Slashdot Mirror


Expensive U.S. Spy Satellite Not Working

Penguinshit writes to mention a Reuters article about some trouble the U.S. is having communicating with a spy satellite. The sensor package was launched last year by the U.S. National Reconnaissance Office, and is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. It has apparently hung in a low orbit for months now, and efforts to communicate with it have been unsuccessful. From the article: "The official said the problems were substantial and involved multiple systems, adding that U.S. officials were working to reestablish contact with the satellite because of the importance of the new technology it was meant to test and demonstrate. The other source said the satellite had been described to him as 'a comprehensive failure.' There was no suggestion by either of the sources that the satellite had been purposely damaged as part of a terrorist attack. Another government official said he had no information about any attacks on U.S. satellites."

251 comments

  1. The problem... by It+doesn't+come+easy · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Windows has encountered an error from which it cannot recover and needs to restart. Please press any key to continue..."

    --
    The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
    1. Re:The problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BSOD!

    2. Re:The problem... by kfg · · Score: 5, Funny

      An emergency shuttle mission is already being scheduled to deal with the problem. It will be a failure, however, when the astronaut discovers that he cannot find the Any key.

      KFG

    3. Re:The problem... by Arthur+Dent+'99 · · Score: 0

      Well, they can make a quick run to OfficeMax and buy the Any key (along with a "Panic" button and an "Eject" button, which could also prove useful).

    4. Re:The problem... by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      If you've ever seen the results of most government custom-written software projects, you'd be more surprised that the software for ANY satellite works at the time the satellite launches (as opposed to seven years, three more projects and 275 million dollars later), not that this one failed.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    5. Re:The problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's an "Easy" button you insensitive clod!!!

    6. Re:The problem... by vought · · Score: 2, Funny

      They probably let Halliburton write the bootstrap code...

    7. Re:The problem... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wouldn't it be simpler just to go to Staples and buy an Easy button?

    8. Re:The problem... by bendodge · · Score: 0

      Next time, change BV_UseBVCookie=yes to BV_UseBVCookie=no, and other people can use the link.

      http://www.officemax.com/max/solutions/product/pro dBlock.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=no&expansionOID=-1610650 957&prodBlockOID=1611493001

      --
      The government can't save you.
  2. Opps... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Funny

    So that's what my DIY laser cannon shot down... I was worried that I built it wrong.

  3. Dam conversions by VEGETA_GT · · Score: 3, Funny

    Bet ya this is a case of converting form Imperial to Metric again. Guess the military never got NASA's memo :P

    1. Re:Dam conversions by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1
      Guess the military never got NASA's memo

      Oh, they got the memo. Halfway through development in Imperial units. Whoops. :P
    2. Re:Dam conversions by bobcat7677 · · Score: 1

      Whew...had me worried there for a minute. I initially read that as "Halfway through development OF Imperial units. I don't want the military developing Imperial units. Then we will have to develop rebel units and the whole universe gets crappy.

    3. Re:Dam conversions by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

      Though I'm pretty sure either way if rebel and imperial units were to meet on a field of battle, the commanders would walk to the middle, shake hands and agree to shoot the gungans first.

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
  4. Terrorism? by despe666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If another country launched a spy satellite and the US destroyed it, it wouldn't be terrorism, it would be self-defense. Why would it be any different the other way around?

    1. Re:Terrorism? by jfengel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd be hard pressed to call it "terrorism" in either case. Most definitions of "terrorism" that I'm aware of describe attacks against civilian rather than military targets, whose goal is to cause more harm than the actual physical damage by provoking fear.

      In this case it could conceivably be that a terrorist organization also sabotaged a military target, but that would not be an act of terrorism in and of itself. That's more like conventional espionage. The military knows that it is a target and is capable of responding, and so it's generally considered a valid target. The world gives a kind of grudging acceptance of your right to do it.

      The third general requirement of terrorism, as compared to a valid military attack, is that the enemy hides itself. If the US takes out somebody's spy satellite, you know where the US is if you want to engage in a military response. Al Qaeda doesn't have such a place. This isn't just a playing semantics; it goes back to the civilian/military distinction. When a true terrorist organization attacks the US, civilians nominally on their own side die when the US counterattacks. By contrast, to attack the US there are valid targets.

      (This gets a bit murky in espionage, where you do hide among the civilians, and that's the closest the US comes to true terrorism, at least for its avowed activities. We can discuss the various covert CIA activities later, but there's so much misinformation that it's hard to know what's real and what's paranoia.)

      Terrorism comes much closer to Clausewitz's "total war". Why should any opponent restrict itself to "valid" military targets and make itself known to counterattacks? No reason, except that the end of "total war" is always the complete destruction of one side: if you engage in it you're putting lives at risk out of proportion to your goals. That will earn the world's opprobrium, and perhaps that opprobrium will increase the chance of your defeat, but beyond that it's your choice.

    2. Re:Terrorism? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I agree.

      Terrorists = those who attack on civilians to induce terror (presumably to induce civilians some kind of change driven by the civilians).

      Resistance, Insurgents, Freedom fighters = those who attack military and government units (not 5 year olds).

      Nihilists = those who attack civilians really just because they like death and destruction and not because they have any particular goal of any kind in mind.

      "Total War" is not really terrorism. You are not trying to induce a civilian population attitude change- you have decided to kill everyone on the other side.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    3. Re:Terrorism? by kfg · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The military knows that it is a target and is capable of responding, and so it's generally considered a valid target. The world gives a kind of grudging acceptance of your right to do it.

      Tell it to the people talking about the U.S.S. Cole.

      Terrorism comes much closer to Clausewitz's "total war".

      Beware of leaving your opponant without options.

      KFG

    4. Re:Terrorism? by inviolet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well said.

      This issue was illustrated nicely (and horribly) in the Vietnam war. When the Vietnamese resorted to "total war" tactics, like putting bombs in picnic baskets carried by young girls, it changed the necessary response from their enemy. Their enemy (the US) now had to consider all civilians as potential combatants -- eventually, as likely combatants. Voila, you get Mai Lai and other unpleasantness.

      American civilians back home condemned the attacks on civilians, but only because they didn't understand the aforementioned. They still don't.

      Meanwhile, American soldiers suffered abnormal psychological harm because their survival required them to begin killing 'civilians', including women and children. It ended poorly for everyone, although I suppose the VC regard it as a triumphant "peoples' uprising" or some such euphemism.

      al-Quaida and al-Aqsah and their ilk are skipping down the same path, by hiding in and among civilians. Normally this would necessitate flattening whole neighborhoods in which they've got their caches and arty hidden, so let us praise the US military for the expensive restraint it is showing in this situation. Historically, it is utterly unprecedented.

      But only the affected civilians can stop it. There's a great quote from Gen. Robert E. Lee about this. While conquering the South, he burned many farms and homesteads as he went. An old woman appealed him to spare her farm. He replied (more or less) "Ma'am, I can't stop this war. Only you can. But you won't until you feel the real cost."

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    5. Re:Terrorism? by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 4, Informative

      Lee conquering the south?

      I know that most US schools aren't big on teaching history any more unless it can somehow be related to a teacher's pet cause, but hopefully your comment is just a typo and you really meant something like Sherman's march to the sea.

      Just in case it isn't clear, Lee led the Southern Armies in the Civil War, he didn't conquer the South.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    6. Re:Terrorism? by Brummund · · Score: 5, Informative

      First of all, it is My Lai. Second, the massacre was in 1968. Third, the massacre was not done in a an attack on the village, it was done AFTER an initial attack on the village, where the US soldiers had full control of it.

      Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre for more details.

    7. Re:Terrorism? by colman77 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why does this even mention terrorism? Go back and read that again. "There was no suggestion by either of the sources that the satellite had been purposely damaged as part of a terrorist attack." Duh. Last time I checked, spy satellites were not exactly high-profile ordeals, making them less-than-desirable targets for any kind of terrorist. So then WHY include that sentence? Power of suggestion? Keep terrorism in our collective consciousness? Why is it there?

    8. Re:Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Definitions are simple, those opposed to freedom and democracy are terrorists and therefore, evil.

      Ok so republicans are evil. The patriot act takes away freedom. The phone spying program takes away freedom. And yes, i once considered myself a republican prior to the shift that occurred around 9/11 where moderates are now considered democrats. Every day I have shame for voting for the president during his first election.

    9. Re:Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If another country launched a spy satellite and the US destroyed it, it wouldn't be terrorism, it would be self-defense. Why would it be any different the other way around? Considering a reconnaissance satellite is not an offensive military weapon, then it would not be "self defense" unless the US was already at war with that country. Then it would be right to call it self defense because there is a presumption that it would be used to help coordinate military attacks and such. Either way it is clearly a military target and not a civilian one, so no attack against it should be termed "terrorist" or "terrorism". Even if Osama Bin Laden, himself, climbed up a 100 mile long carbon nanotubule rope and started whacking at it with hammer, then it should not be considered a terrorist attack, you could maybe call it an "attack by a terrorist", but for correctness it should not be called a "terrorist attack".

    10. Re:Terrorism? by jagspecx · · Score: 1

      The interesting thing here is the statement in TFA:

      There was no suggestion by either of the sources that the satellite had been purposely damaged as part of a terrorist attack. Another government official said he had no information about any attacks on U.S. satellites.

      This reminds me of Wag the Dog where De Niro's character "leaks" to the press that "the President's stay in China has nothing to do with the B3 bomber" (or something to that effect) to try and create a media frenzy around something that doesn't exist.

      Playing into terrorism hysteria much, Reuters?

    11. Re:Terrorism? by WhyDoYouWantToKnow · · Score: 1

      Definitions are simple, those opposed to freedom and democracy are terrorists and therefore, evil.

      Please explain something to me, who's definitions? Are you to be the arbiter of all things free and democratic? What if I disagree with what you decide is free and democratic? Am I now a terrorist and therefore evil?

      --
      "Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex. I could pinch them."
      Marvin the Martian
    12. Re:Terrorism? by chord.wav · · Score: 1

      We good, they bad.
      Is that simple in the current administration's mind

    13. Re:Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one "conquered" the South, esp. not R. E. Lee. The South simply quit fighting and went home.

    14. Re:Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I take it you missed the sarcastic tone of the GP?

    15. Re:Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love how there's a problem with a US satellite and someone starts yelling "Terrorism!"

      Oh noes, my car won't start! Terrorism! The key to my house broke in the lock! Terrorism! The milk's gone bad! Terrorism!

    16. Re:Terrorism? by jackbird · · Score: 1
      ...to the smoldering ruins of Atlanta, after a brief stop in Apomattox to formally surrender.

      Just because the Union army didn't occupy all of the south doesn't mean they weren't conquered.

    17. Re:Terrorism? by nietsch · · Score: 4, Insightful

      American civilians back home condemned the attacks on civilians, but only because they didn't understand the aforementioned. They still don't.


      Meanwhile, American soldiers suffered abnormal psychological harm because their survival required them to begin killing 'civilians', including women and children. It ended poorly for everyone, although I suppose the VC regard it as a triumphant "peoples' uprising" or some such euphemism.


