst · · Score: 1

      That, or turn off the speakers first :)

      --

      Geek used to be a four letter word. Now it's a six-figure one.
    7. Re:We know that Bush wasn't behind this... by builderbob_nz · · Score: 1

      Looking for any information on how to get my Creative Audigy to not pop my speakers when I suspend or shutdown my PC

      Not sure how I should go about telling you so I will blurt it out here and hope that you read it.

      I've seen similar problems before (including on my current setup). I don't know the finer details about what causes it, but in all cases unplugging the cable that connects the optical drive to the sound card has fixed the problem.

      --

      Karma? Hey I just call it as I see it.
    8. Re:We know that Bush wasn't behind this... by Will_Malverson · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the reply. I tried that, but it didn't help.

    9. Re:We know that Bush wasn't behind this... by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 1
      "See, all those millions of dollars finally paid off!"

      You mispelled billions.

      --

      I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

  6. Conspiracy by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1, Funny

    It's not beyond the realms of possibility that it was sabotaged by those with an interest in the continued used of fossil fuels.

    1. Re:Conspiracy by temojen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But a lot more likely that there was a faulty O-ring or something.

      It was an old surplus ICBM they were using to launch it. ICBMs are build with the hope that your opponent will see how many you have and they'll never get used. In the event that they are used, you'll be launching so many that it won't matter if some don't make the trip. Add to that the decades of storage. Is it any suprise that when some are used for other purposes they fail?

    2. Re:Conspiracy by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      t's not beyond the realms of possibility that it was sabotaged by those with an interest in the continued used of fossil fuels

      Well, then it's also not beyond the realms of possibility that there was no launch, and that they faked the whole thing so they could say that it was sabotaged by those with an interest in the continued use of fossil fuels.

      You know, like the people that make rocket fuel.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:Conspiracy by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      You do realise that they dont just remove the warhead, duct tape the payload to the top and launch it, dont you? These laucnhers are stripped down and overhauled before they are used. Besides, if you see my earlier post, it looks to be a computer problem involving stage separation rather than a mechanical failure.

    4. Re:Conspiracy by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

      Why is parent modded as flamebait? Those were my first thoughts aswell.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    5. Re:Conspiracy by sunwolf · · Score: 1

      I believe the solar sail project, Cosmos 1, was also launched from an ICBM, which promptly failed. Who okayed an inter continental ballistic missile for exiting orbit, anyhow?

    6. Re:Conspiracy by NanoGator · · Score: 4, Funny

      "It's not beyond the realms of possibility that it was sabotaged by those with an interest in the continued used of fossil fuels."

      I wouldn't rule out Romulan involvement.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    7. Re:Conspiracy by LoganAlex · · Score: 1

      Actually rocket fuel isn't a fossil fuel but is ethanol (it is ethanol, right, not methanol?). So if anyone has an interest in continued rocket use, it's the liquor companies. This also explains why we have so many rocket accidents, too much drinking of the fuel. :)

    8. Re:Conspiracy by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what this means about Russians and Vodka, but it explains the regular launches, I think.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    9. Re:Conspiracy by hvatum · · Score: 1

      It's not beyond the realms of possibility that it was sabotaged by those with an interest in the continued used of fossil fuels.

      Yes, it's probably the aliens from the The Arrival terraforming earth to suite their conditions who shot it down. We all know they're in bed with the JPL. Seriously, watch the movie, it explains everything.

      --
      Netbooks, they come with Linux or a $3 copy of Windows. Either way, Microsoft loses.
    10. Re:Conspiracy by Yartrebo · · Score: 1

      Rocket fuel is typically either H2 + O2 or kerosene + O2. kerosene is made from oil, and H2 is made from natural gas.

      However, the amount of fuel used in a rocket is negligible compared to the expense and humanpower than goes into having a successful (or not so successful) launch.

  7. Should we trust ICBMs? by iced_773 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    With the Cosmos I disaster and now this, should we really be using ICBMs to launch satellites? These rockets don't seem to be bringing them to orbit...

    1. Re:Should we trust ICBMs? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      ... should we really be using ICBMs to launch satellites?

      Why not? It'll be a lot worse if they were being used to deliver nuclear warheads and the warheads "disappeared" in mid-flight. Scrap metal wouldn't be the only thing raining down.

    2. Re:Should we trust ICBMs? by Forbman · · Score: 1

      worked well for US. Titan-series. Atlas series. Redstone and Juno, too.

    3. Re:Should we trust ICBMs? by Darth_Burrito · · Score: 1

      At any rate, when you see a headline like $150 million down the drain, it makes you wonder how much more it costs to create two of these things versus one of them. I mean, I imagine a lot more is spent on design than physical parts and assembly. What percentage of the cost is in the launch?

    4. Re:Should we trust ICBMs? by cj51 · · Score: 1

      heard on NPR that there has not been a failure of a SS19 in 20 yrs.

    5. Re:Should we trust ICBMs? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Scrap metal wouldn't be the only thing raining down.

      Sure it would! Scrap Plutonium is a metal.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  8. Failure by r2q2 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well this is one way to get more money into space flight. Shoot up duds ;-)

    --
    My UID is prime is yours?
  9. I know who's to blame! by Goalie_Ca · · Score: 1

    and was supposed to spend three years determining the effects of global warming.

    Bush pushed the big red button "aheh heh heh".

    --

    ----
    Go canucks, habs, and sens!
    1. Re:I know who's to blame! by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 1
      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    2. Re:I know who's to blame! by Bill+Walker · · Score: 2, Funny
      Bush pushed the big red button "aheh heh heh".

      ...But on the plus side, the Star Wars defense system is working better than previously thought.

      --
      Please, for the love of God, no more car analogies.
  10. Coincidence? I think not! by Crixus · · Score: 1

    This satellite would have shown that ice levels were shrinking, bolstering the argument for global warming.

    Then again, they're ignoring all of the evidence now, why would this have mattered? :-)

    --
    Ignore Alien Orders
  11. Further info here... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Informative

    Eurockot pressrelease

    Looks like it was another controller foulup that stopped a command from being issued to shut down stage 1 and seperate the upper stack, and causing a reentry of the entire package.

