Slashdot Mirror


Dropped Shuttle Toolbag Filmed From Earth

cathector writes "An article at spaceweather.com reports that the toolbag dropped during Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper's spacewalk has been recorded on film from earth: 'When Endeavour astronaut Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper dropped her toolbag during a spacewalk on Nov. 18th and it floated away, mission controllers probably figured they'd seen the last of it. Think again. Last night, Nov. 22nd, veteran satellite observer Kevin Fetter video-recorded the backpack-sized bag gliding over his backyard observatory in Brockville, Ontario. "It was easily 8th magnitude or brighter as it passed by the 4th magnitude star eta Pisces," he says. Spaceweather's satellite tracker is monitoring the toolbag.'" The actual loss of the bag was filmed, too; reader Kagura links in a comment on the original story to this YouTube clip of the bag's escape.

389 comments

  1. That's no moon! by Huntr · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's a tool bag!

    1. Re:That's no moon! by windsurfer619 · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, it's a tarp!

    2. Re:That's no moon! by masshuu · · Score: 0, Informative

      No, it's a trap!

      --
      O.o
    3. Re:That's no moon! by Macthorpe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, a woman dropped an expensive toolbag. An organisation comprised predominantly of men oversaw the disintegration of the Space Shuttle Columbia...

      If you're keeping score, I think women might be in the lead for some time yet ;)

      --
      "It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
    4. Re:That's no moon! by slater86 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I bet the guys wish they dropped it.Thats some serious bragging rights

      "I told ya you need a telescope to see my tool."

      --
      When people ask if I'm an optimist, I say "I hope so". --Bill Bailey
    5. Re:That's no moon! by nmb3000 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's a tool bag!

      Sigh...

      There go another set of $10,000 government hammers -- not to mention the $24,000 socket set :(

      (Ha. As an aside, I wonder how much that tool bag really cost when you factor in its mass during launch.)

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
    6. Re:That's no moon! by LingNoi · · Score: 5, Funny

      oh great, the idiot masses of digg and youtube have found slashdot..

    7. Re:That's no moon! by Ironsides · · Score: 5, Funny

      I bet the guys wish they dropped it.Thats some serious bragging rights "I told ya you need a telescope to see my tool."

      I don't think that implies what you think it implies.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    8. Re:That's no moon! by Ironsides · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Probably about $10,000 to $24,000.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    9. Re:That's no moon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you.
      I don't roam a lot on You Tube, but I was horrified at the number of sexist comments people were making.

    10. Re:That's no moon! by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      Ha! Nice. That's a great hilarious comeback.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    11. Re:That's no moon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      An organisation comprised predominantly of men oversaw the disintegration of the Space Shuttle Columbia...

      Yeah, and those same men built the fucking space shuttles, and oversaw a hundred-something successful launches, which means absolutely nothing.

      </wastedtime>

    12. Re:That's no moon! by djupedal · · Score: 4, Informative
    13. Re:That's no moon! by roguetrick · · Score: 4, Funny

      Trolling is a slashdot tradition.

      You must be new here.

      --
      -The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
    14. Re:That's no moon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You can see my tool from space!

    15. Re:That's no moon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only a feminist has the sensitivity to take YouTube comments seriously :P

    16. Re:That's no moon! by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      While I agree with the complaint that he government spends too much money on overpriced kit, one would presume that if you're going into space, your equipment would need to be manufactured to a higher standard than what's available at Home Depot.

      --
      I hate printers.
    17. Re:That's no moon! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ironically, if the grease gun had been manufactured to a higher standard, we probably wouldn't be talking about this now.

    18. Re:That's no moon! by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but put the cockups into percentage form and see who's winning then!

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    19. Re:That's no moon! by PachmanP · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah I think a better brag would be "I told you that it was visible 350km away!"

      --
      You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
    20. Re:That's no moon! by Dan541 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Is that due to their mass during launch, or because NASA think their too good to shop at Walmart?

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    21. Re:That's no moon! by Dan541 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Why? They do the same job.

      If your worried about reliability of a socket spanner, you could just buy 3 for the price of one. That way at least 2 are going to work as worse case scenario.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    22. Re:That's no moon! by Macthorpe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Chill, friend - just a joke, aiming to highlight that it's silly to raise the fact that a woman did it, because men aren't exactly robots :)

      Disclaimer: I am a guy and therefore also not a robot.

      --
      "It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
    23. Re:That's no moon! by Ian+Alexander · · Score: 1

      They do the same job in a zero-g, airless environment exposed to all the fun radiation floating around in space. I imagine the requirements might be slightly different.

    24. Re:That's no moon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cost per kg changes that equation somewhat.

    25. Re:That's no moon! by fuego451 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ah, okay. Must have been a Snap-on starter kit.

    26. Re:That's no moon! by compro01 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You try exposing your socket set to -269C and see how well it works. The steel will become brittle and shatter.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    27. Re:That's no moon! by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      Expensive toolbag? Pfft. I ask what woman needs to apply lippy from her dolche and gabanna handbag in the middle of a spacewalk?

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    28. Re:That's no moon! by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 0, Troll

      oh great, the idiot masses of digg and youtube have found slashdot..

      What, like Slashdot is some exclusive little forum for a handful of thoughtful geeks? You might want to look at your 7-digit Slashdot ID and think about what the implications of that are...

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    29. Re:That's no moon! by Strep · · Score: 1

      I'm keeping score and I'm in the F!ng lead as I've neither lost a toolbag nor have I overseen a shuttle disintegration! Woohoo!

    30. Re:That's no moon! by MarkRose · · Score: 1

      Congratulations to NASA for T-bagging the entire Earth! What a master-stroke!

      --
      Be relentless!
    31. Re:That's no moon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      100k USD? No biggie, that's like 2000 Euros now.

    32. Re:That's no moon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be new here.

      Odd thing to say to someone with a lower uid than yours..

      Trolling is a slashdot tradition.