      Well, it is not only the former vietcong that regards 'vietnam' as a major defeat for the US, and thus a bloody victory for Vietnam, the whole world (minus the US-minority) does so. As for understanding for attacks on civilians: none is ever justified. Not then in Vietnam, not now in Iraq. Killing people is always wrong, but killing innocents is even worse. What part of 'thou shalt not kill' do you not understand?

      --
      This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
    18. Re:Terrorism? by hador_nyc · · Score: 1
      If another country launched a spy satellite and the US destroyed it, it wouldn't be terrorism, it would be self-defense. Why would it be any different the other way around?
      I disagree. I'd call it an act of war. Terrorism is more about blowing up civilians and such assets. Attacking military assets, or personnel, is more an act of war. It's only terrorism when attacking government or military assets when the attacker is not sponsored by a state.
      --
      - Mike
      Once you've lost your temper, you've lost the argument - Me
    19. Re:Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, they were conquered until 1877. When reconstruction ended, enforced equality for Blacks went with it, ushering in roughly 100 years of "Jim Crow". This is why you hear things like "first black congressman since reconstruction".

    20. Re:Terrorism? by goldragon · · Score: 1

      Dude, this is Slashdot. You're not allowed to make thoughtful, informative posts. Especially, with correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation. So not cool...

    21. Re:Terrorism? by WhyDoYouWantToKnow · · Score: 1

      Shucks, was that sarcasm? And here I though he/she was making a commentary on the current state of political affairs in the US. You know, that whole mentality "you're either with us or unpatriotic".

      --
      "Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex. I could pinch them."
      Marvin the Martian
    22. Re:Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay given that definition (which is pretty close to the official definition) the following items were terrorism:

      The 9/11 plane that flew into the Pentagon
      The 9/11 plane that was brough down in PA (reportedly it was headed to the NSA)
      The US Cole

    23. Re:Terrorism? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      That doesn't follow.

      9/11 into WTC- Terrorism with military aspects (damage economy of enemy)..
      For example:
      If they had flown a 9/11 plane into some random apartment building in NYC that would have been a purely terroristic attack.

      9/11 into Pentegon- military attack with civilian casualties/terrorist elements.

      9/11 into NSA- again a legitimate military target with the same elements.
      Note: I thought this one was targeted for the capital building.

      The US Cole- Purely military without even terrorist implications.

      ---

      They could have avoided the terroristic implications by using cargo planes instead of passenger planes. However, the passenger planes were more plentiful and their schedules and likely fuel capacities were better known.

      ---

      The US has launched similar attacks against countries it was at war with that had large civilian casualities as a side effect (breaking dams for example) but they were not terrorist attacks. On the other hand, the firebombing of Dresden was pretty much a terrorism or a "total war" attack by the US (we are no longer going to pull any punches until your side gives up).

      ---
      To be honest in 20/20 hindsite they were a bit stupid. They could have attacked capital hill and taken out a lot of sitting congressmen, senators, and staff from all two branches of government and had more impact than the targets that they chose to hit. Of course, it was also stupid in that a lot of us who were neutral on the subject made permanent decisions based on seeing 7 year olds dancing in the streets happy that random people were dying. 9/11 marks the day that I came to the grim conclusion that the only way out of this in the end is total war followed by appropriate education of the youth so they don't grow up wanting to kill us because we are not human.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    24. Re:Terrorism? by Tired+and+Emotional · · Score: 1
      I think you missed the point entirely. Presuambly given the care with which they phrased the statement, they have evidence that it was damaged by a deliberate non-terrorist attack.

      This means that they still accept that when foreign entities act to protect their own interests they are not automatically terrorists. Given some of the foreign policy that has been coming out of this administration you could be forgiven for being surprized by this.

      --
      Squirrel!
    25. Re:Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What part of 'thou shalt not kill' do you not understand? The part where it came from someone's imaginary friend!
    26. Re:Terrorism? by dlt074 · · Score: 1

      "Killing people is always wrong, but killing innocents is even worse. What part of 'thou shalt not kill' do you not understand?"

      it's thou shalt not murder... there was a problem with the translation some where. if we're not supposed to kill then how come God set it up so that we HAVE to kill life everyday to live?

      murdering people is always wrong, killing people isn't. sometimes people just need killing, simple as that. you can kill people in war, self defense or the defense of others. civilians can be killed when they pose a threat(have gun, have bomb, are aiding a threat).

      it's people who believe that nothing is worth killing for that cause needless pain, suffering and death of far to many innocent people that don't need to.

    27. Re:Terrorism? by sp3d2orbit · · Score: 1

      Irrellavant. That hasn't happened.

    28. Re:Terrorism? by sp3d2orbit · · Score: 1

      My god, sir. I actually have a tingly feeling in my spine. I never expected to read something so coherent, reasonable, and well thought-out here on Slashdot (when it comes to criticizing the US, that is).

      My friend got back from Iraq a few months ago after serving as a military engineer for the last year. He was lucky enough to meet a girl and is bringing her back to the US this month. Both my friend and his soon-to-be wife blame everything bad in Iraq on the United States. We argued about it for a while until I realized something. Of the three of us (me a US citizen not in the military, my buddy in the military, and the Iraqi woman) there is only one person with any real control over what goes on it Iraq: the Iraqi. She could have stayed in Iraq (not that I would have), braved the dangers, set a brilliant example by running for local office, or simply tried to convince those around her to be more tolerant. Instead, she's running away and leaving it all behind.

    29. Re:Terrorism? by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Technically Vietnam wasn't a military loss for the US. All the problems surrounding Vietnam were entirely political. From Truman's initial fuck off to the Vietnamese and backing of the french claim, to the eventual pullout. Which wouldn't have been permanent but then Nixon went and tried to fuck around in an election he probably would have won anyway.

    30. Re:Terrorism? by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Well, when there is a constant influx of reinforcements from two religiously hardline countries(Iran and Syria) it pretty hard to hold your own anywhere in Iraq outside of the areas held primarily by the Kurds.

    31. Re:Terrorism? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      Third, the massacre was not done in a an attack on the village, it was done AFTER an initial attack on the village, where the US soldiers had full control of it.

      Which is precisely the OP's point - the soldiers had become desensitized to killing 'civilians' and made paranoid about the presence of 'civilians' by the tactics to the North Vietnamese. (Made worse by the steadily declining discipline and pride of the Vietnam era Army.)
       
      The three factors combined to produce the massacre.
    32. Re:Terrorism? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      Well, it is not only the former vietcong that regards 'vietnam' as a major defeat for the US, and thus a bloody victory for Vietnam, the whole world (minus the US-minority) does so. As for understanding for attacks on civilians: none is ever justified. Not then in Vietnam, not now in Iraq. Killing people is always wrong, but killing innocents is even worse. What part of 'thou shalt not kill' do you not understand?

      What part of 'double standard' do you not understand? Why is the US, which avoids killing civilians during military operations [1], the target of your fury - but terrorists *which deliberately kills civilians* seem to get off scott free?
       
      I suspect your only connection with the biblical adage you quote is that it allows you to express hatred of the US.
       
      [1] Which is not to say it doesn't happen. It does. But, unlike terrorists, the Army does attempt to avoid doing so.
    33. Re:Terrorism? by Brummund · · Score: 1, Troll

      It was 1968, not 1972. Get it?

      And it is only in the US army you can get away with a few years of prison for killing a hundred "gooks." Gz with a great miliary! Be proud!

    34. Re:Terrorism? by foobsr · · Score: 1

      But, unlike terrorists, the Army does attempt to avoid doing so.

      Well, and cluster munitions are a proven means to be successful in doing so.

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    35. Re:Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, when there is a constant influx of reinforcements from two religiously hardline countries(Iran and Syria) it pretty hard to hold your own anywhere in Iraq...

      Given that the USA is setting Iraq up as a democracy and the majority in Iraq are Shia whose natural affiliation is to Iran, I'd say the "constant influx" is the least of the problems. Thanks to the efforts of the brave men and women of the US military, Iraq is already under the control of people whose natural allegiance is to Iran even without any "influx".

      Personally, I think that setting up Iraq and Iran as two Shia dominated sister countries could provide a nice counterbalance to US influence in the region. On the other hand, the Bush administration really doesn't seem to want to be "counterbalanced" so, unless the Bush administration is planning to escalate the Iraq war to a broader war throughout the entire Middle East, I really have to wonder "What is the Bush administration thinking?"

    36. Re:Terrorism? by Original+Replica · · Score: 1

      "Terrorism comes much closer to Clausewitz's "total war". Why should any opponent restrict itself to "valid" military targets and make itself known to counterattacks? No reason, except that the end of "total war" is always the complete destruction of one side: if you engage in it you're putting lives at risk out of proportion to your goals. That will earn the world's opprobrium, and perhaps that opprobrium will increase the chance of your defeat, but beyond that it's your choice."

      Please find a way to explain that idea to these kids.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6244425 .stm really.

      --
      We are all just people.
    37. Re:Terrorism? by phayes · · Score: 1

      You seem to be arguing that in 1968 that soldiers would not yet have been affected by this tactic. Whether it was in 68 or 72 makes no difference because the VC had already been using "civilians" (yes, even children) to approach & kill US soldiers in 1968.

      My own opinion on My Lai is that Medina & Calley should have been hung. Medina gave the orders & Cally followed them.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    38. Re:Terrorism? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      If the satellite is over foreign soil is it really an act of war if the satellite is shot down for trespassing? Is discovering and killing an enemy spy on your soil an act of war?

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    39. Re:Terrorism? by hador_nyc · · Score: 1
      If the satellite is over foreign soil is it really an act of war if the satellite is shot down for trespassing? Is discovering and killing an enemy spy on your soil an act of war?
      Just like the concept of international waters for the ocean, so is space governed by a treaty. The physics of space flight prevent the possibility of putting something into orbit, even geosynchronous, without crossing other nations first. Hence, the treaty allowing all countries access to space above all countries. I don't know the exact altitude that the treaty specifies, but I'll bet it's about 60 miles or so. This is why the US and the USSR never went to war for the hundreds of spy sattelites we both put up over the last few decades
      Granted, considering the treaty also bans weapons in space, attacking a weaponized satellite would likely not be a problem.
      Another point that you seem to be missing is the great value that spying of that nature for preventing war. Think about it, it was a U-2 that proved the Russians had missiles on Cuba. That incident, where the Russians removed their missiles from Cuba, was responsible for the US removing missiles from Turkey; just as close to Russia as Cuba is to the US. Further, there were many men in the American government who believed that there was a "missile gap" with the Russians. Spy planes proved that too was false, preventing an American buildup and first-strike which was talked about. Now I see how a country would be angry about allowing spy planes from another country to fly overhead since a camera could easily be replaced with a nuke, and how would you know the nuke is not there. But, that's much harder to do with a satellite. Further, satellites are easy to see with radars, and thanks again to gravity, they follow predictable orbits. This prevents a lot of the surprises that aircraft can give a defending country.
      So the big point is that a spy on the ground, or a plane in the air, can be a surprise. A satellite can not. They are few, and launches are public information; even if the payload isn't, allowing foreign governments to track it from launch time. It may be a fine distinction, but it is one that is accepted. There are plenty of foreign satellites over all countries used for spying and the like. Even countries that don't have launch capabilities can and do pay those that do to launch satellites for them, or they buy the data from those that do.
      I approve of spying, and I believe that it helps keep the peace; particularly when you know the other guy is as strong as you are, or strong enough to make you hold back your own forces. It's the not knowing of that that often leads to horrible wars.
      --
      - Mike
      Once you've lost your temper, you've lost the argument - Me
    40. Re:Terrorism? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Well, attacking a vessel over international waters is piracy. I wonder what shooting a satellite with a space based weapon would be called?