  12. Europe 0, USA 1 by busman · · Score: 1

    Not that I'm into starting a conspiracy, but
    maybe you finally got a hit ;-)

    http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/mdalink.html

    --
    __
    Sigs are like arse-holes, everybody has one ;-)
  13. confirmed lost in arctic ocean by maharg · · Score: 5, Informative
    --

    $ strings FTP.EXE | grep Copyright
    @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
  14. Shrinking ice? On Earth or Mars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Because ice caps on Mars are shrinking:

    http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8029

    http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/mg s-092005-imagesc.html

    Of course, shrinking ice caps on Mars kinda kill the "ohmygodmankindiscausingglobalwarming" leftist groupthink crowd, doesn't it?

  15. Blame Santa? by tepples · · Score: 1

    What kind of elven magic caused this?

  16. What do you expect? by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

    The satellite rode into space on a Rockot vehicle, a converted SS-19 intercontinental ballistic missile. The rocket, which in the Cold War would have been armed with nuclear weapons, had been modified for peaceful space duties with the addition of a Breeze-KM upper stage.

    Hm. You add a stage to an ICBM, launch it, and wonder why it stops transmitting signals 90 minutes after launch.

  17. Thus another spy sattalite is born by Ethek · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This wouldn't be the first time a launched satellite has been 'lost' on purpose.

  18. Isn't it nice... by Grog6 · · Score: 1

    ...to see that all those ICBMs that were aimed at us in the cold war were junk? They're cherry-picking the good ones to sell; I guess the bad ones would have blown up on the pad, instead.

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
    1. Re:Isn't it nice... by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      It was the upper stage that failed, not the ICBM lower stage. Russian rockets are generally quite reliable.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  19. Conspiracy Theorists... by KrackHouse · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'll save you all some time. Bush has been pushing the Star Wars space weaponry system to defeat eco-satellites which would prove global warming true so Haliburton can continue gouging consumers and funneling the money to the skull and bones society which then funds the new world order... and aliens and stuff. Is that about right?

    --
    What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
    http://houndwire.com
    1. Re:Conspiracy Theorists... by Xarius · · Score: 1

      You forgot to slip "DRM" or somehow involve communism in there.

      --
      C17H21NO4
    2. Re:Conspiracy Theorists... by TheBrutalTruth · · Score: 1
      Hating your dumba$$ comments = loving Socialism.

      Exuse me, I need to go watch TV, and be brainwashed so I find this to be funny.

      --
      Enlightenment is a pipe dream. So where's the pipe?
    3. Re:Conspiracy Theorists... by ptbarnett · · Score: 1
      That's not a conspiracy theory.

      That's gospel according to Slashdot.

    4. Re:Conspiracy Theorists... by WilliamSChips · · Score: 2, Funny
      Oh great, you just assigned hating his dumba$$ comments to loving socialism so that even if it wasn't before, it is now!
      Thank god we're working in C and not Python, because you forgot your semicolon. What you meant to say was:
      hating his dumbass comments == loving Socialism;
      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    5. Re:Conspiracy Theorists... by Sh1tH3ad · · Score: 1

      "" I'll save you all some time. Bush has been pushing the Star Wars space weaponry system to defeat eco-satellites which would prove global warming true so Haliburton can continue gouging consumers and funneling the money to the skull and bones society which then funds the new world order... and aliens and stuff. Is that about right? "" Yep that's about the size of it. Especially the "aliens and stuff" part.

  20. No signal? by debrain · · Score: 1

    Dr Matthias Oehm, chief executive officer of Eurockot, said they had not received the expected signals from either the spacecraft or the upper stage of the rocket that should have injected it into orbit.

    That's probably because it broke up and crashed into the ocean.

  21. Woah. by jupiter909 · · Score: 1

    On a serious note here, if they can't even get the damn rocket to put a satellite in space, imagine if they actually used that rocket to carry nuclear weapons. This worrys me.

    1. Re:Woah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      As one of the targets of those weapons, It doesn't worry me quite as much.

    2. Re:Woah. by kfg · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because the last thing this world needs is an abscence of nuclear explosions.

      I guess I should point out, however, that putting a rocket into orbit is in many respects harder than putting one on the ground.

      KFG

    3. Re:Woah. by ColaMan · · Score: 1

      That's the whole point of an ICBM - Ballistic being the key word there. The stages of an ICBM were never designed to achieve orbit. They go up for a little ways, they come down again.

      Which is great if you've got a warhead on top. Not so great if you've got a 90 million dollar satellite that'll take 3 years to build again.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    4. Re:Woah. by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Actually, they went up a long way.

      http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/lgm-30_3 -specs.htm

      A Minuteman III goes up 700 miles, then at the top of the arc kicks off the MIRV platform.

      "CryoSat will measure variations in ice elevation and thickness with an accuracy of the order of a centimetre per year. CryoSat, weighing about 700 kg, will circle the earth in a polar orbit of about 720 km. From there its radar will measure the changes in the thickness of the polar and ocean ice."

      447 miles, well within the design celling of an ICBM.

    5. Re:Woah. by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      It isn't the "ceiling" that matters most. It's achieving orbital velocity. However, the vehicle was a modified ICBM, with a second stage added. As it appears that it is the second stage that failed the accident does not reflect on the reliability of Russian ICBMs.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    6. Re:Woah. by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      ICBMs were all multistage when you got to the later generations.

      This was an UR-100N / SS-19 STILLETO correct?

      Number of Stages - 3

      http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/ur- 100n.htm

      The demilitarization for commercial use generally has the final stage removed, destroyed under treaty varification, and a commercial stage added.

  22. Re:Shrinking ice? On Earth or Mars? by TomHandy · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Right, because of course, everything that happens on Mars must be directly parallel to what happens on Earth. So if the ice caps on Mars are shrinking, then it MUST mean that the ice caps on the Earth are shrinking for the same reason.

    And aside from that, if what humans are doing to the environment isn't responsible for the shrinking ice caps of Earth, then that means we should be free to spew out whatever crap we want into the environment without any concern for more basic things like air quality, etc.