      Oh, I see.. Carry on.

    33. Re:That's no moon! by LoRdTAW · · Score: 4, Interesting

      LOL Oh if I only had mod points.

      A Snap-on 22 piece ratchet kit is over 500 bucks. Hell a tool box from them is over $300!

    34. Re:That's no moon! by Ihmhi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wonder, will she catch any flak for this? Does she get docked salary for letting it slip?

      More importantly, why wasn't this extremely expensive bag tethered to something? If it can't be tethered to her for safety reasons, how about a magnetically secured line attached to the work surface?

    35. Re:That's no moon! by parasonic · · Score: 4, Informative

      how about a magnetically secured line attached to the work surface?

      You are assuming that there exists a ferromagnetic surface which would attract a magnet. Remember what the ISS is mostly made of.

    36. Re:That's no moon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot needs to start linking to nyud.net again.

    37. Re:That's no moon! by zx-15 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and what's the cost of lugging two extra socket kits in space?

    38. Re:That's no moon! by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Watching the video I wondered why don't they have a fishing rod at hand... just throw the line to the tool bag, hook it up, and pull it back. Simple solution, no?

      Joking aside: why was this tool bag not attached to the space station or its user to prevent exactly this from happening?

    39. Re:That's no moon! by jollyreaper · · Score: 4, Funny

      NASA guessed the bag/tools as being worth USD$100,000.00 [tbo.com]...

      Still cheaper than Louis Vutton.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    40. Re:That's no moon! by X0563511 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because things we send up there really get that cold. They have to radiate the heat from the pre-launch to get that cold, and they won't - the ISS catches too much heat from the sun.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    41. Re:That's no moon! by Trecares · · Score: 1

      Because it was stowed away in a bag and she was unpacking it. You can see it has a clip on it but she lost it before she could clip it onto something. Call it a noob mistake.

    42. Re:That's no moon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn, I just spilled half my coffee laughing

    43. Re:That's no moon! by FauxPasIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't forget, this is how it works.

      http://www.xkcd.com/385/

      --
      25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
    44. Re:That's no moon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I'll be happy to protect you if you want to roam some more-

      But could you iron my shirt first?

    45. Re:That's no moon! by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Your tool is eighth magnitude, hey?

    46. Re:That's no moon! by overcaffein8d · · Score: 1

      aww man, mine is only of the 3.14159265358 magnitude

      --
      Those of us who think they know everything annoy those of us who do.
    47. Re:That's no moon! by tsa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Compared to the cost of the whole mission the toolbag costs next to nothing. And people make mistakes and errors. This is a small but slightly annoying one. I think she's punished enough by having her mistake crawling all over the web.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    48. Re:That's no moon! by Failed+Physicist · · Score: 5, Informative

      Mostly, they do.

      From http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/pdf/educator-ecosystem_edu.pdf

      In orbit portions of the ISS will be exposed to direct sunlight 16 times per Earth day.
      Temperatures on these occasions can climb to over 120 degrees Celsius. The ISS will
      also be exposed to complete darkness or lack of radiant energy. Temperatures can
      plummet to -100 degrees Celsius. Thus, the internal environment of both spacecraft
      and space suit, developed for extravehicular activity, must have an active temperature
      regulation system that maintains a narrow range of thermal comfort.

    49. Re:That's no moon! by zonker · · Score: 5, Funny

      Remember what the ISS is mostly made of.

      Love?

    50. Re:That's no moon! by jo_ham · · Score: 4, Funny

      Considering the cost of the ISS and the delays in building it, I'm assuming it's made entirely of unicorn bones.

      Thus, not magnetic.

    51. Re:That's no moon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...high flying jetsetter Paris Stefanyshyn-Piper drops and loses expensive handbag during a night with the stars when a substance she only identified as 'lube' leaked into her personalized pouch and distracted her from the task at hand...a spokesperson for the jaunty space cadet only commented quote 'roger' end of quote...

    52. Re:That's no moon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dead men don't post.

    53. Re:That's no moon! by HTRednek · · Score: 5, Funny

      And when Deanna drove the Enterprise, she smacked a PLANET!

    54. Re:That's no moon! by Keeper+Of+Keys · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And those bags don't even come with a full set of Allen Keys.

    55. Re:That's no moon! by SnowZero · · Score: 1, Redundant

      You must be new here.

    56. Re:That's no moon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he means: "My tool can be seen from outer space!"

    57. Re:That's no moon! by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      True but if you only pay 8.95 for them instead of $100k

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    58. Re:That's no moon! by AlecC · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The tool that finally got the jammed Skylab solar "wings" to unfold was a $10 crowbar from the local hardware store in Florida.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    59. Re:That's no moon! by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

      And she lost her purse in space

      --
      Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
    60. Re:That's no moon! by saider · · Score: 1

      Try using a Home Depot grease gun with astronaut gloves on.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    61. Re:That's no moon! by Jesus_666 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      That's not because she was femals, that's because she was Deanna. Come on, this is the woman that used telepathic abilities to "detect hostility" in people who were currently busy getting a torpedo lock on the Enterprise...

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    62. Re:That's no moon! by jtsaint · · Score: 1

      That's a tool bag!

      Sigh...

      There go another set of $10,000 government hammers -- not to mention the $24,000 socket set :(

      (Ha. As an aside, I wonder how much that tool bag really cost when you factor in its mass during launch.)

      "You don't actually think they spend $20,000.00 on a hammer, $30,000.00 on a toilet seat do you?" - Julius Levinson

      I think they us gvnmnt is looking for more funding into anal probing

    63. Re:That's no moon! by rav0 · · Score: 1

      I certainly hope Nasa thinks that, and I'm sure plenty of people in the general public think that as well.

    64. Re:That's no moon! by rav0 · · Score: 1

      Having it tethered near her poses an entanglement risk anyway.