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    41. Re:Terrorism? by hador_nyc · · Score: 1
      Well, attacking a vessel over international waters is piracy. I wonder what shooting a satellite with a space based weapon would be called?
      That's only true if you are not a government sponsored group. If uniformed military personnel attack a naval vessel at sea or in port; regardless of which country the port is in, it's an act of war. If you are not a uniformed military group, then it's piracy. According to international law, it's all about who does it and why. If the US Navy, via SEALS, a destroyer, or an aircraft, fires on any ship of any foreign nation, military or civilian target, then the US has committed an act of war. If 3 guys from Jersey do it, say three guys like me who want a PS3, so we try to rip off a cargo ship for one even if we use the same tactics as SEALS would, then that's piracy. The difference being that the 3 of us are not members of the US military. The Geneva convention states that to be not considered a terrorist or a pirate, you must wear some identifying clothing to separate you from the general public; a red bandanna would be enough; ironically, gang colors do meet the criteria.
      Shooting anything with a spaced based weapon would be a violation of international law, since simply putting the weapon in space is the violation. That's why the US, China, Russia, and probably several other nations have ground, sea, and air based weapons to destroy satellites.
      I don't think you know as much as you think you do about these things.
      --
      - Mike
      Once you've lost your temper, you've lost the argument - Me
    42. Re:Terrorism? by nietsch · · Score: 1

      Please exlain what double standard you are talking about? Why should pointing out that the US lost that war and stating that any killing of humans be somehow 'letting the terrorists of scott-free'?
      Does your US-fanboiship make you see things that are not there?

      --
      This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
  5. Awesome... by theGil · · Score: 0

    Good to see our tax dollars hard at work.

  6. WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, because terrorists who make explosives and strap them to themselves have billion-dollar weaponry to shoot satellites out of orbit. Sheesh. Get a clue.

    1. Re:WTF by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      Yes, because terrorists who make explosives and strap them to themselves have billion-dollar weaponry to shoot satellites out of orbit. Sheesh. Get a clue.

      Nah, I'd just infiltrate someone into the programming team and make sure that the satellite's antennas stay turned away from the Earth and the solar panels' angle isn't optimal. There are many ways to sabotage such a complex system...

      -b.

    2. Re:WTF by arootbeer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know, I have one simple request. And that is to have sharks^H^H^H^H^H^Hterrorists with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads!

    3. Re:WTF by kfg · · Score: 1

      But just think of the mass hysteria that would prevail by causing a spy satellite's radio to break down.

      I know I feel safer already. Oh, wait. . .

      KFG

    4. Re:WTF by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      Yeah, because some idiot like you could "just infiltrate someone into the programming team" for a secret military satellite project.

      Moles have existed in the highest levels of government. What makes you think that something like that is (in theory) impossible. I'm not saying *I* would, BTW - I'm saying that it would be the easiest way for a terrorist organization to sabotage a satellite.

      -b.

    5. Re:WTF by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      How do we know? There was no suggestion that sharks with laserbeams on their head were involved, either.. you never know...

    6. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because terrorists who make explosives and strap them to themselves have billion-dollar weaponry to shoot satellites out of orbit. Sheesh. Get a clue.

      yeah, because hackers have billion-dollar equipment to cripple large networks?

      you're a moron.

      why is it that every jackoff who wants to berate the government tries to make it seem that the terrorist "front" out there is riding around on camels with ak-47s that they got from the soviets and things like computers and bio weapons are a concept that they could never understand?

    7. Re:WTF by denbesten · · Score: 2, Interesting
      There are many ways to sabotage such a complex system...

      Complexity itself is likely the biggest cause of the problem. No sabotage needed. Although complexity (somewhat) needs to be part of the normal operation, there should be non-complex survival modes that kick in when things start to go wrong, such as:

      • A low battery could trigger a spring loaded mechanism that opened one solar panel. Then move the panel around semi-randomly until charging begins. Once there is enough charge, smarter (i.e. more complex) aiming circuitry could be turned on.
      • Loss of communications from mother earth for a few weeks could trigger a mechanism which points the antenna directly towards the strongest source of gravity, so that we could get a communication airplane under it.
      There are likely these sorts of gizmos already, but one really needs to consider why they fail and how they could be made simpler to eliminate the failure cause.

      Incidentally, this doesn't just apply to satellites. Lots of things have (or should have self-preservation built in). My camera, for example, retracts and covers its lens when the battery gets low, so that it does not get hurt when I throw it back in my pocket. All it requires is a bit of forethought and contingency planning on the part of the designers.

    8. Re:WTF by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      True, but all of those moles have had a MAJOR spy organization behind them. I'm pretty sure there have yet to be any terrorist moles at such high levels yet.

  7. Obligatory. by Tackhead · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Nothing to see here... at least not with your security clearance."

  8. If there was no suggestion of something... by Phil246 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    why mention it? Why raise the 'boogeyman' of terrorism for something unrelated to it, other then to reinforce the culture of fear created.

    1. Re:If there was no suggestion of something... by Jonathan_S · · Score: 3, Funny
      "There was no suggestion by either of the sources that the satellite had been purposely damaged as part of a terrorist attack"
      If there was no suggestion of something... why mention it? Why raise the 'boogeyman' of terrorism for something unrelated to it, other then to reinforce the culture of fear created

      Exactly. I'm sure neither source mentioned that it had been deliberately damaged as part of an extra terrestrial alien attack either, but they didn't mention that.

      Maybe someone should start listing all the other types of attacks that didn't damage the satellite. (Start off with laser wielding shark...)
    2. Re:If there was no suggestion of something... by dedazo · · Score: 1
      (Start off with laser wielding shark...)

      Unfortunately they got to him first.

      --
      Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
    3. Re:If there was no suggestion of something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To bring attention to it. What better place to hide something than in plain site. If it's "broken," you don't have to worry about it. /Pay no attention to the cop with the "broken" radar gun.

    4. Re:If there was no suggestion of something... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1
      Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

      With that in mind, it's clear that the only thing that will effectively protect us from the possibility that terrorists will cause more episodes like this one is to form a new cabinet-level agency: the Department of Offworld Security.

      There's a whole lot of work for them to do. For starters: why are gels and liquids still allowed in rocket payloads? Maybe this satellite was destroyed by gels and liquids, maybe it wasn't. But don't we owe it to ourselves to be totally sure that it doesn't happen in the future?

    5. Re:If there was no suggestion of something... by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      It's probably intended as irony. Attacking military targets defies the very definition of terrorism.

      Unless "terrorist" is now just a synonym for "enemy."

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    6. Re:If there was no suggestion of something... by 6ame633k · · Score: 1

      (Start off with laser wielding shark...) .....how about ill-tempered mutated sea bass?

      --
      You had me at merlot
    7. Re:If there was no suggestion of something... by bunions · · Score: 1

      Because it's obviously one of the first things to spring to mind for a lot of people?

      --
      there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
    8. Re:If there was no suggestion of something... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Now come on. It's quite possible a terrorist snuck into some of the most secure facilities in the world to tamper with a highly classified military satellite before launch. Even more likely is that the terrorists used their well known orbital capability to tamper with it AFTER launch in ideal conditions -- nobody within three hundred kilometres to witness the act.

    9. Re:If there was no suggestion of something... by RaboKrabekian · · Score: 0, Troll
      why mention it? Why raise the 'boogeyman' of terrorism for something unrelated to it, other then to reinforce the culture of fear created.


      Have you stopped beating your wife?
      --
      "Moderate drinking can help prevent amputated limbs" -- Abigail Zuger, NYTimes, 12/31/02
    10. Re:If there was no suggestion of something... by Phil246 · · Score: 1

      Not married, but thankyou for trolling^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcaring

    11. Re:If there was no suggestion of something... by pluther · · Score: 1
      Because it's obviously one of the first things to spring to mind for a lot of people?

      Even when dealing with satellites??

      When did Al-Qaeda get a freakin' space program??!

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    12. Re:If there was no suggestion of something... by RaboKrabekian · · Score: 1

      You didn't get the joke.

      It's a question that's asked that has no right answer. I was agreeing with.

      Sorry the joke went over your head :)

      --
      "Moderate drinking can help prevent amputated limbs" -- Abigail Zuger, NYTimes, 12/31/02
  9. You've got to be kidding! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Come on now - a terrorist attack? I really think that any reporter or journalist that's gotten to the point of asking if terrorists are involved every time something goes wrong should be fired, or at least whacked with a Clue Stick and put on probation or something.

    "Huh. This turkey sandwich I got from the commissary is a little dry today..."
    "Really? Do you think it could be some kind of terrorist attack on Lunchtime?!"

    Absurd.

    1. Re:You've got to be kidding! by jo42 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the Taliban has been flinging rocks into orbit using extra large slingshots from just inside the Afganistan/Pakistan border hoping to take that sucker out...

    2. Re:You've got to be kidding! by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      Wasn't there something about the Iraqi Supergun?

      from the link one of its key objectives:

      As an anti-satellite weapon. It would launch a special shell in space that would explode near the target satellite, covering it with sticky material and blinding it.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    3. Re:You've got to be kidding! by chris_eineke · · Score: 1

      No no no!

      It's a terrorist attack on your bowels! And rightly so. A turkey sandwich without delicious gravy is like a dry fart in the Sahara: not really pleasant.

      --
      "All you have to do is be fragile and grateful. So stay the underdog." Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
    4. Re:You've got to be kidding! by Guru2Newbie · · Score: 1
      As an anti-satellite weapon. It would launch a special shell in space that would explode near the target satellite, covering it with sticky material and blinding it.

      That happened to my girlfriend. That is, if you replace "target satellite" with "girlfriend", and "it" with "her".

  10. Terrorists? Give me a break by RelaxedTension · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If anyone actually did something to kill the satellite, there is a list of countries that I would suspect long before looking at terrorists. Countries like China, Russia, etc., have greater reason, not to mention resources, to damage an orbiting satellite.

    Why is always terrorists that are the culprits when something goes wrong? The nations that used espionage before the "War On Terror" are still there, and still have vested interest in denying the US the ability to spy on them.

    1. Re:Terrorists? Give me a break by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Don't ascribe to malice that which can adequately explained by incompetence.

      In other words, We have met the enemy and he is us.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Terrorists? Give me a break by TheLink · · Score: 1

      "Why is _always_ terrorists that are the culprits when something goes wrong"

      That's because "We have always been at war with Oceania^H^H^H^H^H^H^HTerrorists".

      --
    3. Re:Terrorists? Give me a break by steelfood · · Score: 1

      While external interference would be applicable for a perfectly operational satellite suddenly gone bad without an explanation, Hanlon's Razor probably applies better in this case.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    4. Re:Terrorists? Give me a break by RelaxedTension · · Score: 1

      I agree absolutely, it was almost certainly a mistake, incompetence, or freak accident. That terrorism was mentioned or considered is what riled me up. AK-47's are good weapons, but their range is a bit short.