    Stupid leftisft thinking indeed, because of course, concern about the environment is purely a "leftist" issue.

  23. Hang on, nuclear payload? by FluffyWithTeeth · · Score: 1
    So, we have banned orbital nuclear weapons, and a group launching a nuclear capable "satellite", and then mysteriously losing it?

    Ooh, the conspiracy theory boys are gonna love this one. At least, they will till all their computers stop operating after a mysterious huge EMP from the upper atmosphere...

  24. Re:Shrinking ice? On Earth or Mars? by uncadonna · · Score: 1
    --
    mt
  25. All is lost . . . by pariahdecss · · Score: 2, Funny

    If we start using perfectly good weapons of mass destruction for peaceful purposes then I fear the terrorists have already won

  26. Oh crap. by blueadept1 · · Score: 1

    "...the rocket, which in the Cold War would have been armed with nuclear weapons..."

    What's to say they sent the right rocket?

  27. oopppps by SiferDomm · · Score: 1

    Sounds to me like someone forgot to remove the warhead before they launched it.

  28. Video of the explosion. by Chickenofbristol55 · · Score: 2, Informative

    On the bbc.com, there is a video of the launch and the subsequent explosion of the rocket. Just goes to show you that getting into space is difficult and risky. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4323378. stm/

    --
    public class null extends java applet { System.out.print ("Tabula Rasa"); }
    1. Re:Video of the explosion. by Chickenofbristol55 · · Score: 2, Informative
      --
      public class null extends java applet { System.out.print ("Tabula Rasa"); }
  29. Re:Shrinking ice? On Earth or Mars? by Average_Joe_Sixpack · · Score: 1

    Right, because of course, everything that happens on Mars must be directly parallel to what happens on Earth. So if the ice caps on Mars are shrinking, then it MUST mean that the ice caps on the Earth are shrinking for the same reason.

    Well smart guy, if the sun increased it's solar output, then yes the effects would be reflected on both planets.

  30. third? by eagl · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Isn't that the third converted Russian ICBM to have a launch failure? The launch price discount compared to other launch systems means nothing if it can't put the payload into the correct orbit. The other one I remember was that solar sail experiment, but I was sure there was at least one more that used one of these missile conversions that also failed to make orbit.

    1. Re:third? by dotwaffle · · Score: 1

      Hmm... Three converted warhead delivery systems fail one after the other... Sounds like someone in an America-shaped land doesn't want anyone but themselves to be at the forefront of space technology...

      Either that, or an automated sentry system detected a warhead launch and took action, and the military can't/won't turn it off...

      Oooooh, I like starting conspiracy theories!

    2. Re:third? by zeux · · Score: 1

      3 failures, right, but how many successes?

  31. Ditch the copper get some fiber by linzeal · · Score: 1

    Designing IC component systems strung with sometimes miles of wire is a non-trivial problem. In another words you are using so much metal that quantum effects in the impurities of the wires is exhibited at a local scale. I myself would favor an optical system for launch systems, but I'm still just an engineering student. Don't they use like tons of copper wire that they have to ship to orbit anyways? Optical fiber is pry 100x the weight for the same strength when spun in a kevlar carbon fiber sheath as the copper they are shipping to orbit. How are optical processors doing, can they handle the logic in a small enough package for a seperation procedure which pry means synchronizing dozens of mechanical locking devices on an object doing mach 8?

    1. Re:Ditch the copper get some fiber by Gyorg_Lavode · · Score: 1

      Well, considering they are launching on Russian ICBMs to get rid of them, building new ones doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense. Anyway, the design and testing of a new ICBM or SLV (Space Launch Vehicle) isn't worth the trouble to save the weight.

      --
      I do security
    2. Re:Ditch the copper get some fiber by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      They are only using ICBMs for the lower stage. The complicated stuff is generally in the upper stage and the payload.

      I assume that they already use some sort of a communications buss, though.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    3. Re:Ditch the copper get some fiber by Gyorg_Lavode · · Score: 1

      A quick google search says the SS-19 is a 2 stage so they are using the whole thing. While you may have previous experience in ICBM design, in which case I bow to your experience, if you do not I must say I will take your experience with their amount of complexity with a grain of salt. There was also the SLBMs they bonked infront of Putin for that demonstration. There was the SLBM the solar sail rode on that died. And I swear there was another one recently. Russian missiles are aging. My guess is their test schedules and maintenance cycles them is not well funded.

      --
      I do security
    4. Re:Ditch the copper get some fiber by linzeal · · Score: 1

      I think they have enough of them that an upgrade that shaved even 500lbs off the weight would be worth pursuing. That is 5 million in cargo.

    5. Re:Ditch the copper get some fiber by catfry · · Score: 1

      The Rockot consists of 3 stages, the ss-19 1st and 2nd stage, (hundreds of succesful test firings) and the breeze M 3rd stage (fairly new).

    6. Re:Ditch the copper get some fiber by Gyorg_Lavode · · Score: 1

      Yet the problem was in the 2nd stage not shutting off and therefore burning the remaining fuel that should have been used to blow the bolts.

      --
      I do security
  32. Largo has it.... by sinan · · Score: 1

    And unless James can get it back, The world will be a much hotter place.

  33. Re:Shrinking ice? On Earth or Mars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Why that realclimate.org rubbish is even more irrelevant.. http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/10/dutch-journalism -award-kyoto-is-junk_06.html

  34. OT: Creative Audigy popping speakers by Will_Malverson · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the info. Since the speaker outputs are little headphone jacks, this might be challenging, but I'll look into it.

    I've got the software volume controls maxed out, so that I can have the hardware volume control on the (amplified) speakers turned down. However, when I power-off, suspend, power-up, or wake my PC, there's a very loud one-time pop on the speakers.

  35. $160 million down the drain again by davek · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How many times have governments and obese space programs spend years and millions developing one thing, only to have it blow up in space because someone didn't convert feet to inches or forgot or because one tiny wire failed resulting in failure to launch a key component. There's so many different parts to these missions, and so many locations for human error, that it is totally impractical to assume a 100% success rate when putting things into space. Back in the age of the space race, money was being poured into space programs; more money means more time, which means more double-checking, which means less failue. We don't have that these days.