    65. Re:That's no moon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      For a grease gun that doesn't explode in the vacuum of space, I'll pay a little more than $9.99.

      Hell, for one that doesn't explode at sea level, I might pay more, too.

    66. Re:That's no moon! by danieltdp · · Score: 1

      I you were a robot, would you tell us?!

      --
      -- dnl
    67. Re:That's no moon! by nog_lorp · · Score: 4, Funny

      Unicorn bones contain small amounts of neodymium, making them magnetic.

    68. Re:That's no moon! by danieltdp · · Score: 1

      You were modded insightful. Just because you put a smiley face emoticon at the end of your post does not make it funny ;)

      And thats the reason he was modded insightful, and not funny...

      BTW, your mother is a nigger-loving, shit-eating whore.

      That was a joke, you humorless tard! ;)

      And a really bad one, BTW

      --
      -- dnl
    69. Re:That's no moon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they already did that some time ago, LingNoi.
      You're it toolbox

    70. Re:That's no moon! by danieltdp · · Score: 2, Informative

      I always amaze me the fact that there is one xkcd strip for every topic that comes about in slashdot.

      --
      -- dnl
    71. Re:That's no moon! by vlm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A Snap-on 22 piece ratchet kit is over 500 bucks. Hell a tool box from them is over $300!

      I didn't believe you so I checked.

      http://buy1.snapon.com/catalog/tools.asp?tool=all&Group_ID=103&store=snapon-store

      Direct from manufacturer you're looking at $348.65 for the 20 piece and $610.80 for the 34 piece. I now believe there could be a 22 piece set that I couldn't find thats around $500 with shipping, as you claimed.

      I knew they were outrageously expensive but I didn't expect $20 per socket level of expense. They better be made of solid silver for that price. For that kind of money I don't just expect a socket set, I expect the Chinese guy whom made it to fly out here and pull the wrench for me.

      My first metal lathe was about $500. Somehow I think I get "more" out of that than I would out of a 34 piece socket set.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    72. Re:That's no moon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      last words from Columbia: ok, I'll let the woman drive.

    73. Re:That's no moon! by danieltdp · · Score: 1

      ... but you need a HUGE telescope to do it

      --
      -- dnl
    74. Re:That's no moon! by danieltdp · · Score: 1

      I see it the bad way: "man, you lost your tool?!"

      --
      -- dnl
    75. Re:That's no moon! by danieltdp · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Wrong. Everybody knows unicorn bones are magnetic, you ignorant clod.

      --
      -- dnl
    76. Re:That's no moon! by troll8901 · · Score: 1

      Thank you. I'm glad to participate in a time-honored Slashdot tradition.

    77. Re:That's no moon! by jambox · · Score: 1
      --
      You thought you could break the laws of physics without paying the PRICE?
    78. Re:That's no moon! by jacquesm · · Score: 1

      It really will. Had that happen to me in Canada at a balmy -30 Celsius.

    79. Re:That's no moon! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Does she get docked salary for letting it slip?

      Yeah, and if a pilot gets shot down, his family are in hock to the government for the cost of his plane for generations to come...

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    80. Re:That's no moon! by Olivier+Galibert · · Score: 1

      Walmart tools are already crap in your own kitchen, how usable do you think they are in a vacuum, with the cold, the radiation and the gloves from hell astronauts have to wear?

          OG.

    81. Re:That's no moon! by jc42 · · Score: 1

      You try exposing your socket set to -269C and see how well it works. The steel will become brittle and shatter.

      So where do you get that temperature (about 5K)? At the Earth's distance from the sun, the equilibrium temperature of a black body is 281K, about 8C. A steel socket set isn't a perfect black body, of course, but it's pretty close, much closer than you or I or our planet is. Also, a socket orbiting the Earth would be in the planet's shadow part of the time, so its temperature would be somewhat cooler. But the planet's IR radiation alone should keep it well above 5K.

      Does anyone know the actual equilibrium temperature of a chunk of steel orbiting the Earth? Someone has to have collected the actual temperatures of various passive pieces of metal in low Earth orbits, but the obvious google keywords don't seem to find it. It shouldn't be much below 0C.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    82. Re:That's no moon! by isaac338 · · Score: 3, Informative

      There's your problem - no Chinese guys are touching your Snap-On tools unless they're working in an American factory. Snap-On's one of the few companies who still make their tools in US and A.

      Also, what kind of snap on boxes are you guys buying for $300 and where can I get one? Their cheapest roll cabs are in the region of $2-3k...

    83. Re:That's no moon! by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      That's what the spider WANTS you to think.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    84. Re:That's no moon! by troll8901 · · Score: 1

      Are you okay? You didn't lose any parts, did you?

    85. Re:That's no moon! by lavardo · · Score: 1

      maybe a spanking on the butt while she's wearing that huge spacesuit. or, maybe they had a spanker built in.

    86. Re:That's no moon! by lavardo · · Score: 1

      well, if it lands in my back yard, I'll let you know.
      Maybe $10.99?

    87. Re:That's no moon! by Chapter80 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I read that the tool bag was in a larger bag and the larger bag was secure. The tool bag was not secure within the larger bag (once it was opened).

    88. Re:That's no moon! by TheLink · · Score: 1

      She's not the only one who made a mistake.

      Someone else was also supposed to check the bag to make sure the stuff inside was secured. And the stuff inside was not secured.

      Seems she's taking the heat and not trying to shift some of the blame elsewhere, which is somewhat commendable.

      --
    89. Re:That's no moon! by Mercano · · Score: 1

      And the next time they let her drive, she ran into another ship!

      --
      #include <signature.h>
    90. Re:That's no moon! by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Don't feel bad. Eighth magnitude is like eighth place. This ain't golf.

    91. Re:That's no moon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not so sure about that. Nowdays only 'bots can decipher captchas. Therefore, by posting here, you must be a bot!

    92. Re:That's no moon! by vlm · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's your problem - no Chinese guys are touching your Snap-On tools unless they're working in an American factory. Snap-On's one of the few companies who still make their tools in US and A.