      China was testing a laser powerful enough to disable satellites not too long ago though...

    5. Re:Terrorists? Give me a break by CODiNE · · Score: 1
      Don't you understand? This is a serious problem!
      Gremlins...

      You got-you gotta watch out for them forgeiners cuz they plant gremlins in their machinery.

      It's the same gremlins that brought down our planes in the big one.
      Kate: [laughing] The big one...
      that's right! World war two.
      Good old WWII.

      Y'know their still shippin them over here. They put em in cars, they put em in yer tv. They put em in stereos and those little radios you stick in your ears. They even put em in watches, they have teeny gremlins for our watches!


      Oh wait, I made some typos... let me start over.

      Terrorists...
      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    6. Re:Terrorists? Give me a break by plopez · · Score: 1

      'All we ever brought back from France was the clap'

      I love that movie:

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101550/

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    7. Re:Terrorists? Give me a break by CODiNE · · Score: 1

      Different movie dude. Gremlins. 1984. Maybe someone quoted it in there? I've never seen Cast a Deadly Spell before. Perhaps a homage.

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087363/

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    8. Re:Terrorists? Give me a break by Mex · · Score: 1

      Yes, but Laughter is the best medicine, and swimming is the best exercise.

      This post is a joke about clichés, I am ready to face the music, I only post these kinds of things once in a blue moon, but don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

    9. Re:Terrorists? Give me a break by plopez · · Score: 1

      Ya, got my wires crossed. It's Friday well after beer-30 and I'm loopy. There is a homage to 'Gremlins' in 'Cast a Deadly Spell' and if you are looking for a rental, I would reccomend it.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    10. Re:Terrorists? Give me a break by phayes · · Score: 1

      The USA has "lost" other satellites in the past. One of the early Keyhole sats was unable to be inserted into it's intended orbit due to a launch failure. It made orbit, but not at all a very suitable one & other problems were announced that caused it to be written off as a failure. As The Soviets knew when their classified sites were to be overflown by our operational spy sats, they would cover up the interesting parts. They didn't do so for the "lost" satellite & we obtained a number of very interesting pictures...

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
  11. Oh Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's okay everybody! No terrorists were involved in this! It's not major news anymore!

  12. terrorists??!? by no+reason+to+be+here · · Score: 5, Insightful

    does anybody else feel that the mention of terrorists in this article is just absofuckinglutely retarded? that anyone, for even an instant, seriously entertained the notion that any terrorist group has both the capacity and wherewithal to take out something in LEO, UNDETECTED, is beyond idiotic.

    we must be living in the bizarro universe.

    1. Re:terrorists??!? by kfg · · Score: 1

      does anybody else feel that the mention of terrorists in this article is just absofuckinglutely retarded?

      Yes.

      KFG

    2. Re:terrorists??!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      does anybody else feel that the mention of terrorists in this article is just absofuckinglutely retarded?

      Given the current state of things I think that the concept of terrorism being a possible cause of problems is fairly high in the public's mind. This is there more for the Joe Sixpacks of the world and not the legitimate intelligence community.

      But also consider that it probably was investigated at some point since cyber-terrorism is a concern. Just because it's not a heavy hitter doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

    3. Re:terrorists??!? by Buran · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      I also need to note that it is completely unremarkable that there has been a failure of a spacecraft. Space is an unforgiving environment, and there have been countless failures of missions, some due to freak happenstance and some due to human error and some due to equipment failure. It's generally dealt with by establishing the cause of the failure, correcting it, and launching a new spacecraft if it's necessary and/or possible.

      - Mars Climate Orbiter: We now have other spacecraft at Mars
      - Mars Polar Lander: Reflying in part as Phoenix lander
      - Mars Global Surveyor: Coding error. Already a new orbiter is at Mars
      - Apollo 13: Damaged equipment. Changes made to future Apollo spacecraft
      - Apollo 1: Design flaws, bad construction. Fixed for future missions.
      - Challenger: Design flaw, bad procedure. Both fixed.
      - Columbia: bad assumptions, bad bureaucracy. Supposedly both fixed.
      - XM 1/2: Design flaw. Fixed, XM 3/4 launched to replace.
      - Other Earth orbiting satellites: In-orbit fixes and/or replacements.
      - Some repairable satellites: Repaired by Space Shuttle crews (i.e. Solar Max)

      This too will be investigated, fixed by software changes if that is applicable, or a new satellite launched if nothing else can do the job and the flaw can't be repaired from the ground (without communications, this is likely to not be possible).

      We lost the ability to repair on-orbit when the Shuttle stopped doing anything other than visiting the ISS. The only reason we are sending a new flight to the HST (9/11/08 is the current target planning date) was public outrage that NASA would let such a vital resource die before it had to be abandoned.

    4. Re:terrorists??!? by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 1

      Well it is big news to business, I am guessing that the company that built it and the company that insured it are a little upset right now.

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
    5. Re:terrorists??!? by Buran · · Score: 1

      Sure. But both know that there is a lot of risk involved. But it's not unusual, as this article seems to try to hint.

      It's like expecting a paper to run an article every time somebody talking on a cell phone rear-ends another driver.

  13. Bugger by thelonestranger · · Score: 1

    Looks like they'll have to send someone up to press Ctrl-Alt-Del.

    --
    To err is human. To forgive is not company policy.
    1. Re:Bugger by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      Nah someone accidentally did 'ifconfig eth0 down' when reconfiguring it. Now they're stuffed unless someone has a serial cable that's a few hundred miles long...

  14. Can't be a terrorist attack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > There was no suggestion by either of the sources that the satellite had been purposely damaged as part of a terrorist attack.

    It is not a terrorist attack for an enemy of the U.S. to disable or destroy a spy satellite, even if the enemy that did may conduct terrorist attacks.

  15. Space Shuttle, CEV, and Failed Sats by AKAImBatman · · Score: 3, Informative

    Anyone remember the pioneering days when real men (and women) weren't afraid to light a giant roman candle under their posteriors? Back in those days, we would have retasked a spaceflight, go and check the sat out, and get it running again. What I woudln't give for that space capability again. ;)

    1. Re:Space Shuttle, CEV, and Failed Sats by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

      While as much as I admire the sentiment, it it almost certainly cheaper to build and launch a new satelite then it is to send someone up to fix this one. The only important issue is that the diagnostic software may not have told us enough about what went wrong in the first place.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    2. Re:Space Shuttle, CEV, and Failed Sats by kfg · · Score: 1

      it almost certainly cheaper to build and launch a new satelite

      Ice Station Zebra.

      KFG

    3. Re:Space Shuttle, CEV, and Failed Sats by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Informative
      it it almost certainly cheaper to build and launch a new satelite then it is to send someone up to fix this one.

      At "hundreds of millions of dollars", I'd say it's a toss-up given the Shuttle's current launch cost of $450 million. If the additional stop to check on the sat doesn't detract significantly from the original mission, then it might even be cost effective. In the Space Shuttle's more nominal cost per launch days, it would have been much cheaper to go have a looksee. (Like was done with the Hubble.) There's also the consideration of whether the expense to get the existing sat up and running NOW is worth the cost over waiting five years for a replacement to be launched.

      The CEV's simpler design will almost certainly be cheaper than launching new spy sats.
    4. Re:Space Shuttle, CEV, and Failed Sats by peragrin · · Score: 1

      The Next shuttle launch should include a flight plan that after working on ISS to go get the satellites and return it to earth. That is what the shuttle is supposed to be for, and wouldn't cost a whole lot more since the shuttle is in orbit anyways.

      But knowing NASA the shuttle won't have enough maneuvering fuel to complete the task.

      The Shuttle was designed to retrieve satellites, and conduct space based repairs. It's why the Shuttle is being used to build ISS and not progress style capsules. Russia can't do things like retrieve the hubble so it could be put on display on the Smithsonian. The Shuttle could, but never will.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    5. Re:Space Shuttle, CEV, and Failed Sats by BillX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      On the other hand, these *real* men and women had lofty goals of exploring strange new worlds and furthering the human base of scientific knowledge. They might be less than receptive to the idea of risking their asses to run up and hit the reset switch on a bricked piece of spy equipment. :-)

      --
      Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
    6. Re:Space Shuttle, CEV, and Failed Sats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The shuttle can only go to one general orbital path on a flight. It has NEVER EVER been able to make a major orbit change once it's up there. That's why they cant go the the ISS after getting Hubble.

    7. Re:Space Shuttle, CEV, and Failed Sats by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Touché

    8. Re:Space Shuttle, CEV, and Failed Sats by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      No, it isn't a toss-up. That price tag includes the enormous R&D costs. Making an n+1 copy of the satellite will be far cheaper. Further, they may even have a partial copy of the satellite hardware already built, on earth, in order to do diagnostics or for prototyping purposes.

    9. Re:Space Shuttle, CEV, and Failed Sats by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1
      That price tag includes the enormous R&D costs. Making an n+1 copy of the satellite will be far cheaper.

      Only if the platform is standardized. If it was specialized equipment, then there's a huge cost in pulling the team back together to develop, test, and deploy a new unit. Especially since they didn't know what caused it to fail the first time around. So the savings of making an N+1 copy may not be as significant as one might think.
    10. Re:Space Shuttle, CEV, and Failed Sats by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Funny

      Making an n+1 copy of the satellite will be far cheaper.

            Not necessarily, because this time they have to make one that WORKS.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    11. Re:Space Shuttle, CEV, and Failed Sats by cnettel · · Score: 1

      So, what should the shuttle crew do? Live debugging in space? Bring it back down with them, for you to assemble those teams anyway to at least do the needed debugging. The fact that the reason is unknown (if we assume it really is totally unknown) makes any use of either the existing physical satellite or physcal design complicated, but still possibly cheaper than starting anew with a blank sheet and just hoping to get it right.

    12. Re:Space Shuttle, CEV, and Failed Sats by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1
      So, what should the shuttle crew do? Live debugging in space?

      To a certain degree, yes. Assuming there is no physical damage to the sat (which can only be confirmed by visual inspection at this point) they could use physical access to ensure that the sat is powered, operating, and pointing in the right direction. If they can manually coax it for a while, the ground crew can look at the logs and figure out exactly what went wrong. Then a patch could be uploaded to either figure out the problem or compensate for it.

      It's not like this is rocket science or anything.

      Err...
    13. Re:Space Shuttle, CEV, and Failed Sats by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      Anyone remember the pioneering days when real men (and women) weren't afraid to light a giant roman candle under their posteriors? Back in those days, we would have retasked a spaceflight, go and check the sat out, and get it running again.

      How can someone remember something that never happened? The Shuttle missions that rescued satellites were exceptions - not the rule.
    14. Re:Space Shuttle, CEV, and Failed Sats by icebrain · · Score: 1

      "The Next shuttle launch should include a flight plan that after working on ISS to go get the satellites and return it to earth. That is what the shuttle is supposed to be for, and wouldn't cost a whole lot more since the shuttle is in orbit anyways.

      But knowing NASA the shuttle won't have enough maneuvering fuel to complete the task."