    NASA, ESA, and other space programs are going about it all wrong. They're trying to adapt old designs and architectures of how to get into space to new technologies, and they just aren't fitting.

    -dave

    --
    6th Street Radio @ddombrowsky
  36. Hardware or software? by mctee155 · · Score: 1
    This is a bit off-topic, the article does not say what happened but I remember in the 7th grade seeing a documentary about rockets and how when one rocket test went bad. The problem was the engineer or programmer forgot to end a line of code with a semicolon in the guidance software or something like that. This was some time ago but the mishap was dubbed "the most expensive semicolon in the world". How ironic would it be if the error was along the same lines.

    I was surprised not to see a "In Soviet Russia..." joke, then again this article is pretty fresh.

    1. Re:Hardware or software? by ColaMan · · Score: 1

      I think the first Arianne series IV rocket self-destructed because someone loaded the series III flight control software into it by mistake.

      So, the rocket launched, tried to perform manoevure, saw something unexpected as a result of that attempt and subsequently decides to self-destruct rather than plow off into the great unknown.

      Pity it had an uninsured $100 million satellite on board though.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    2. Re:Hardware or software? by Detritus · · Score: 4, Informative

      They didn't load it by mistake. They intentionally reused large parts of the Ariane-3 flight software to save money. The problem was that it wasn't adequately tested to make sure that it worked correctly with the Ariane-4 flight profile. This resulted in an overflow error during the flight, crashing the guidance computers. The flight was terminated after the guidance system failed.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  37. Re:Shrinking ice? On Earth or Mars? by TomHandy · · Score: 1
    Well, yes. The effects would probably be reflected on both planets. But certainly the conditions of the atmospheres of both planets should have an effect to. The Earth and Mars have very different atmospheres. Perhaps it's a bad sign that the atmosphere of the Earth seems to be allowing for something to happen that we see duplicated on Mars. Perhaps the effects of global warming are having an effect.

    Again, of course, even if global warming DOESN'T have anything to do with it, I still think there is a larger point here. There are other reasons to try and control what we are putting into our own atmosphere beyond global warming. It seems insane to basically argue that we should avoid any attempts to do what we can to improve our own environment even if there is nothing that can be seen about global warming.

  38. Re:euro weenies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Err what?

    Multiple countries wanted to send tons (yes, tons) of stuff to help - your great government did not want it.

  39. Why? We care! by andersh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I remember every European nation (including the really poor ones!) offering people, doctors, search teams, money and food/blankets! What didn't we do!? The public donated money to the Red Cross - and we ALL felt sorry for those poor people!

    My country gave money, search teams, equipment and offered oil assistance - the US administration told us to wait.

    I once cared greatly for the US - now I realize I must have been wrong. I for one hope we/Europe cut all ties with the US. NATO should die and the EU should align itself with Russia.

    1. Re:Why? We care! by minus_273 · · Score: 1

      I am talking about the offical government position of a "core EU" nation (germany). In case you have been living in a bubble read this .
       
        if you are too lazy to click:


      "The American president closes his eyes to the economic and human damages that are inflicted on his country and the world economy by natural disasters, like Katrina, through neglected climate protection," Trittin wrote in his opinion piece, which was published Tuesday. "When reason finally reaches the headquarters of the climate polluters, the international community will need to be able to extend a hand with an elaborate proposal for the future of international climate protection. The German government stands ready for this."
      .....

      Neither Schroeder nor Fischer distanced themselves from Trittin's remarks, which were still reverberating Thursday.


      Ah such kind words.

      --
      The war with islam is a war on the beast
      The war on terror is a war for peace
    2. Re:Why? We care! by BeeRockxs · · Score: 1

      How is an editorial in a newspaper the official position of the german government?

    3. Re:Why? We care! by lemsip · · Score: 1

      Well although I don't condone this stand by the German government, which is clearly a way to try to make a point, I do have an understanding of what motivates it. Perhaps much of the US is oblivious to the anger felt by much of the world towards the US government's environmental policies.

    4. Re:Why? We care! by Sh1tH3ad · · Score: 1
      I once cared greatly for the US - now I realize I must have been wrong. I for one hope we/Europe cut all ties with the US. NATO should die and the EU should align itself with Russia.

      I agree, Europe should move in with Russia. We spent hundreds of billions of dollars protecting Europe from the USSR over the past 40 years, now you want to move in with them. GO ahead you ungreatful little commy twit.
  40. NASA's reaction? by CupBeEmpty · · Score: 1

    I have a friend that works at NASA (the JPL specifically) and while I am waiting for her response to my email I thought I would pose the question to any slashdot/NASA folks...

    I am kind of wondering how they react to these kind of events at work. Do they have some professional empathy? Are there polite jokes at the ESA's expense? Or, is it more along the lines of a bunch of engineers sitting around on Saturday with chips and beer watching the video and then when the rocket explodes they jump up cheering and doing "booty dances" while giving each other high fives. All of this is of course with huge panorama's of Mars on their walls.

    Any NASA foks out there?

    1. Re:NASA's reaction? by Detritus · · Score: 1
      I've never seen anyone cheer when a rocket blows up. Rockets can be replaced. Payloads are usually the result of years of hard work by many people you've never heard of.

      There is a certain amount of black humor about launch failures. Early in the Ariane program, I suggested that ESA could save a lot of money by just dumping the spacecraft in the ocean, cutting out the expensive rocket part. I've never understood why people keep putting irreplaceable spacecraft on the first flights of unproven launch vehicles. It's much better to launch ballast and an instrument package, switching to real payloads after the bugs are worked out.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    2. Re:NASA's reaction? by CupBeEmpty · · Score: 1

      Yeah I guess there would have to be a little black humor just to keep people sane. As far as unproven launch vehicles go... you guess is a so good as mine.