      Not true any more... just another company selling Chinese junk at American prices.

      http://www.snapon.com.cn/snapon/en/index.htm

      Seems to be down at this moment, but from the google cache of that page:

      With an 86-year experience, Snap-on now focus on China. We set up a factory with well-trained engineers and workers in Kunshan, China. The world-class products produced are not only for China market, but for all the Asia Pacific Area. We also established a trading company, Snap-on Trading ( Shanghai) Co., Ltd. Our professional team can serve the customers throughout the country through a distribution network consisted of 6 Branch Offices and over 120 resellers.

      Here's the factory address should you care to visit

      SNAP-ON ASIA MANUFACTURING (KUNSHAN) CO., LTD
      ADD: 500 Tong Feng East Road, Kunshan, Jiangsu 215300, PRC
      TEL: 86-512-57708282
      FAX: 86-512-57708383

      Or how about this press release linked from the snap-on website?

      http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=90531&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1133066&highlight=china

      Snap-on Announces First Quarter 2008 Results
      Reports EPS from continuing operations of $0.97 compared to $0.64 last year; Completes acquisition of 60% interest in Chinese hand tool manufacturer

      "We are also very pleased to announce that Snap-on recently completed the acquisition of a 60% interest in Zhejiang Wanda Tools Co., Ltd., a hot-forged hand tool manufacturer in China," said Pinchuk. "This strategic joint venture builds on Snap-on's current presence in the region and complements the company's existing production capabilities in Kunshan, China. Our majority ownership of Wanda Tools, our first hand tool manufacturing facility in China, is expected to be a key contributor to our future state and is another important step in extending Snap-on's manufacturing capability and market coverage in emerging markets around the world."

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    93. Re:That's no moon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And in the approx 5 days following the loss of the 100K bag we have spent 1.6 Billion in Iraq pissing people off. Perspective.

    94. Re:That's no moon! by hierophanta · · Score: 1

      as much as the dollar has fallen - so has other countries' currency fallen as well. because world's economy depends on the USD (well its all interdependent, really). in january it was about $1.47 to the euro it is now $1.27 for 1 euro. the GBP (english pound) also took a nose drive - january it was $1.97 to the pound - it is now about $1.53 to a pound. http://www.x-rates.com/d/USD/EUR/hist2008.html

    95. Re:That's no moon! by isaac338 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yeah, I know all that. They make Blu-Point tools in China. Snap-On branded hand tools are still all USA made.

    96. Re:That's no moon! by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

      Exactly. It's almost certainly not her fault that the (probably insanely expensive) grease gun exploded all over the bag causing her to have to try and clean the damned thing out in uncontained 0 G. I doubt that was in her training scenarios.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    97. Re:That's no moon! by Intron · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's a tool bag!

      Sigh...

      There go another set of $10,000 government hammers -- not to mention the $24,000 socket set :(

      (Ha. As an aside, I wonder how much that tool bag really cost when you factor in its mass during launch.)

      Not the worst accident that's happened due to a dropped tool.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    98. Re:That's no moon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably mostly the first, but also because for some reason Walmart doesn't make custom scrapers designed to fit under the outer race of an ISS solar alpha rotary joint, and won't go through the effort to qualify them for the mission.

      A scraper doesn't need to be very complex. It probably only consists of a buck or two worth of material, and at most a couple hours worth of labor to build, but probably quite a bit more effort figuring out what exactly the tool needed to be able to do and optimizing it for that task. $100,000 may seem absurd for a couple scrapers, a grease gun, some wire wraps, and vacuum-compatible wet-wipes (the overall contents of the bag), but it would be far worse to spend all the effort getting up there only to find out the tool doesn't fit.

      Also, I believe NASA designed and ordered the tools themselves, so it's not like this is a contractor scamming the government by inflating their prices. They could also probably replace them if they needed to for a tiny fraction of that $100,000 estimate.

    99. Re:That's no moon! by Zencyde · · Score: 1

      Well, obviously it was planned that way. :P

      --
      What day is it? Could you please tell me?
    100. Re:That's no moon! by Don_dumb · · Score: 1

      Beautiful, I almost forgot how good b3ta images were.

      --
      If this were really happening, what would you think?
    101. Re:That's no moon! by jambox · · Score: 1

      By spreading it around I hope to bask in some slight reflected glory.

      --
      You thought you could break the laws of physics without paying the PRICE?
    102. Re:That's no moon! by KnarfO · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      If there was any one person singled out to blame for the Columbia disaster, it was Linda Ham:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Ham

      http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/sts107_ham_030722.html

      (for all you mods who thought that was insightful)

      --


      "Creativity is allowing ones self to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep" - Scott Adams
    103. Re:That's no moon! by Myopic · · Score: 1

      I had a conversation with an actual NASA tool engineer once. He went on at length about how a normal drill was not sufficient in space. (He used drills as an example, and by "drill" he meant the base onto which you could attach drill bits, sockets, or whatever.) The environment in space is, to put it simply, a lot rougher than a typical workshop on Earth.

      Also, dude, "their"? Really?

    104. Re:That's no moon! by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Yeah that's what I was wondering -- where is the tether? In the video you can see the tether to the astronaut, so it seems like a no-brainer to have one go to the toolbox. Furthermore, she was only a foot or two away from the toolbox, so why didn't she lunge for it, grab it, then pull herself back to the space station using her own tether? Is it because that would be too awesome?

    105. Re:That's no moon! by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      No, no, you're thinking of IIS.

    106. Re:That's no moon! by Urkki · · Score: 1

      NASA guessed the bag/tools as being worth USD$100,000.00...

      I bet that cost factors in stuff like design. Making a new replacement bag and tools must cost quite a bit less, even factoring in the cost of fuel to send it to ISS. Well, unless they're made by a subcontractor, and the contract says NASA has to pay a fixed high price for a replacement.