      It's a limitation of physics, not poor planning. Since the satellite launched from Vandenberg, its orbital inclination is going to be significantly different than that of the shuttle/ISS (90 degrees or so, vs 51.6). Plane changes in LEO are expensive fuel-wise; I don't feel like running the calculation right now, but I'd hazard a guess that the required delta-V is somewhere around 40-50% of orbital velocity. It's the same kind of thing as when people were asking why the shuttle couldn't go to ISS if there was a problem while working on hubble. The delta-V came out to something over 6000m/s, and that would have basically required most of an all-up stack (tank and boosters as well) to do. In this case, if you really wanted to get to said satellite, you would have to launch from the old SLC-6 pad, also at Vandenberg. Of course, this has now been converted to launch one of the EELVs. So, not gonna happen. You can't just point at things in space and say "go there!"

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    15. Re:Space Shuttle, CEV, and Failed Sats by peragrin · · Score: 1

      Your math says otherwise, it just requires more fuel than the shuttle carries. That more than anything should be an example of why we need better engine technology. use larger boosters to get into orbit, and then some other tech to push the shuttle around. Chemical engines are just to expensive fuel wise.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  16. Good timing by otacon · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I wonder if the US will try to pin it on India since they just started going into space, either that or some Russians threw some Rubels at it. I'm sure they come up with something riduclous regardless.

    --
    In a world of acronyms, the words are the real victims.
  17. Nah, it just got stuck by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Some spooks were using the bird to zoom into those nude beaches and the camera got stuck, (or that is what they are telling their bosses) and so they pretend there is a communication problem.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  18. Space Cowboys by Non-CleverNickName · · Score: 1

    Well, now is the time to send up some more Space Cowboys to repair it. Clint Eastwood shouldn't be to busy right now...

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it but this one is mine.
  19. NMCI by Chayak · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is what happens when you outsource your communications to EDS and NMCI "What do you mean by 'I forgot to turn it on...'!?!"

  20. The terror! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that terrorism was, by nature, designed to instill fear in the general population (that's kinda why they call it terrorism). Messing with a spy satellite strikes me as a difficult and complicated endeavor that fails to inspire any terror in anyone not actively employed by an intelligence agency. So, kudos to the reporters for pointing out the very, very obvious. Is there also no evidence that the satellite is actually orbiting Jupiter?

  21. Popcorn from above by blurker · · Score: 1

    Maybe someone should check Professor Hathaway's house. Those crazy college kids might have swapped a chip again... "...everybody wants to rule the world..."

  22. Your Tax Dollars at Work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yessiree, cost plus system of defense contracting is the way to do business!

  23. LETS GIVE UP ALL FREEDOMS IN THE NAME OF TERROR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LETS JUSTIFY EVERYTHING IN THE NAME OF TERROR!!

    Important Stuff
    Please try to keep posts on topic.
    Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
    Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
    Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
    Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
    If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.
    Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to CowboyNeal.

    1. Re:LETS GIVE UP ALL FREEDOMS IN THE NAME OF TERROR by ameyer17 · · Score: 1

      Terrorism isn't that big of a threat. It's a lot more likely that someone you live with will kill you than a terrorist.

  24. phew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a good thing it's not supposed to gather any usefull data.

  25. While we're at it... by derubergeek · · Score: 1

    "There was no suggestion that the system had been infected by the GOOD TIMES virus, which is known to cause computers to get caught in an Nth complexity, infinite loop and overheat. Independent sources were also unable to verify whether the GOOD TIMES virus was involved."

    --
    Trust me. This is an inactive account. Regardless of what the /. bean counters might report.
  26. Space junk or meteorite? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
    There are plenty of objects in Earth orbit that are able to damage a satellite. The cause doesn't have to be sabotage or human error. Shit Sometimes Happens...

    -b.

  27. It's a spy satellite by Sciros · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't it be disavowed like any self-respectable spy? If you lose James Bond, he never existed, right?

    --
    I like basketball!!1!
    1. Re:It's a spy satellite by MyHair · · Score: 1

      Kind of silly since every villian I've seen in a Bond movie has a computer screen full of info on 007 complete with photo and personality quirks. Kind of hard to disavow him if they already know who he is.

    2. Re:It's a spy satellite by novocode · · Score: 1

      I would love to see the headline for that one... "Non-existant Satellite kills homeowner" (if/when the satellite loses orbit)

  28. The greatest trick by MyOtherUIDis3digits · · Score: 1

    I read once that the greatest trick the devil ever performed was convincing people he didn't exist. Then I guess the greatest trick the US government ever performed was convincing people they are inept. I can (and do) use many derogative terms to describe the government, but inept certainly isn't one of them.

    --
    Ignore anything I said above, I actually agree with everything you believe - mod accordingly.
    1. Re:The greatest trick by Guinness+Pig · · Score: 1

      You have obviously never worked for the government.

  29. Is it really broken? by fotbr · · Score: 1

    Or is it just a ploy to get people to not worry about it, thereby making the NRO's job easier by hiding it in plain sight.

  30. Michael Brown Again? by ortcutt · · Score: 2, Funny

    They should have known it was a bad idea to appoint the President of the Arabian Horse Association to be the head of the National Reconnaissance Office.

  31. Pwned by "shadow government" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I must post this anonymously because my superior officers don't want anyone to know that it's functioning 100% as designed, and is in control by the shadow government under GWB's secret executive orders. The design called for a "malfunction" to make it look like it was lost, but really function correctly under command of a hyper-secret base station in Dick Cheney's basement bunker/ops center.

    The primary purpose of this bird is domestic surveillance, as if you didn't already know. GW's biggest enemy is currently those within who would take away the powers he deems necessary to protect us from the evils we cannot fathom.

    I will follow up with a post attached soon to the upcoming post about the constitutional amendment to remove the requirement of being a US-born citizen to run for president, which will allow the governator to become the next president.

  32. Broken, you say? by red_flea · · Score: 1

    Doesn't this seem kind of convenient, given the purpose?

    Terrorist A: What's that spy-satellite looking thing up there that appears to be looking right at us?
    Terrorist B: It actually is a spy satellite, but it's broken. We know because they said so. Continue terrorizing with impunity, my friend.

  33. Nothing special here. by supabeast! · · Score: 1, Interesting

    This is business as usual at the NRO. The NRO is the most pathetic of the US intelligence agencies, and is known for failing more often than not in just about all endeavors. For the NRO, a satellite making it into space at all is a big deal, because NRO projects have a history of dying in the design stage, and there have been other big failures such as a specialized launch vehicle blowing up on the launch pad, taking satellites with it.

    If you're wondering why you've never heard of the NRO before, it's because the government does everything it can to keep the agency under wraps, mostly because it doesn't want the taxpayers to realize how many billions of dollars are flushed down this worthless toilet of a spy agency yearly.

    1. Re:Nothing special here. by Der+Reiseweltmeister · · Score: 1

      The NRO is so closely tied to the CIA that they might as well be part of the CIA. The CIA came to my school to give a talk once, but what they were actually talking about (the CORONA program), was actually NRO work. In my mind the NRO is effectively a branch of the CIA.

      As for why they appear to be such a money-hole, you might consider for a moment what they do. From the wikipedia: "The NRO was established in 1960 to develop the nation's revolutionary satellite reconnaissance systems." Now if you think back to the state of satellite launch systems in 1960, and even today, it was and is risky business. These days when a launch platform manages to successfully launch 10 payloads in a row it's considered an astounding success. ( Look at Boeing's Delta III which failed on its first 2/3 launches).

      The NRO in particular, unlike NASA, launches a lot of relatively low value payloads (nothing alive on board) into LEO which means they are using systems which are less failsafe (and cheaper), than stuff like the Apollo program used. I'm not saying the NRO is an effective government organization, but there may be some reasons for their relatively high failure rate, if you can call it that.

    2. Re:Nothing special here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      he NRO is the most pathetic of the US intelligence agencies, and is known for failing more often than not in just about all endeavors. For the NRO, a satellite making it into space at all is a big deal, because NRO projects have a history of dying in the design stage, and there have been other big failures such as a specialized launch vehicle blowing up on the launch pad, taking satellites with it.


      Riiiiight. And you know this how? Do you have a cite? Are you currently vetted and disclosing classified information? If not, then you likely have no idea as to the ration of screwups to successes. I'm not ex-NRO but I have worked under the auspices of another agency in that area whilst in the military and the maxim holds true: "you only hear about the screwups."

      If you're wondering why you've never heard of the NRO before, it's because the government does everything it can to keep the agency under wraps, mostly because it doesn't want the taxpayers to realize how many billions of dollars are flushed down this worthless toilet of a spy agency yearly.


      You mean the agency that helps my country keep an eye on what's going on with the rest of the planet? Yeah, that's real worthless to us. Say what you will about the war machine but you can never have enough good intel.

      My favorite quote from a Brit when they were looking at going in with the French on some of their programs: "The French don't even know how far behind they are." I'd wager it still holds true. If anything research in this area has probably accelerated.
    3. Re:Nothing special here. by supabeast! · · Score: 1

      Riiiiight. And you know this how?

      I was a civilian contractor to the NRO, with access to the NROs networks and facilities. It's a mess over there.

      You mean the agency that helps my country keep an eye on what's going on with the rest of the planet? Yeah, that's real worthless to us. Say what you will about the war machine but you can never have enough good intel.

      That's exactly the problem with the NRO--incompetence and mismanagement have led to multiple failures of critical projects which limits intelligence gathering. At the beginning of the current Iraq war it was rumored that the CIA was so fed up with NRO failures that it a new agency created with far less autonomy than the NRO has.

    4. Re:Nothing special here. by supabeast! · · Score: 1

      In my mind the NRO is effectively a branch of the CIA.

      The NRO operates under the Director of Central Intelligence, an office almost always held by the director of the CIA. But it is an autonomous agency run by a collection of former military offices and former defense contractors.

    5. Re:Nothing special here. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      If you're wondering why you've never heard of the NRO before, it's because the government does everything it can to keep the agency under wraps, mostly because it doesn't want the taxpayers to realize how many billions of dollars are flushed down this worthless toilet of a spy agency yearly.

      I rather suspect that not knowing about the NRO is a result of a lack of education or sheer ignorance. I've known about them for twenty plus years, without having an intelligence background.
    6. Re:Nothing special here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      Do you have a cite?


      For a good mainstream media examination of just how screwed up the NRO is, check out this article by US News and World Report.
    7. Re:Nothing special here. by Cervantes · · Score: 1

      This is business as usual at the NRO. The NRO is the most pathetic of the US intelligence agencies, and is known for failing more often than not in just about all endeavors. For the NRO, a satellite making it into space at all is a big deal, because NRO projects have a history of dying in the design stage, and there have been other big failures such as a specialized launch vehicle blowing up on the launch pad, taking satellites with it.