  41. Re:euro weenies by lemsip · · Score: 2, Insightful
    considering how they reacted to Katrina, I find it very hard to feel sorry for anything that happens to Europe

    So what you're saying is that because someone somewhere in Europe wasn't entirely sympathetic towards the US regarding the hurricane, you therefore have no sympathy for anyone anywhere in Europe when something bad happens, regardless of what their specific views on Katrina were.

    Sounds like the same illogic that made sense of invading Iraq because some Saudis carried out 9/11. After all, they're all in the Middle East, eh? They're all the same, right?

    Personally, as a European, I was horrified at the effects of Katrina, and contributed money to one of the hurricane relief organisations (did you?). Thus I find your attitude deeply offensive and ignorant.

  42. Maybe it was a simple error by Bohnanza · · Score: 1

    Maybe they forgot to take the nuke out first?

    --

    -----

    Sorry, I'm only a 1336 h4x0r.

  43. Re:Shrinking ice? On Earth or Mars? by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

    That just shows how bad the pollution must be, if it reaches as far as Mars.

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  44. Russian ICBMs seem a bit unreliable by Gyorg_Lavode · · Score: 1

    This is what? The 3rd ICBM convered to a SLV (Space Launch Vehicle) to die? There was the solar sail one. I think there was another. And now this one. I can't believe anyone will use them these days. Also hopefully people realize that missiles that leave the atmosphere are not something that just happens. Reguardless of how big and advanced your country is, it's still very hard.

    --
    I do security
  45. Re:Why exempt China and India (and Brazil and ...) by mjbkinx · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Just why should Europe and the US neuter their economies and therefore the standard of living of their populations just so India, China, Africa, and South America get a free pass on pollution?

    Because the global average of CO2 emmissions per capita is about 5 tons per year. The distribution of emmissions per capita is roughly US 4 : EU 2 : World 1. And please don't forget the World includes the US and Europe.
    As far as the neutering is concerned, if that's what you're trying to compensate with a huge SUV...

  46. Two in one by fm6 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    In this kind of discussion, there are two kinds of obligatory comments. I might as well do both at once:
    • Informative karma whoring.
    • Make satirical and/or deprecatory remarks about all the kneejerk "Global warning is a crock!" and "No it's not!" comments. For this discussion, the first kind of kneejerkism seems to dominate. It's as if just putting up a satellite to study global warming is a sign of tree-hugging moronity. Hey people, that's how science works: you form a hypothesis, and look for experiments to confirm or deny it. If you think the hypothesis is lame, suggest your own experiments — and spare us the brainless name-calling.
  47. the silver lining... by Snuffub · · Score: 2, Funny

    In an unrelated news the pentagon is reporting the first sucessful test of it's missile defense system today.

    --
    --aiee
  48. the US already has an ice observing satellite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://icesat.gsfc.nasa.gov/

    It has been operational since January 2003.

    1. Re:the US already has an ice observing satellite by basingwerk · · Score: 1

      The Canadians have been operating one since 1995 (http://www.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca/ccrs/data/satsens/rad arsat/rsatndx_e.html). This was the first satellite to radar image the entire south pole.

      --
      I stole this .sig
  49. Not Surprised by jamej · · Score: 1

    Whoops. It will be a very time before the ESA puts another satellite in orbit. How about Europe's threatened GPS equivilent? The most effective thing they do on the old continent is harangue Microsoft. They're working off the battery in ther UPS and hoping for a graceful shut down. Future generations of Europeans will rue this generation's weak minded approach.

  50. Re:euro weenies by jamej · · Score: 1

    Right on, my brother from another mother!

  51. Maybe, though by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    I've never seen any soundcards that don't do this. To me it seems more like a power-spike. You shut the system down and power gets dumped to the soundcard and out. I have two cards, an Audigy 2 and an M-Audio Firewrie 410 and they'll do this form tiem to time. I always shutdown my amps prior to reboot. Also the mixer does the same thing sometimes, it'll produce a snap when shut down if the amps are active.

    The amps don't do that, but they have protection circutry built in, they cut the outputs when powering on and off. In fact a number of pro amps have cutout circutry that waits about 5 seconds after powerup to turn the outputs on. That way if you power up a rack of gear, any signals are stopped at the amp and hopefully everything is warmed up and not generating errant current.

    I always just suggest making the amp the last thing on, and first thing off.

  52. Ummmm, because satellites are expensive by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    As the article notes, this was a $150 million fuckup. That's a lot of damn money. Seems like a better idea to just go for a more expensive launch, but one that's more likely to succede.

    Remember there is a thrid option: Don't launch the ICMB rocket at all. It's not like if they aren't used for this Russia will randomly launch nuclear warheads just for the fun of it. They'll just sit in their silos or storage sheds as they have in the past.

    1. Re:Ummmm, because satellites are expensive by caluml · · Score: 1
      As the article notes, this was a $150 million fuckup. That's a lot of damn money.

      How much is the cost to the US of keeping all those guys in Iraq at the moment...?

    2. Re:Ummmm, because satellites are expensive by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      Man I love the idiot leaps of logic seen on Slashdot. So because the US is wasting money on an occupation of a country (or maybe not, who knows, maybe the oil they get back makes up for it in the long run) the ESA, who is no NO WAY affiliated with the US or their military, should use Russian ICBMs to launch even though they frequently blow up and cost money?

      Ya that's nice logic.

      This has nothing at all to do with the US, PERIOD. This has to do with the ESA, and $150 million is a lot of money no matter how you slice it. My argument is if you spend that much on a satellite, it makes sense to spend more to safely launch it. Even if you save $20million by using old ICBMs, it's not worth it if they blow up your $150million project. That lost money would have paid for a lot of safer launches.

    3. Re:Ummmm, because satellites are expensive by caluml · · Score: 1

      My point was that a lot of people waste a lot more money than that on things that are arguably a whole lot more stupid. It also highlights all the good things that the US could do with the "Iraq money" - good, beneficial things for the planet, instead of invading other peoples countries.
      Don't get all defensive because I mentioned the war in Iraq.