      Except they probably have extra sets already, so they don't even need to make a replacement. Then the real extra cost is only the cost of fuel. Hmm, plus the cost of bureaucracy... Ok, so maybe that $100,000.00 figure is correct after all ;-)

    107. Re:That's no moon! by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Direct from manufacturer you're looking at $348.65 for the 20 piece and $610.80 for the 34 piece.

      I was going to make a joke about a them having a lifetime warranty (as though that would explain the ridiculous margin), but they don't tell you what the warranty actually is.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    108. Re:That's no moon! by Incadenza · · Score: 1

      Are you affiliated to the makers of this Dutch lost handbag spacewalk?

    109. Re:That's no moon! by Elbowgeek · · Score: 1

      Now if it was a $100,000 *hand*bag she would have unteathered herself and dived after it....

      --
      Who is this delectable creature with an insatiable love of the dead?
    110. Re:That's no moon! by ddusza · · Score: 1

      Marshmallows????

      --
      Don't fear the penguins
    111. Re:That's no moon! by glittalogik · · Score: 1

      I feel a great disturbance in the Force. As if millions of slashdotters were about to say "Whoosh," and were suddenly silenced.

    112. Re:That's no moon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The tool set must be forged from the kidney stones of God.

    113. Re:That's no moon! by glittalogik · · Score: 1

      American Pi =)

    114. Re:That's no moon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aww look you're embarrassing yourself and all the other neanderthals. Isn't that adorable.

    115. Re:That's no moon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You were modded insightful. Just because you put a smiley face emoticon at the end of your post does not make it funny ;)

      And thats the reason he was modded insightful, and not funny...

      Macthorpe claimed to be making a joke. I pointed out that not only was it not funny, no one else had recognized it as a joke either (hence the reference to the insightful mod). Your point is what, exactly?

    116. Re:That's no moon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your sig is wrong. Its fly me to the moon, let me play among the stars.

    117. Re:That's no moon! by danieltdp · · Score: 1

      I was joking by pointing out the obvious. No reason to get that jumpy, man. Chill down a little 'cause everyone get a flamebait mod from now and then. Ooops. Sorry. Didn't realyze it as you AC... You get a lot of those ;-)

      --
      -- dnl
    118. Re:That's no moon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but how a post that say exactly the oppsite of parent's can get modded as redundant?

    119. Re:That's no moon! by S-100 · · Score: 1

      Hey, if you don't get the joke, you don't have to mod it troll.

    120. Re:That's no moon! by Xtopher90 · · Score: 1

      Ok so what color would the bag of tools be on re-entry? And if they entered the atmosphere at 4:30 this afternoon over the east coast (MA) who could confirm this?

  2. brighter? by overcaffein8d · · Score: 1

    could it possibly have been that really bright thing that passed over yesterday (or maybe the day before)?

    --
    Those of us who think they know everything annoy those of us who do.
    1. Re:brighter? by overcaffein8d · · Score: 1
      --
      Those of us who think they know everything annoy those of us who do.
    2. Re:brighter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Timestamp 1: Witnesses as far as 720 kilometers apart reported seeing what looked like a bright meteor falling somewhere on the Saskatchewan-Alberta boundary around 5:30 pm MT Thursday, according to the CBC.

      Timestamp 2: Last night, Nov. 22nd, veteran satellite observer Kevin Fetter video-recorded the backpack-sized bag gliding over his backyard observatory in Brockville, Ontario.

      So, no.

    3. Re:brighter? by overcaffein8d · · Score: 5, Funny

      timestamp 3: ???
      timestamp 4: profit!

      --
      Those of us who think they know everything annoy those of us who do.
    4. Re:brighter? by Opyros · · Score: 3, Informative

      Bad Astronomy posted an entry devoted to refuting this idea! As Phil Plait says, the very fact that the toolkit has just been sighted shows that it's still up there, and could not have been the fireball.

    5. Re:brighter? by sleeponthemic · · Score: 2, Informative
      --
      I record my sleeptalking
    6. Re:brighter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get it. Can you explain?

    7. Re:brighter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's a joke on slashdot, step 1 and 2 always come from the article or a previous post, step 3 is always ??? and step 4 is always "profit!"

      note that by always i mean usually because it's been used so much people switch up the order to be funny, or leave a step out, or add in extra steps, ect...

    8. Re:brighter? by mabinogi · · Score: 1

      Magnitudes in Astronomy are smaller for brighter objects, and larger for dimmer ones.

      The brightest stars are around magnitude 1.
      Much more than 2 or 3 and you need a very clear, dark night to see them with the naked eye. At 8 you'd absolutely need a telescope - definitely not the bright object from the other day.

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
    9. Re:brighter? by scdeimos · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, the brightest star in the sky (aside from sol/the sun) is Sirius, which has a negative magnitude at -1.42.

    10. Re:brighter? by mabinogi · · Score: 1

      yes, missed the minus sign....

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
    11. Re:brighter? by overcaffein8d · · Score: 3, Funny

      i'd say you must be new here, but you probably wouldn't get that either

      --
      Those of us who think they know everything annoy those of us who do.
    12. Re:brighter? by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, joke doesn't get you.

    13. Re:brighter? by floydman · · Score: 2, Funny

      wasnt that captured by the pirates?

      --
      The lunatic is in my head
    14. Re:brighter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I for one welcome- ah, fuck it. Can't make that one work.

  3. Beam me up Scotty by bobbonomo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Scotty will use it in the future to fix the Enterprise. Good stuff.

    1. Re:Beam me up Scotty by Lershac · · Score: 1

      Tht would be cool if they worked in stuff like that to the movies

      --
      Chuck
    2. Re:Beam me up Scotty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod +1, Whoosh!

    3. Re:Beam me up Scotty by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, in the future it'll come back as an alien intelligence named T'lbg.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    4. Re:Beam me up Scotty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ea o a ooa!