      If you're wondering why you've never heard of the NRO before, it's because the government does everything it can to keep the agency under wraps, mostly because it doesn't want the taxpayers to realize how many billions of dollars are flushed down this worthless toilet of a spy agency yearly. So, which do you work for, the CIA, FBI or NSA?
      --
      If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
  34. Complex Missions Cost Money - Period by starfire-1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've said it before and I'll say it again. Building, launching and fly a spacecraft is complex and difficult. But ever since the mid 1990's the industry thinks that cutting costs (which inevitably means cutting late life cycle costs such as operations) can be overcome with automation and hand-waving. The launch vehicle gets the spacecraft off the ground, but then some silly operations error or engineering flaw not uncovered by operations results in a catastrophic failure (e.g. JPL/Mars English vs. Metric debacle). Back in the day - agencies fully funded operations personnel that shook out both procedural and engineering defects ahead of time. Just because an agency doesn't/can't pay for the same level of effort in today's fiscal environment does not mean that these types of defects magically disappear.

    It used to be said that of "Better, faster, cheaper," you could only have two out of three. As time goes on, I wonder if these expectations are too high.

    Space missions have cost overruns for sure, but in my experience those overruns come from unrealistically low bids from major vendors and the fact that these dinosaur companies build spacecraft in pretty much the same way as they always have. They used to run of of money about a year before launch and they still run out of money a year before launch. IMHO, the only way to reduce the frequency of catatrophic failure is for early life cycle vendors to becore more efficient so there are funds for operations to shake out the bugs before it gets up on orbit.

    1. Re:Complex Missions Cost Money - Period by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 1

      But ever since the mid 1990's the industry thinks that cutting costs (which inevitably means cutting late life cycle costs such as operations) can be overcome with automation and hand-waving.

            And this applies to every sizable government software development project since then as well. I know people pooh pooh sizable government software development on general principles, but the software attempting to be replaced were sizable government software development projects that worked.

            But something about the mid-90's on, and I'm not seeing much news of success anymore. I think there's lots of hand waving going on that's not overcoming anything.

        rd

  35. Hmm so ... by Ssbe · · Score: 1

    Our embassies aren't just a front/home base for covert CIA operations.
    The missile defense system doesn't really work.
    The war in Iraq isn't about Oil.
    The government doesn't read your e-mail.
    We do have spy satellites but they don't work.
    Sure! Gotcha!
    Move along nothing to see here.

  36. Not if we jam it! by Kadin2048 · · Score: 2, Funny

    As an anti-satellite weapon. It would launch a special shell in space that would explode near the target satellite, covering it with sticky material and blinding it.

    Who was their defense contractor on that idea? Lone Starr and a certain rotund guy with a tail named Barf?

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    1. Re:Not if we jam it! by MyNymWasTaken · · Score: 1

      It's raspberry, sir.

  37. Say what? by nsayer · · Score: 4, Insightful
    There was no suggestion by either of the sources that the satellite had been purposely damaged as part of a terrorist attack.

    What kind of bullshit fear-mongering is this? There was no suggestion that it was caused by Martian attack or canabalism in the British Navy either. Why not mention that?

    1. Re:Say what? by evilviper · · Score: 4, Funny
      There was no suggestion by either of the sources that the satellite had been purposely damaged as part of a terrorist attack.

      The ice cream scoop fell off my cone and landed in the dirt.

      No terrorist organizations have yet claimed responsibility.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    2. Re:Say what? by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Funny

      or canabalism in the British Navy either.

            There are no cannibals in the British Navy. I ate the last one.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:Say what? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      No terrorist organizations have yet claimed responsibility.

      Don't worry - the government will give you a settlement.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  38. Now what did I do.... by KS1178 · · Score: 1

    with that encryption key?

  39. I'm sure they'll survive. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

    Well it is big news to business, I am guessing that the company that built it and the company that insured it are a little upset right now.

    Why do you think that? They've all been paid; it's the government's (read: your tax dollars) loss, not the manufacturers. The government doesn't generally go to outside insurers for this sort of thing; when an expensive piece of equipment goes on the fritz, they -- by which I mean us -- pretty much just have to eat the cost.

    If anything, the contractor is probably deciding on when it would be polite to just drop into conversation that yes, they still have all the plans for the satellite sitting around somewhere, and no, they're certainly not too busy to crank out another one, for an appropriate price.

    I'm sure some of the engineers and designers that worked on the bird are probably disappointed that it'll never get to perform its function, whatever that was, but when you build spacecraft of any type for a living, you learn to deal with disappointment. It's one of the few things left in this world that still has some real risk to it. You can easily spend 3-5 years (or more) of your life building a satellite, only to have the launch vehicle go off-course during launch, and have the RSO blow all your hard work to smithereens. It comes with the territory.

    Plus, it's not like the people that built it were ever going to know anything about it, if it did work. It would have just disappeared into the very black world of the NRO; I doubt they had much in the way of emotional attachment to it.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  40. Error by SnarfQuest · · Score: 3, Funny

    Keyboard not detected. Press RETURN to continue...

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    1. Re:Error by Shadyman · · Score: 1

      Almost, but not quite! "Keyboard not detected. Press F1 to continue."

  41. Weapons and spy contracts can be mostly secret. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Reading the comments posted above is chilling. Generally, people don't even begin to understand the issues.

    Weapons and spy contracts can be mostly secret. In practice, that means there will be less supervision and much more opportunity to make and sell junk at very high profit. It is very common that an entire project is so poorly designed that it is useless; however, the politics is such that the failures are kept secret. The U.S. government has been corrupted by secrecy and dishonesty.

    Here is my summary of U.S. government corruption: George W. Bush comedy and tragedy. I hope you will write your own summary and send it to friends and government leaders.

  42. OB by billcopc · · Score: 1

    "American technology, Russion technology -- it's all made in Taiwan anyway."

    --
    -Billco, Fnarg.com
  43. Son and mom by Bromskloss · · Score: 1

    Mom: That "jam" thing of yours on the roof is making an awful noise. You take it down, you hear me? You can play with it just as well when it's turned off and inside.
    Tinkering son on the roof, growing up to become your average mad scientist: Mom, it's jamming, not "jam", and it's cool. I think it's actually working. Don't worry, I won't hurt myself on it. *Hehe, I can't wait until I can read about this in the papers. They might think a nuclear war is coming... I hope they start one! Muahaha!*

    --
    Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
  44. Usually works by The+Dobber · · Score: 2, Funny

    A good slap on the side of the cabinet.

      .

  45. Al Quaeda has won the War on Terror by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    When you're seeing bogeymen under every rock you're afraid. Paranoid even.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:Al Quaeda has won the War on Terror by MightyYar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While I agree that we are being to paranoid, I don't think that simply making us paranoid is what Al Quaeda is after. We are not speaking Arabic, converted to Islam, we have not spilled our liquor, and we are not paying a head tax - so no, I don't think that they've won.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:Al Quaeda has won the War on Terror by snarkth · · Score: 1

      If you think of it in terms of psychological warfare, then yes, they have.

        Seeing even the denial of terroristic sabotage in an article about the failure of a US intelligence satellite is just another part of the confirmation...

        I won't even get into how foolish our government (and media, and most citizens) behavior is making us look to the rest of the world...

        Half of winning any war is convincing your enemy that he is more or less helpless against your threat, forcing him to take foolish, insane measures to avoid it... no?

        snarkth

    3. Re:Al Quaeda has won the War on Terror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A tax on head? For shame! Let's get those bastards!

    4. Re:Al Quaeda has won the War on Terror by gsslay · · Score: 1
      We are not speaking Arabic, converted to Islam, we have not spilled our liquor, and we are not paying a head tax - so no, I don't think that they've won.

      What makes you think these are what Al Quaeda want? Because Bush told you?

      I always thought what they wanted was the end to western involvement in Middle Eastern politics and society. But maybe that's just because I like to look beyond what people would like me to believe. The mere mention of terrorism involvement (something that is extremely unlikely in this case) is just symptomatic of current paranoia about it, something that the US Government is quite comfortable with. 50 years ago it would have been Communists. The US Government loves keeping its citizens in a state of fear.

    5. Re:Al Quaeda has won the War on Terror by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Like all loose alliances, Al Quaeda likely has many different goals and ambitions. Some probably wish to destroy Western civilization and replace it with some kind of Islamic order. Some probably just want foreigners out of the Mideast. Others might be looking to secure themselves a spot in Paradise.

      If their goal was to remove us from the Mideast, then they have (so far) failed miserably - they certainly haven't "won". The best one could argue is that they are winning or will eventually win.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  46. I know.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was shot down with one of those .50 Cal guns the Brady Bunch is always yapping about.

  47. Perhaps they'll blame it on Iran... by duplo1 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Given the extent which the US is attempting to provoke Iran into war (including Bush's recent address), would anybody be surprised if this was publically blamed on Iran? With the latest build-up of forces in the Gulf, the raid on a consular office in Iraq, all they need now is a reason (other than WMD crap we've all heard before) to convince the US public. Perhaps this is the beginning.

    Don't be fooled by the 20k troop "surge" that probably won't accomplish much. The real action to come could very well be be on the eastern shores of the Gulf.

  48. How about U? Sick and tired of the terrorist angle by gd23ka · · Score: 1

    Yawn...

    "There was no suggestion by either of the sources that the satellite had been purposely damaged as part of a terrorist attack. Another government official said..."

  49. NRO, NSA, CIA, DHS, etc. by Wilson_6500 · · Score: 1

    Exactly how many intelligence agencies does the United States have?

    1. Re:NRO, NSA, CIA, DHS, etc. by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      Exactly how many intelligence agencies does the United States have?

      And which one is capable of providing accurate information?

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    2. Re:NRO, NSA, CIA, DHS, etc. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Nobody knows. I think there was an intelligence agency set up to try and find out.

      Ironically, the CENTRAL intelligence agency was set up originally to unite intelligence work more or less in one place. Before that each branch of the military had it's own intelligence service.

    3. Re:NRO, NSA, CIA, DHS, etc. by RxScram · · Score: 1

      There are 16 intelligence agencies which officially make up the "U.S. Intelligence Community". There are also a large number of other intelligence agencies for things such as law enforcement, etc.

      http://www.fas.org/irp/official.html
      http://www.intelligence.gov/1-members.shtml

    4. Re:NRO, NSA, CIA, DHS, etc. by Wilson_6500 · · Score: 1

      ...the CENTRAL intelligence agency was set up originally to unite intelligence work more or less in one place.

      Yeah, that's why I included DHS in that list, because I kinda thought they were supposed to coordinate all the intelligence agencies along with whatever other crap they do.

    5. Re:NRO, NSA, CIA, DHS, etc. by vmcto · · Score: 1


      A better question may be how many INTELLIGENT agencies does the US have?

    6. Re:NRO, NSA, CIA, DHS, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no, no!
      That's not a good question at all. You see, that's one of them dangerous ones where you know you're not gonna like the answer.

  50. just a *few* corrections: by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 5, Funny
    An anonymous reader writes to mention a Reuters article about some trouble the U.S. is having communicating with a spy satellite. >The sensor package was launched last year by the U.S. National Reconnaissance Office

    Well, I doubt if NRO launches anything-- they probably sign a check to Martin-Marietta, who coordinates things and rents a pad at Vandenberg.

    >and is worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

    Well, it probably cost hundreds of millions of $. What it's worth, especially in the light of it being unusable, is debatable. Back when CMOS sensor arrays were custom made for $70,000 each the technology was gee-whizzy. Nowdays your basic disposable camera isnt that far behind what's in the current sats.