    4. Re:Ummmm, because satellites are expensive by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      I'm not defensive, I'm pointint out what an idiot you are being. It is the height of stupidity to say that because the US is wasting money in Iraq the ESA should waste money by low-balling launches. The two have nothing do do with each other. Their budgets do not come from the same place, they are not accountable to the same politicans, the same voters, etc. The war in Iraq isn't some magic trump card you can use to shut down any debate, or make any other screwup ok. The US's screwups are the US's screwups and they have to deal with them.

      If you think it's a good idea for the ESA to low-ball launches and use ICMBs, say so, and defend your point. But don't try and deflect things with an unrelated occupation by an unrelated nation.

  53. Re:euro weenies by minus_273 · · Score: 1

    No. I am talking about the official positon of a major EU government. See my other post

    --
    The war with islam is a war on the beast
    The war on terror is a war for peace
  54. Re:euro weenies by mjbkinx · · Score: 1
    considering how they reacted to Katrina, I find it very hard to feel sorry for anything that happens to Europe.

    You mean that we sent everything from food and shelter over water purification systems and high power pumps to generators and a cellular phone network? After Dubya finally decided to accept foreign aid, at least from us and other regions, unlike the more than 1000 fully equipped doctors Cuba offered?
    The satellite wouldn't have only benefitted Europe, you know. It's not that we treat environmental scientific data like military secrets.

  55. Sorry mate, no explosion in this link by colonic · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Opening the video link on that page:

    A (1m 14.8s) video that shows the launch. About 28.5 seconds into the video, it disappears into a cloud, and the light from the exhaust diffuses through the cloud.

    The commentary at 1:01-ish: "Well, a fantastic, successful launch by the looks of it, Mark, for Cryosat." Subsequent cautiously optimistic comments. Video ends.

    What I got from the video -even though there's no scale- was: damn, that's a thin rocket.

    Which leads me to the question: aren't designed-for-space rockets normally fatter than this? A quick link to "rocket widths through the ages" would be appreciated.

  56. Why measure when you can fix? by WillAdams · · Score: 1

    (and measure at the same time)

    Okay, what would be the feasibility of making an autonomous unit which floats on the ocean, anchors to the ice pack and covers the water around it w/ solar cells and uses the energy from the solar cells to extract salt from the sea water, chill it and spray it towards the ice pack?

    Set it up so that it disengages and re-anchors itself as the ice pack increases in size and it should ``just work''. Add a GPS unit and a radio transmitter and you can keep track of the edge (but not thickness and density --- you can use a submarine fleet doing maintenance on these things for that).

    William

    --
    Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    1. Re:Why measure when you can fix? by ghoul · · Score: 1

      Have you considered how refrigeration works? It just transfers heat. It works for yr fridge as it makes yr food colder by makin yr house hotter.( If u ever wondered why the city is hotter than the country this is one of the reasons) And yr AC works by making yr neighbouhood hotter. Now if u do refrigeration on the icepack u will just melt another part of the ice pack with the waste heat. Something more credible would be a process of increasing the albedo of the icepack so more sunlight gets reflected back.

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
  57. Not uncommon point of view by andersh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I had not seen it - in fact that's not the way media portrayed it here. I certainly understand your feelings, it was not the time and place. However his views on the matter are far from uncommon - I heard the same remarks from people I know. It shocked me to hear them say it - some said it with glee or jokingly: "That serves them right for their environmental policies".

    I actually agree, I believe the world community of scientists have said that there is a link between the increase in natural disasters/weather conditions and pollution. So it would perhaps be a fitting reminder to a certain president that the Kyoto protocols and other initiatives are not just for fun. We need to change, all of us. We have seen the ill effects in Europe as well, don't know how much you've heard of them? People died here as well. Of course I regret the loss of life, however it's a potent reminder and perhaps the catalyst the US needs? In that sense I agree that you "deserve" it. You can not isolate yourselves from these global issues.

    P.S. My feelings on US-EU relations remain and are independent of this discussion - Europe has remained under US influence too long. Similar to a long marriage - we've grown apart.

    1. Re:Not uncommon point of view by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      I actually agree, I believe the world community of scientists have said that there is a link between the increase in natural disasters/weather conditions and pollution.

      Please read this link. The meteorologist that predicts hurricanes doubts this link and the ammount of how much humans have affected global warming.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    2. Re:Not uncommon point of view by lemsip · · Score: 1

      I'm not 100% sure what you're trying to say - your grammar definitely comes from the George W Bush school of fragmented nonsense!

      And regardless of Germany's true feelings about Katrina, even if the whole German population felt no sympathy towards America, which is clearly ludicrous, how can you sit there and generalise by saying the whole of Europe's 728 million people thought the people of New Orleans deserved it??

      Ignorance.

  58. Re:Why exempt China and India (and Brazil and ...) by mjbkinx · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The USA might pollute more then Europe, but China is poised to overtake the US in pollution in a couple years, with India not so far behind. Why should the countries that pollute almost as much as the US be exempt?

    Because it's not so much a per country-, but a per capita thing. Yes, China might eventually emmitt more than the US. However, like India, they have about four times the population. So when they're on par with the US, then it would still take about four Chinese to produce the same amount of carbon dioxide as one person in the US causes. At the moment, it takes about 20 Indians, so despite their bigger population it will take a while for them to catch up, I guess.
    There is a certain correlation between energy consumption and living standard. That doesn't mean it's proportional, though. Much can be saved by increasing efficiency -- better insulation for houses, cars with better milage, modern power plants, that kind of stuff. Still, to a certain degree that correlation is undeniable, and when we in the rich countries say we want to keep our wasteful lifestyles unless the poorer countries reduce their energy consumption, too, then we're saying they're not entitled to a higher living standard than they have today. Since we caused the mess in the first place, I have a bit of a problem with that attitude.

    There is no good reason, and that is why Kyoto is flawed. I do have to commend Europe for their work with the environment, but once they play favorites, they lost me on wanting such a treaty for the US.

    Try to look at it from our (I'm in Europe) perspective. The science is pretty solid, our climate is changing. Even if there were doubts -- and there aren't any to be taken seriously -- considering what is at risk, we should play it safe. So we try to reduce our energy consumption, and carbon dioxide emmissions in general. But even if Kyoto meets its target, the reductions will be less than the increased output of the US in the same timeframe. We read about the outrage at US gas stations because you now have to pay $3 per gallon. We pay twice as much, so people buy efficient cars.