    5. Re:Beam me up Scotty by archen · · Score: 1

      I suppose that means that in the future the earth is going to get tea bagged?

    6. Re:Beam me up Scotty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bravo. We don't get enough V'ger jokes on /. anymore.

  4. Filmed all the way from Earth? by TheLazySci-FiAuthor · · Score: 4, Funny

    And I can't even find a single Phillips screwdriver in my own closet!

    1. Re:Filmed all the way from Earth? by Tarmus · · Score: 1

      It was just swamp gas, I figure.

    2. Re:Filmed all the way from Earth? by bobbonomo · · Score: 1

      Well now uou know where to find one. You just have to get there. :)

    3. Re:Filmed all the way from Earth? by peragrin · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's only a couple hundred miles away. two maybe three hours in the car.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    4. Re:Filmed all the way from Earth? by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      What kind of car do you drive, and where can I get one?

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    5. Re:Filmed all the way from Earth? by Macman408 · · Score: 1

      A Reliant Robin, and you should be able to find one in England somewhere.

    6. Re:Filmed all the way from Earth? by Keeper+Of+Keys · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, the experimental Reliant Robin with VTO; I remember it well. Didn't know any of those babies were still going.

    7. Re:Filmed all the way from Earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I can't even find a single Phillips screwdriver in my own closet!

      No, but you may find skeletons.

    8. Re:Filmed all the way from Earth? by Macman408 · · Score: 1

      Well, you might not be able to find the VTO model as-is, but it's a nice DIY project for a hobbyist.

  5. Check out the sexism on the youtube video by Lershac · · Score: 1, Informative

    WTF

    --
    Chuck
    1. Re:Check out the sexism on the youtube video by Potor · · Score: 1

      Yeah - I was shocked. Expected some trolling, but that seemed completely vitriolic.

    2. Re:Check out the sexism on the youtube video by loafula · · Score: 1

      I must have missed that part

      --
      FOXTROT UNIFORM CHARLIE KILO
    3. Re:Check out the sexism on the youtube video by Lershac · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I mean I live in the Southern US, home of the redneck troglodyte... and I dont know anyone who feels that strongly about this, but evidently somewhere there exists a serious reserve of "brefoot pregnant in the kitchen shut up and get me a beer, honey you need to be quiet the menfolk are talking" types.

      --
      Chuck
    4. Re:Check out the sexism on the youtube video by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      cue stream of XKCD links in 3....2....

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    5. Re:Check out the sexism on the youtube video by slashqwerty · · Score: 1

      For all the people that were confused like me, Lershac is presumably referring to the comments posted below the video.

    6. Re:Check out the sexism on the youtube video by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Informative

      Supposedly secure equipment has been lost during EVA since the Gemini program. Mike Collins lost a camera which jiggled out of a mount on his pressure suit. Its very hard to avoid this kind of problem.

    7. Re:Check out the sexism on the youtube video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Um, no, this female astronaut is actually quite smart, unlike Sarah Palin. If Palin had been a dude, we still would've said "hey, look at the stupid person". Having tits doesn't mean that when you say something stupid, people will just ignore it.

      Don't like us liberals commenting on SP? Then stop bringing her up.

    8. Re:Check out the sexism on the youtube video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hillary was/is smart, Palin was/is/always will be a dumb fuck. Its not sexism to dislike the idea of a more powerful Palin, its self-preservation.

    9. Re:Check out the sexism on the youtube video by LingNoi · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Are you serious? "I want to Nuke Iran" Hillary is smart? lol..

    10. Re:Check out the sexism on the youtube video by Manchot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your first mistake was reading the comments on a Youtube video.

    11. Re:Check out the sexism on the youtube video by Plaid+Phantom · · Score: 3, Funny

      Dangit fine. I tried to resist, but there wasn't enough time left on the countdown.

      --
      All comments are properties and trademarks of the voices in my head. Not like I'm gonna claim them.
    12. Re:Check out the sexism on the youtube video by DrugCheese · · Score: 1

      Its very hard to avoid this kind of problem.

      very hard? I could understand that maybe a tether line could get in the way, but what about ones that auto-retract? Or velcro, or even some type of magnetic retrieval system. Seems like a pretty fixable problem for NASA. If its a common problem I'm not sure why something hasn't been tried?

      --
      *DrugCheese rants*
    13. Re:Check out the sexism on the youtube video by tsm_sf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Look, we've been separating the intelligence and wisdom stats since the late 70's at least.

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    14. Re:Check out the sexism on the youtube video by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Because it was in the bag. She removed it from the bag without thinking, and couldn't reach it fast enough to prevent it from floating off.

      Why tether something that was still in the box? She was obviously focused on the grease all over the place, so that that 1-2 second lapse was all it took. That same lapse that allowed the bag to float off was the same that would have prevented tethering it, had there been a way to do so.

      And, looking at the tools closely, they seem to have tether attachments on all of them.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    15. Re:Check out the sexism on the youtube video by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Sarah Palin is as dumb as a box of rocks. Her gender has nothing to do with that.

      There are men just as dumb as she is.

    16. Re:Check out the sexism on the youtube video by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      "trivial" to hold onto a bag in zero gravity while wearing a cumbersome environment suit, the fingers of which were covered on grease due to the gun leaking on everything inside the bag....

      If you think you can do better, I hear NASA are hiring.

    17. Re:Check out the sexism on the youtube video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recall Hasselblad using their lost camera as a marketing exercise - Sweden's space mission.

    18. Re:Check out the sexism on the youtube video by jacquesm · · Score: 1

      On behalf of the rocks please stop your insults.

    19. Re:Check out the sexism on the youtube video by Odin's+Raven · · Score: 1

      Your first mistake was reading the comments on a Youtube video.

      Youtube - making Digg users look mature since 2005.