    >It has apparently hung in a low orbit for months now.

    "Hung"? as in hanging from something? Or hung as in "windows hung on me"?

    >and efforts to communicate with it have been unsuccessful. The official said the problems were substantial and involved multiple systems.

    So it probably had several radio links and none of them seem to be working. That's bad. There's usually at least one last-ditch fail-safe really simple telemetry and command link that doesnt depend on the main power source or antenna aiming. If they can't talk to that thingy, things are mighty grim.

    >adding that U.S. officials

    "Officials"? More likely a bunch of hairy and now sweaty peons.

    >Were working to reestablish contact with the satellite because of the importance of the new technology it was meant to test and demonstrate.

    So they wouldnt bother if it had old technology but cost $200 million?

    >The other source said the satellite had been described to him as 'a comprehensive failure.'

    Well, if you can't talk to it, that's pretty comprehensive.

    1. Re:just a *few* corrections: by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      [said the problems were substantial and involved multiple systems.] So it probably had several radio links and none of them seem to be working. That's bad. There's usually at least one last-ditch fail-safe really simple telemetry and command link that doesnt depend on the main power source or antenna aiming. If they can't talk to that thingy, things are mighty grim.

      Wouldn't multiple area failures imply an explosion of some sort, perhaps by a meteor or space junk? Or perhaps a tank leak that made it spin uncontrollably like the accident that almost killed Armstrong before Apollo. (It probably got him the moon job, since it showed patience under pressure.) In space there is no friction to slow a spin so it can build up huge over time. But antenna's can still send a detectable signal even if spinning; unless perhaps the spinning was so violent that it tore away outer limbs such as antennas.

  51. It's a Trap! by LionKimbro · · Score: 1

    Oh come now; We've all seen Star Wars.

    We all know how this one ends: "Now witness the firepower of this fully ARMED and OPERATIONAL battle station!"

  52. terrorists!!! by buhatkj · · Score: 4, Funny

    heh the very idea that terrorists could possibly do something to a satellite after launch makes me laugh. i mean did it go like this?

    Osama - "OK Zawawhatshisname, show me this big plan you have for taking out the satellites of the great satan?"
    ZAWA - "ok, basically we strap a bomb to young Uday here..."
    Osama - "ok, not bad so far, pretty standard, then what?"
    Zawa - "then we have this big slingshot and...."
    Osama - "whoa whoa waitasec.... are you serious??"
    Zawa - "yeh, well he gets in then we tie the camels to the basket and..."
    Osama - "what somebody cracks the whip and pulls a string c'mon man!! Is this what I pay you for?!?!"
    Zawa - "well, I..."
    Osama - "You're fired..."
    Zawa - "but..."
    Osama - "dude, just...leave...ok?!"

    nah...my spidey sense tell me it was a launch damage f-up or micrometeorite, something normal like that. maybe even a bug, a software glitch like the poor MGS or polar lander (inches, meters, what being difference?!?!? haha!!)

    --
    sometimes, i wonder if i'm the only conservative on teh intarweb. ah well, back to mah hogs and warmongerin'....
    1. Re:terrorists!!! by plopez · · Score: 1

      ZAWA - "ok, basically we strap a bomb to young Uday here..."

      When I read that I immediately imagined a giant slingshot with the word 'ACME' stamped on it. Thanks for the chuckle.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    2. Re:terrorists!!! by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      heh the very idea that terrorists could possibly do something to a satellite after launch makes me laugh.

            Do not underestimate the power of sky-Gods. Allah must have bumped into it.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  53. Hundreds of Millions WASTED! by MyHair · · Score: 1

    Just think of the few dozen extra troops we could've sent to Baghdad instead of wasting money on this piece of space junk! Harumph!

  54. It's so under wraps by wiredog · · Score: 1
  55. purposely damaged as part of a terrorist attack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh no- you damaged our spy satellite!!! I am so terrorized! Those dern terrorists!!

    There is something seriously wrong with our country when the media asks officials if a "terrorist attack" damaged a spy satellite. Terrorism has nothing to do with waring nations or spy warfare. It exhibits complete ignorance or perhaps an orwellian acceptance of propaganda to ask such a question. Every possible attack on America is not a terrorist attack! The Vietnamese were not terrorists. The communist Russians were not terrorists. Nazi Germany was not terrorists. China is not terrorists. There are elements of those countries that might be terrorists, but those elements have never had the capacity or inclination to attack a spy satellite. Terrorists do not play in space. Nor is there any terror value in sabotaging a spy satellite. Terrorists blow themselves up on a crowded street, or crash a plane, or release gases, they do not sabotage satellites.

  56. Civil war facts and confusion by JRHodel · · Score: 1

    I suspect you meant General U. S. Grant, or perhaps Sherman. It was Sherman's March to the Sea through Georgia that actually broke the south's back. The burning of Atlanta in the movie Gone with the Wind was done by Sherman's troops, who cut a burnt swathe 90 miles wide completely through the CSA.

    By contrast, General Robert E Lee was the leader of the CSA troops, in charge of defending the south and attacking the Union.

    --
    Think of the Irony!
  57. Iraqi oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You could say the war is about oil but not necessarily for oil. USA goes in and busts up their shit and the price of oil jumps. In the meantime, that oil is sitting in the ground as the country tears itself to pieces and oil companies get to sell oil at double their value and they got known deposits they can tap later.

    War for oil... heh.

  58. Terrorists in spaaaaaace by l0b0 · · Score: 1

    Seriously, WTF?! Didn't RTFA, but I sure hope nobody's stupid enough to think Al-Qaeda has even an order of magnitude within the resources needed to sabotage a satellite. What were they going to use? Catapulted suicide bombers?

  59. Malice, incompetence or part of the plan by Tired_Blood · · Score: 1
    Don't ascribe to malice that which can adequately explained by incompetence.
    In other words, We have met the enemy and he is us.
    That's a good rule, but it seems odd that there's such a public announcement. Nobody intentionally 'outs' themselves when it comes to spy programs.

    In other words, I'd like to know if it really is unusable. It is in plain sight, so the best approach would be to claim that it's dead. I have no idea if that situation is true here, but the tactic is ancient.

    Additionally, if active, it becomes too easy for other nations to use its existence to denounce the US for its obviously active surveillance. If completely unusable, that option becomes very limited.
    --
    This is not my sig.
  60. What Have Terrorists Got To Do With Spy Sats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why does every little thing now come with an ObReference to "terrorists"? The lightbulb blew in my bathroom today. Ooohh. Perhaps it was "terrorists". My neighbours car didn't start. "Terrorists" for sure. Farmer Giles cow died up? "Terrorists"! There has been precisely one (1) alleged terrorist attack on the US (not counting home grown nutters). And one (1) in London. London suffered 30 years of IRA bombs (American funded via Noraid by the way). One went off less than 100 yards from me once. How come one (1) incident in 2005 required such a profoundly different response, including mass surrender of civil rights? If you morons are so easily led, you deserve everything that comes to you. Including being detained, tortured and put to death because some ignorant political appointee needs to cover up an inability to convert metres to yards. Or some such.

    A sad nutter was recently sentenced to 30 years in prison in the UK, for "planning" to build an atom bomb out of old smoke detectors. If it's that easy, how come the Iranians are making such a big deal out of building one? Or Oppenheimer et. al. for that matter.

    I now live in exile, in a Francophone part of the EU where sanity still prevails. You lot, I will leave to your "terror fear".

  61. Suckers by neoevans · · Score: 2, Funny

    Everytime your government loses or mis-spends $450 Million, then tells you it was spent on some mythical "spy-sattelite" you go and believe them?

    --
    "You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake."...Tyler Durden
  62. I'd say it was broken too by Mr.Sharpy · · Score: 1

    Seeing as how everybody knew this one was going up and the likely placement, I'd say it was dead too. You get to launch ANOTHER spy satellite and have a little extra element of surprise. Do we automatically believe what the intelligence community says?

  63. My left butt cheek... by RingDev · · Score: 4, Funny

    I just wanted to let everyone know that my left butt cheek is fine. Any damage that it may have sustained is not related to any terrorist attack or plot. We must be ever vigilant though, less the terrorist forces do manage to injure my left butt cheek.

    This has been a public service reminder. Remember, be afraid of terrorist, you need us, we keep you safe, you have nothing to fear from an oppressive government unless you are an enemy of the government.

    -Rick

    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    1. Re:My left butt cheek... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I just wanted to let everyone know that my left butt cheek is fine. Any damage that it may have sustained is not related to any terrorist attack or plot. We must be ever vigilant though, less the terrorist forces do manage to injure my left butt cheek."

      Oh, suuuure.

      And what about your right butt cheek? Huh?

      What are you trying to hide from the public!!?? The public has a right to know!

      We demand exposure of this secret immed... okay, on second thought, I'd rather not know.

  64. Insightful? by iamlucky13 · · Score: 1

    How is this insightful? It's idle speculation, at best.

    The underlying assumption is completely baseless. The US has never shot down another country's satellites. We did shoot down one or two of our own in the 80's to test an anti-satellite system that would be used in time of war, but right now multiple other countries operate a variety of spy satellites that fly over the US freely. Russia, China, Japan, Israel, the UK, and I think India, Italy, and France all have launched spy satellites.

    And terrorism? What the heck? Does shooting down satellites inspire terror in anyone? It could properly be interpreted as an act of war, in violation of existing space treaties, but that goes beyond stretching the limits of the definition of terrorism.

  65. Maybe they are pretending it doesnt work.... by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    by really hiding the true frequencies and mechanism of comms and protocols, which probably got changed by a firmware update at the last moment before launch, or the firmware maybe
    had two protocols and switched to the new one once it knew it was in orbit. So now you have the real NRO secret boys using it, going woooohoooo. While the official
    NRO department goes, "wtf it doesnt work" and get some money back or more from the govt for some more secret black ops.

    Maybe its using UV lasers as comms or even xray comms, not normal RF.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  66. Use the space shuttle to retrieve it by Script+Cat · · Score: 1

    The space shuttle was specifically designed to retrieve spy satellites.
      Retrieving things from orbit it the only good reason to bring that heave vehicle with you all the time.
      Since we have this capability we should make use of it while we still have it.

    1. Re:Use the space shuttle to retrieve it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Presumably this thing is in a polar orbit. Can't send the shuttle there since the Air Force/NASA funding for the Vandenberg Shuttle launch facility was canned before they built the thing.

  67. On the bright side by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Now at least they have an excuse to screw up WMD hunts.

  68. 100's of millions of dollars? by sandmaninator · · Score: 1

    Pocket change for the US war machine.

  69. What was the reason for vietname? by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    Was it to stop the communists?

    Remind me of who Walmart and most of america do trade with, and what their government is......

    Right....

    China is buying out as many important resource companies and partners it can find around the world, even in bad countries.
    China wont care about any human rights, a deal is a deal, for any resource.
    China buys a lot of US debts/T-Bills, they still consider that an investment, (or a massive IOU claim for US resources if it tanks)
    so they wont sell it down and cause the US$ to fail. Its more of a, "We can sell it and cause your dollar to fall so dont fuck with us", and if it does
    fail then they can buy $900billion of US stocks + US land/companies or patents.