    You use a quarter of the world's oil production, and you could do with much less if there were some decent incentives for efficiency, without lowering your living standard one bit. Instead you point at poor countries where people use a fraction of what we use in our countries before we even have lunch, and claim it's unfair that they don't have to reduce their output. Those are countries where the average person makes much, much less than we make, so if $3 per gallon seems like much for somebody in the US, you can imagine what it means to them even if they would only have to pay the $2 a gallon costs to produce at today's oil prices. Reducing consumption also means less of an impact of higher oil prices due to growing global demand -- do you understand why some see the US as somewhat unfavorable when they read arguments like yours?

  59. That is unfortunate. by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

    As it appears that it is the second stage that failed the accident does not reflect on the reliability of Russian ICBMs
     
    Thats too bad, because it would make me feel safer that something that may have once been targeted at the US for mass destruction failed when launched.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  60. Failure: Second Stage Engine Cut-Off by dmitriy · · Score: 1

    According to SpaceFlightNow the failure was caused by missing command from on-board flight control system to shutdown second stage engine. No engine shutdown -> no stage separation ->> second stage, third stage and the cryosat end up fallig back on Earth in the designated second stage drop zone.

  61. The Russians are not real big into QA by gelfling · · Score: 1

    Clearly the ESA which has the capability to launch this on their own decided to use Russian boosters and a Russian polar orbitally oriented site to toss this up on the cheap. But the Russians were never and are still not big on QA. They figured that the workhorse SS-9 would 'just get the job done' but lobbing a 5Mgton nuke at New York plus minus 2 miles is a LOT different from a precise polar orbital insertion.

  62. Re:Why exempt China and India (and Brazil and ...) by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

    And that's why per-capita models for pollution control are flawed. Breed a lot of people living in mut huts somewhere and you get a free pass on your heavily polluted industries.

    I've been to Beijing. The air there ain't clean. I've never actually felt sick just from breathing a city's air before, and I've been to most major cities in the US and Europe.

  63. Re:Why exempt China and India (and Brazil and ...) by dhakbar · · Score: 1

    Damn straight. What really matters is not per-capita output, but the net output of each nation. At least that's what matters if you're trying to discourage pollution; if you're trying to economically sabotage the United States, it's another story.

  64. One more reason... by mandreiana · · Score: 1

    to start working on space elevator insead of continuing to use explosions to launch equipment and humans

  65. Re:Why exempt China and India (and Brazil and ...) by doxology · · Score: 1

    But a developing country won't begin to think about environmental standards until developed countries do. They're probably thinking the same thing. "If the US doesn't want to limit its carbon emissions, why should we?"

    --
    sigfault. core dumped.
  66. Re:Why exempt China and India (and Brazil and ...) by mjbkinx · · Score: 2, Insightful
    And that's why per-capita models for pollution control are flawed. Breed a lot of people living in mut huts somewhere and you get a free pass on your heavily polluted industries.

    I see. They're "[breeding] a lot of people living in mut huts" to get a "free pass". So you suggest we go by what? Per country? The very few living in Liechtenstein will be happy to hear that. If you want to go by economic output, China looked in fact pretty bad -- they heavily rely on coal to produce energy. They still do, nowhere near as bad as they used to, but they're still about at US levels.
    You can find various relevant statistics here, among other measures graphs of carbon dioxide emmissions per economic output for the G7 countries and developing asian nations.

    I've been to Beijing. The air there ain't clean. I've never actually felt sick just from breathing a city's air before, and I've been to most major cities in the US and Europe.

    At least they're doing something about it.

  67. Reagan should have started WWIII! by RexRhino · · Score: 1

    Man, with all these converted Russian ICBMs failing, it makes me think we should have started WWIII. We didn't need the Strategic Defense Initiative to be safe. Maybe a few cities might have got nuked by the missles that didn't explode, but that is a small price to pay for kickin' some commie ass! Yeehaw!

  68. not a troll. just a simple peasant by PhreakOfTime · · Score: 1

    Yes. As long as humor makes you feel comfortable living in the world that you live in, keep it up. I mean if its the only thing keeping you sane when you look at the world right now, laugh it up. People have been doing it for many years before you were born, in fact some of your past contemporaries made light of their own situation too. They even left us a little rhyme about it.

    Something about rings around a rosie...

    human nature never changes, only its clothes. For to laugh in the face of your own demimse is the essence of being human, almost as much as it is that we are bound to repeat our own history, no matter how foolish we think it is

  69. not precisely... by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

    It's not, I think, that the Soveits were not into quality in the product, but they had a different mindset than the West. Here, we tended to want to Built It Right The First Time, even if that cost a fortune and took wild leaps in technology (cf. the Space Shuttle, arguably way too bold a design leap for 1970s technology). We like technology, and we don't trust low-level employees, so we make sure our high-end products will last and last without any human oversight at all. Think of those rovers on Mars, still chugging along 600 days after landing, i.e. over 10 times the original design lifetime, more or less.

    But the Soviets thought different. For them technology was expensive, but people were cheap, and they specialized at rigorous training and constant checks on one's reliability. So in keeping their aerospace stuff up to snuff they probably relied a lot more on platoons of rigidly-trained technicians checking and re-checking and fixing any little boo-boos. It is almost certain that this has now vanished. The State can no longer command the efforts of huge numbers of people effortlessly, and the apparatus for making people function as reliably as robots is gone. As a consequence a system designed to work with giant amounts of low-level but reliable labor is now struggling to do without it. Without success.

    ICBMs blowing up before orbit is one thing, but it's sobering to think about (for example) all those aging nuclear reactors on Soviet-era subs rusting in White Sea ports. They, too, were probably designed with the assumption that they would get constant tending from armies of Soviet technicians. They're not getting it now.

  70. I was going to mod you down by rk · · Score: 1

    But they haven't implemented the -1, Fucking Stupid mod yet.