      --
      A marriage is always made up of two people who are prepared to swear that only the other one snores.
    20. Re:Check out the sexism on the youtube video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funniest thing I read this noon... [not the xkcd link (though its funny)]

  6. Great! by Exp315 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Exactly what I said as I dropped a bolt today and it rolled away under the car. :-) I suppose something of this incident will go down in history and become the origin of some common expression like Murphy's Law in the distant future. Maybe feature in a future episode of Star Trek?

    1. Re:Great! by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Funny

      I suppose something of this incident will go down in history and become the origin of some common expression like Murphy's Law in the distant future.

      They hubbled it up!

    2. Re:Great! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Funny

      People surnamed "Stefanyshyn-Piper" don't get laws named after them. "Piper", sure. "Stefanyshyn", if the law happens to be mathematical; but that's about it.

    3. Re:Great! by cerberusss · · Score: 1

      I have a law that's named Piper-Heidsieck. It's not a mathematical law, it's more of a breakfast thing :-)

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
  7. A "FETCH" unit by griffman99h · · Score: 1

    hey all you engineers. yeah I know you're reading this. yeah I have no idea what the acronym could be but what it does is simple... what sort of energy, processing, and weight requirements are needed to build a little ball of a robot. to detach, fly by, and return, any tool sized object an astronaut may let go of. this shouldn't be that hard. a lot of you guys are smarter than me. I'm sure you can spend a little time writing the equations up here. lets get something going. and if anyone actually gets off their ass and makes something happen, we might even get paid.

    1. Re:A "FETCH" unit by Perspiring+Blood · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It probably would be cheaper just to have the astronauts make sure the bag is continually tethered to something.

    2. Re:A "FETCH" unit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Perhaps one of these?

    3. Re:A "FETCH" unit by Aniyn · · Score: 2, Funny

      It would actually be cheaper to train astronauts not to throw $100,000 worth of tools away. Well, with the way nasa does things, maybe not....

    4. Re:A "FETCH" unit by gblackwo · · Score: 1

      You must be new here. Why should I spout my precious knowledge because you had an idea. You went especially wrong in the last sentence when you instructed me to get off my ass. I don't play fetch.

    5. Re:A "FETCH" unit by maxume · · Score: 1

      I imagine the hard part would be making sure that it doesn't do things that are harmful.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    6. Re:A "FETCH" unit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, then I think we could go cure cancer, unify physics, prove/disprove the existence of a higher being and develop a 100% environmentally friendly energy source capable of powering the entire planet.

      I'm sure we'll be done by lunch.

    7. Re:A "FETCH" unit by chill · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Since it was probably the metric set of wrenches, it wasn't that big of deal. They don't really use those anyway.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    8. Re:A "FETCH" unit by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      Like what? Fetching that mysterious alien egg?

      --
      I hate printers.
    9. Re:A "FETCH" unit by maxume · · Score: 1

      Like knocking tools out of the astronauts hands.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    10. Re:A "FETCH" unit by PPH · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, that's the problem at our house. Our FETCH unit digs up the garden, craps on the neighbor's lawn, pisses off their cat, chases squirrels, knocks up the poodle down the street.

      The shuttle crew will need to deploy the rolled up newspaper from time to time.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    11. Re:A "FETCH" unit by maxume · · Score: 1

      You need to assert that you are the leader of the pack.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    12. Re:A "FETCH" unit by __aailrp9629 · · Score: 1

      Since when do "cheaper" and "space" go together? Obviously, you go with the robot.

    13. Re:A "FETCH" unit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I think the AI for having something reach out and fetch stuff in 3D would be complicated. Even on land-based mazes, this is supposedly pretty hard.

      I do think that space provides a lot of black background (if the AI can filter out the stars and planet in its field of view). The problem comes with judging distances.

      But maybe, the military lock and missile firing mechanisms have already solved part of the Identify-and-track mechanism. I mean, those clips where you see little squares locking onto tanks and things... well, the problem is that NASA is a US-endeavor. Space is international. If NASA somehow works out "opening" government AI algorithms, they will become usable by potential enemy scientists.

      And imagine having lock-on technology that could be expanded to work from outter space down to ground targets. Well, far-fetched now, but advanced technology is sufficiently like magic, to paraphrase the saying.

    14. Re:A "FETCH" unit by GanjaManja · · Score: 1

      i envision the sort of ropes hikers use... but i don't think there's much money to be made there.

      Get started by writing up a business proposal and see if you can get the government to spend millions of dollars more than they really need to on a ball-robot which replaces the functionality of a rope. I'm sure you could get some DARPA guys excited by that.

    15. Re:A "FETCH" unit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to learn about jokes...

  8. video mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:video mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Appreciate it - it looks like the Coral Cache is down so I was hoping someone had a good link.

    2. Re:video mirror by ohxten · · Score: 1

      Thanks. Looking at that video I almost find it hard to believe that very bright object is the toolbag. Could it be something else? Unless she left a really bright flashlight on in the bag when she dropped it...

      --
      Need an automatic screenshot taker? Try here.
  9. I've seen it by qbasicjedi · · Score: 0

    I'm pretty sure I saw an extremely dim object floating behind the station with binoculars on the 20th. My first suspicion was that it was the bag.

    1. Re:I've seen it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure I saw an extremely dim object floating behind the station with binoculars

      The article didn't say anything about the bag having binoculars.

    2. Re:I've seen it by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure I saw an extremely dim object floating behind the station with binoculars on the 20th. My first suspicion was that it was the bag.

      What the heck is this bag made of that it's reflecting enough light to be seen on Earth? What's the ratio of surface area of the bag to the ISS, 10^5 or so?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re:I've seen it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd be surprised how much crap floating around up there you can see. On any night shortly after sunset or shortly before sunrise, you can see bunches of little dim points of light just barely above the threshold of normal vision zipping through the heavens. It gives me chills to look at them and think that those are actually objects, most not larger than a car, zipping around hundreds if not thousands of miles away. See, when you get a sunlight object set against the black sky, you can see it for thousands of miles if you're paying attention. Doesn't matter how small it is.