    Global Elite have sold out, its not the country that has importance and power, its who controls OIL + BANKING and FOOD/WATER rights.
    Id place banking as the final top elite who control all.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  70. Taxpayers paid for this? by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 1

    I want a refund.

  71. Re:O0ps... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not working. Sure. I believe that. It's up there and it's, ahem, NOT WORKING. See, we can't really see that there's a pot plant growing in the backyard of the house that's 3 from the corner of Halsted and Magnolia. And we can't see that brunette sunbathing nude at Latitude 39.518 Longitude -71.426.

    Right. The old "tell them it doesn't really work" routine. Gotta give those spooks credit for creativity on this one.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  72. Why report it in the first place by Darth_brooks · · Score: 1

    Articles like these always trigger my spidey-sense. Really, a secret US spy satellite isn't working? Wow, what a colossal failure for....wait, if it's for SPYING why the hell does anyone know about it in the first place?

    True, usually the Air Force or NASA will say something about carrying specialized military cargo or some such doublespeak, but if it is really doing something secret, how does the information get out that it's broken in the first place? Aside from being purposefully leaked...

    "Oh gosh golly darn, yep, our fancy schmancy communications spying satellite didn't achieve a proper orbit and now it's stuck in near earth orbit. Boy, are our faces red over this. Guess us dumb old American rednecks oughtta spend more time in science class and less time talkin about NASCAR and intellegent design."

    (ok, they bought it, open the lens covers and start shooting pictures)

    --
    There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
  73. Is a debug relay that hard to do? by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    Seriously, is it that hard to make an independanly powered/comms mini computer on a sat that has access to the main sattelite for status reports?
    ie. someone small and light 3-5kg like a laptop but sealed. Battery lasting a few weeks. Maybe a small camera for visuals, use slow bps comms thats not
    ultra directional. Say something like 300bps HAM setup, if the sat fails you at least can download telemtry debug status data to find out whats wrong.

    IS IT THAT HARD?????

    All it needs to do is transmit in ascii every status it can and repeat, 5000 bytes at 300bps is trivial with low power over 500km.
    Drop down to 30bps as a backup cycle every 1hr if you need to. Even deep space missions have this.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  74. That's what they want you to think by ahayes_m · · Score: 1, Funny

    In reality it is all well and working fine, the US is now spying the hell out of everyone... even the girl next door (or is that especially the girl next door?).

  75. Tinfoil hat time by plopez · · Score: 1

    If I were a hostile country or a 'Dr. Evil' type and I discovered how to knock out a US satellite I certainly would not run around advertising it.

    Also, if I were the NRO and I discovered N. Korea, Iran, Luxemburg or the Southern Peoples Liberation Army of Tonga
    had found a way to knock out US satellites I wouldn't run around advertising it either.

    Malfunction my foot.

    Like I said, tinfoil hat time.... :)

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  76. Yes... by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1
    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
  77. Dude.... by plopez · · Score: 2, Funny

    haven't you ever seen a James Bond movie?

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  78. Re:O0ps... by wiggles · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wait a minute! You tricked me! Those coordinates are about 120 miles off the coast of New Jersey in the middle of the atlantic!

  79. Expensive? by cakeypower · · Score: 1

    Are there any cheap US spy satellites?

  80. Oh noes! terrorists in space! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "There was no suggestion by either of the sources that the satellite had been purposely damaged as part of a terrorist attack."

    WTF? Of course there bloody wasn't - even Fox News would have a hard time parroting the line that Al Qaeda, ETA or the Continuity IRA had the equipment to get to Low Earth Orbit.

    (captcha for this post was "altitude", funnily enough..)

  81. 16 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A list and description of each. Wow, they are SO trying to keep the NRO under wraps! ha

    http://intelligence.gov/1-members.shtml

  82. Re:How about U? Sick and tired of the terrorist an by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Your post completely fails to point out an increase in terrorist activity over the past 6 months. When I attempted to leave a message on your answering machine asking if you really were a terrorist, I received no reply. Such silence does not disprove that you may have links to Al Qaeda.

          You have to love the reporting style.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  83. As part of terrorist attack ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OMG, so it is possible that Hamas can now launch missiles into space. Or maybe they found a way to launch shahids there. Or maybe Al Qaeda hijacked a shuttle and rammed it into satellite. Or maybe it's the work SSFMO (Solar System For Martians Only).

  84. OT:Terrorism? by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Attacking a valid military target is still a de facto declaration of war. The question is: Who exactly declared war on us, and what are we going to do about it?

    Pakistan, the U.K., and even Canada may "grudgingly accept" attacks on "Valid US targets." The US does not have that option if it wishes to remain an intact, sovereign state.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  85. OT...hubble telescope by opc.chr0n1c · · Score: 1

    what does the hubble telescope do when it is not taking pics of stars? i'm sure the can flip it around.. is that what google earth runs off of?

  86. our tax dollars by kingofpits · · Score: 1

    must run on Mircosoft. I wonder if they have tried rebooting?

  87. just a few more *corrections*: by MountainLogic · · Score: 1

    All your points are well taken, but you assume that the reports are true. This is the black world we are talking about. Sure, you have typical DoD contractor screw-ups and everything will go wrong on a space launch, but is what is being reported what really happened. Is the bird really DOA or is that just good cover to get every one to ignore it? Are those orbits really not changing? Perhaps it is not a sensor test, but a weapons test so who cares where it drifts. (Anybody know if Kent has been working on his phase conjugate mirror lately?). I assume that this low of orbit will not last long, so what can you do with a something in space for a short time?

    1. Re:just a few more *corrections*: by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 1
      >but is what is being reported what really happened?

      You're assuming the NRO is releasing misleading info. Why? What possible difference would it make if they let out this info? And if there is a bad guy who benefits from having the "true" info, how likely are they to be fooled by this released info, when the NRO has never uttered a peep ever before about anything?

  88. Terrorists terrorists terrorists by nanoakron · · Score: 1

    Always with the goddamned terrorists!

    Give it a rest with the terrorists could've done this, terrorists could've done that already wouldya?

  89. That would be the WAR OF NORTHERN AGGRESSION by daninaustin · · Score: 1

    Only a yankee would call it the civil war... Down in the south it is the War of Northern Aggression :)

    1. Re:That would be the WAR OF NORTHERN AGGRESSION by AlHunt · · Score: 2, Funny

      >Only a yankee would call it the civil war... Down in the south it is the War of Northern Aggression :)

      I would point out that history is written by the victors, and we have chosen "Civil War".

      We have also occupied Florida - ask any Florida native.

      --
      1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.
  90. meaning... by sysbot · · Score: 1

    everything is working as expected...now publish that we have lost a spy satellite and let them think that we never had a working spy satellite in orbit...

  91. spy satellite ! by DeadDarwin · · Score: 3, Funny

    You trial period expired. Please register !!!

  92. worth hundreds of millions of dollars? by marcopo · · Score: 1

    It is a common error to equate an objects cost with its worth. The satelite may have cost that much, but it seems it may be worthless.

    Even by the definition that an object is worth what someone will pay for it, no one will pay the amount that it cost to make it in the first place. This definition is badly flawed when there is not a significant market for the item in question, as the inherent subjectivity of worth cannot be suppressed.

  93. Re:O0ps... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Now you know where that mysterious smell in New York came from.

  94. Easy fix by wetfeetl33t · · Score: 1

    Have they tried rebooting it? Whenever I have a problem, I always just hit the restart button.

    --
    Register the editry.
  95. Re:O0ps... by fotbr · · Score: 2, Funny

    She was on a boat. It was a bit nipply out too.

  96. Weapons of mass gratification by gd23ka · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry but you're watching way too much "24" and doing way to little thinking.

    By the same "logic", you fail to realize that Santa Claus has a base on the north pole
    where he stockpiles all the weapons of mass gratification aka christmas presents over the year..

    Just because you choose not to believe in Santa doesn't mean he doesn't exist. Most
    likely he took out that spy satellite so people can't find out in advance
    what they're getting for christmas.

    See how silly you are?

    As far as your increase of terrorism is concerned over the past 6 months, since the
    sheer act of speaking up and speaking out against this government counts as an act of
    "Terrorism".. you're right: Terrorism has increased substantially over the past 6 months.

  97. Software compromised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if someone figured out the protocol, haxed it, and are now using our own sattellite to spy on us? That would be much more embarrasing than any physical failure or intentional damage. This would also increase the priority for physical retrieval.

    Imagine if some aspects were hard coded, and a Chinese manufacturer was somewhere down one of the contractor's vendor chains...

  98. NOT a failure! by autophile · · Score: 1

    It's just a success that hasn't happened yet.

    (Thanks, Jon!)

    --Rob

    --
    Towards the Singularity.
  99. Dr. Evil by r_jensen11 · · Score: 1

    So, this sat was damaged either by a giant "Laser beam" or sharks with lasers attached to their heads....

  100. Hey I remember that guy... by acidradio · · Score: 1

    >>It has apparently hung in a low orbit for months now.
    >"Hung"? as in hanging from something? Or hung as in "windows hung on me"?

    Ah that Hung guy. Wasn't he on American Idol? Could this have anything to do with it? Could his awful singing have broken the satellite?

  101. That's what happens when your satallite runs WinXP by itz2000 · · Score: 1

    That's what happens when your satellite runs WinXP. That's a future warning to future satellite, Vista will do the same to your satellite. Blue Screens @ every day that finishes with a 'y'.

  102. Doesn't anyone remember "MISTY"? by BadEvilYoda · · Score: 1

    Sure, it's "not working"... just like "Misty" asploded into six pieces...
    "When it was first launched from the space shuttle Atlantis on March 1, 1990, it was believed to be the first advanced KH-11 spacecraft," he says, referring to the top-of-the-line American spy satellite. "Within weeks, both U.S. and Soviet space sources reported it had malfunctioned and would make a 'fiery re-entry in the next 30 days.' Both assessments were wrong."
    Richelson reports that the only people who successfully kept track of the flight were civilian space observers in England and Canada who watched a series of maneuvers performed by the satellite, including the "explosion" that Richelson believes "may have been a tactic to deceive those monitoring the satellite."
    One of the observers who spoke to Richelson, Ted Molczan of Toronto, told NBC News that the supposed explosion took place on March 7, 1990, six days after launch, and was first reported by the Soviet press.
    "Russia reported it had detected debris," Molczan recalled, "and NORAD identified six pieces."
    The plan for stealthiness may have involved some clever trickery by the CIA.
    "The satellite was exceedingly bright, brighter than the KH-11, and kept in a low orbit, only 250 kilometers (150 miles) above the earth, so it was easily visible," Molczan said. "Then there was nothing after the 'explosion.' They apparently needed the 'explosion' to be long enough so they could deploy the stealth masking device."
    U.S. officials may have also used disinformation to enhance the deception, often discussing the need to develop stealthy satellites, never letting on that such satellites not only had been developed but launched as well...
    TFA: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077830/

  103. Re:Excuse me? by singingjim · · Score: 0

    This isn't off topic, but right on target as to the persistent anti-American sentiment that is fouling this news site. So fuck your mother. On second thought, I doubt she's worth a good fuck.

    --
    Terrible karma and aiming lower, which in this environment of one-sided reason, is higher.