  71. Re:Why exempt China and India (and Brazil and ...) by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

    Propoganda.

    In fact, my Chinese instructor announced to our class that the air in Beijing was quite clean to breathe now.

    Of course, that was less than a month after I got back, and I doubt even if they shut off all their factories right when I left, that the air still wouldn't be clean by the time she announced that.

  72. Re:Why exempt China and India (and Brazil and ...) by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

    And to answer your question as to the best way, per-capita living in modern, industrialized cities.

    Sure, I was being facetious that they would breed people to get out of quotas, but the simple fact is the rural poor in China allow the major population centers to essentially pollute as much as they want, since they get to divide it out by their billion people.

  73. Who cares? by Aldric · · Score: 1

    Bush & Co are denying that it's happening at all. The real issue that needs fixed is that we need a way to get off this planet before it becomes uninhabitable.

  74. Re:Shrinking ice? On Earth or Mars? by gilgongo · · Score: 1

    > leftist groupthink crowd

    Right is good! Left is bad! Oompah loompah, fiddle dee dee!

    Here's a tip: if you reveal that your level of political sophistication is barely above a child's, then most people won't pay you much attention. At least try to make some *pretence* at having a considered opinion that you have arrived at by yourself.

    --
    "And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
  75. Isn't the idea by thrill12 · · Score: 1

    of an ICBM that, when launched, they don't turn over and drop right back from where they were launched from ?

    --
    Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
  76. My Tinfoil hat is tingling by Confessed+Geek · · Score: 1

    I will have to admit, the sneaky wacky part of my mind did start wondering. Maybe Regan got his Starwars space lasers after all?

  77. Re:Why exempt China and India (and Brazil and ...) by FrostedChaos · · Score: 1

    I like it.
    It's got a nice beat, and you can dancce to it.

    --
    "Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental." -Slashdot
  78. Re:liar liar by Wavicle · · Score: 1

    The units are wrong, the numbers are sufficiently correct for computing the "tiny fraction" ratio. Of all the greenhouse gasses that Kyoto regulates, China is now the #2 producer in the world - and still exempt!

    Second, Kyoto regulates FAR MORE pollutants than just CO2.

    HAHAHAHA... you guys are such a fucking joke. FIVE. Kyoto regulates FIVE more pollutants than just CO2.

    Hey, here's the actual text of the Kyoto protocol. Why don't you read that and tell me what the world's #2 polluter's reduction commitment is.

    --
    Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
    Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
  79. I still believe there is a link by andersh · · Score: 1

    For exactly those reasons I said I believe, the community of scientists that claim, there IS a link. It will always be a battle of experts on the matter - hard to claim absolute truths, of course. However I must say your man does not make a good impression. He doesn't come off as objective at all, why should I believe this "expert" over any other?

    To me it seems the world is experiencing more disasters now then it used to (from what I've read) - it would be prudent to take it seriously and at least try to reduce the damage inflicted on our ecosystem. Even if global warming isn't on the top of your agenda - your children's health should be. It's been proven that children suffer greatly from exposure to pollution - everything from ADHD to allergies. And European laws are far ahead.

    P.S. I'm a conservative and in no way green/socialist. A clean environment is a requirement for a productive society.

  80. Think about it by Mark+of+THE+CITY · · Score: 1

    The launcher was built to deliver an H-bomb to a target, not orbit a satellite or a person. If you build it (relatively) cheap, it's less likely to accomplish its mission. But you can build more cheap launcher/bomb pairs, allowing (a) a successful mission if you have to, and (b) deter opponents with all those missiles.

    It kept the peace during the Cold War, but peace by potlatch is REALLY COSTLY.

    --
    The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton
    1. Re:Think about it by praxis22 · · Score: 1

      Bombs never deterred anyone, never have, never will, that's what MAD was all about. Bombs have never lived up to thier billing. By the time you get around to bombing people you've been at war for a while already.

      Personally I figure an enforced peace is no peace at all. That's just keeping a lid on, with appropriate consequences when the lid comes off. But that's just me :)

      But yes, in two weeks we try/fly agin with a different old missile, and a different third stage. Which will all count for naught if they forget to switch of the second stage again, thus allowing the third to seperate. So it goes.

    2. Re:Think about it by Mark+of+THE+CITY · · Score: 1

      My point, and I do have one*, was that old missile-launching boosters may have compromised quality to cost, more so than launchers for fancy (costly) satellites or human spaceflight.

      --
      The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton
    3. Re:Think about it by praxis22 · · Score: 1

      Allegedly they're going to rebuild it, it'll take two years, but yes I take your point. I think they're using old junk as it means the launch costs less, it's not so much a problem with the rocket so much as the incompetence of the flight engineers. Humans are much more precious cargo. Speaking of which I see the Chinese sent thier second manned mission into orbit :)

  81. Re:Why exempt China and India (and Brazil and ...) by non0score · · Score: 1

    So, what you're saying is that all countries should only have the same emissions of say, England, or some "middle-sized" country. Well, I think that sounds great! The people in the US better stop driving their gas-guzzling SUVs soon because the US is probably top 5 in the world's population...and I'm sure they're a long way from reducing their emission to the level of that of England. But sarcasm aside, this clearly doesn't work...so maybe a hybrid verson based on a constant factor plus a multiple per capita times land area will work best.

  82. Update - urgent news by andersh · · Score: 1

    Obviously you don't know that Russia is now a democratic nation - far more so than the US!
    Why should I care what you spent here? We're not responsible for your spending after all.
    You really should look at the map again, why else would I suggest Russia? It's close to Europe in every aspect - in politics, culture and race. Why should we align ourselves with the extreme right wing nuts of the US Republican party? No, thank you. We're not inclined to believe in "intelligent design" and we don't fear sex. You my friend have a very "sick" country to deal with. What Europe needs is a strong partner (militarily) who agrees with us - Russia in other words.. (and not the US).

    If you don't agree, don't move to Europe. And why should you care/meddle in our affairs anyway? I don't care that you "saved" France or any other European country. You didn't do it alone, the US didn't even enter the war till it was raging and the Germans had their hands full with Russians and Brits! We don't owe you anything!