    4. Re:I've seen it by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      On any night shortly after sunset or shortly before sunrise, you can see bunches of little dim points of light just barely above the threshold of normal vision zipping through the heavens. It gives me chills to look at them and think that those are actually objects, most not larger than a car, zipping around hundreds if not thousands of miles away.

      I live in San Francisco, you insensitive clod.

      If the lights of the city aren't enough to drown out stars, there's always the fog....

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  10. TOOL BAG! by Taken07 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    It's a bird! It's a plane! No .. wait it's a tool bag.

  11. Filmed? Those look more like video to me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't mean to be pedantic but those of clips look more like video than film. I realize I lot of kids these days don't know the difference...

    1. Re:Filmed? Those look more like video to me. by gblackwo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Have no fear, language has this wonderful ability to evolve giving words new meaning. Definitions of words are not set in stone.

    2. Re:Filmed? Those look more like video to me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Definitions of words are not set in stone.

      Define the speech held down by weed... dude.

    3. Re:Filmed? Those look more like video to me. by MrNaz · · Score: 0, Troll

      Gr8! Im gld tht u thnk lyk tht bcoz evrybdy els thnks tht ths iz hrd 2 reed.

      --
      I hate printers.
    4. Re:Filmed? Those look more like video to me. by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Well how do you expect us to watch a film over the Internet?

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    5. Re:Filmed? Those look more like video to me. by g0at · · Score: 1

      Sure, that's true, but we should still have no tolerance for blatant lies. The article summary says "was recorded on film". The meaning of that statement is very obvious and precise, and can hardly be confused with "recorded as video" or such. To forgive this error is to forgive those who say "literally" when they very deliberately mean the opposite.

      When you order food at a restaurant, would you be indifferent if you were served something completely different?

    6. Re:Filmed? Those look more like video to me. by greenguy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, but it weirds language.

      --
      What if I do the same thing, and I do get different results?
    7. Re:Filmed? Those look more like video to me. by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      It's not hard to read. Just irritating.

      And it's far more time consuming and irritating to write it, I would bet.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    8. Re:Filmed? Those look more like video to me. by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      To anybody born after 1980, the words "film" and "video" sound like synonyms. I didn't figure out what the difference was until I started working for the Distance Learning Center at my university, a job where I deal with video constantly. You're just in a tizzy because you can remember a time when film was actually relevant, and therefore the distinction was more important to maintain ... yeah, whoever wrote this is obviously unaware of the distinction, but it isn't a "blatant lie" like you so indignantly trumpet, the writer was just mistaken. There IS a difference, you know.

    9. Re:Filmed? Those look more like video to me. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      When you order food at a restaurant, would you be indifferent if you were served something completely different?

      No, I'd be pissed. Literally.

      (sorry, just teasing)

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    10. Re:Filmed? Those look more like video to me. by expatriot · · Score: 1

      Like "dialing" a phone number. A significant percentage of the Slashdot crowd has probably only seen dial phones in movies.

    11. Re:Filmed? Those look more like video to me. by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      4nd 17'5 f4r m0r3 71m3 (0n5um1n6 4nd 1rr17471n6 70 wr173 17, 1 w0u|d 837.

      Or you just use the Leetkey plugin for Firefox ;)

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    12. Re:Filmed? Those look more like video to me. by C0vardeAn0nim0 · · Score: 1

      by your rant, we shouldn't use the terms "set sail", "sailed", etc. for any ship that doesn't actually have a sail, shouldn't we ?

      --
      What ? Me, worry ?
    13. Re:Filmed? Those look more like video to me. by yoyhed · · Score: 1

      To forgive this error is to forgive those who say "literally" when they very deliberately mean the opposite.

      Or those that say "technically" when they mean the opposite.. UGH.

      --
      WHO NEEDS SHIFT WHEN YOU HAVE CAPSLOCK/ DAMN1
    14. Re:Filmed? Those look more like video to me. by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      It was probably recorded onto flash memory anyway ...?

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    15. Re:Filmed? Those look more like video to me. by jacquesm · · Score: 1

      well, you use 'ftp', the 'film transfer protocol' and then play it locally.

    16. Re:Filmed? Those look more like video to me. by g0at · · Score: 1

      Well, not exactly. That's not quite the distinction I was making. To my view it is forgivable to speak of sailing on an engine-powered boat, but not forgivable to state that the wind was captured by the boat's sails (when the boat has none).

      Similarly, I can forgive people speaking about a "short film" that was shot in digital video, but not forgive the author's statement that the image was recorded onto film (it very obviously was not).

      -b

  12. Floating corpses by hansamurai · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So does that mean if an astronaut got disconnected and floated off, we'd be able to see them orbiting or flying off too? Kind of morbid.

    1. Re:Floating corpses by Gordonjcp · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, and yes.

    2. Re:Floating corpses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be badass if there were enough floating corpses to form a planetary ring system.

    3. Re:Floating corpses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The tether line is your friend

    4. Re:Floating corpses by narcberry · · Score: 1

      Would be kind of a twisted way to memorialize yourself, if only you could stay up there forever...

      --
      Modding me -1 troll doesn't make me wrong.
    5. Re:Floating corpses by Dan541 · · Score: 4, Funny

      However that asshole with the scissors is not.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    6. Re:Floating corpses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they have a little frame with jets on it, to save their ass in just such a situation.

      watch nasa tv as they get ready for a spacewalk, it's very obvious when they put it on.

    7. Re:Floating corpses by RodgerDodger · · Score: 1

      It's even possible that they could have used this gear to go, at the time of the incident, and fetch the toolkit - however, it's plainly obvious that the risk wouldn't be worth it.

      --
      "Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
    8. Re:Floating corpses by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Have you seen those tethers? I want a pair of those steel-cutting scissors!

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    9. Re:Floating corpses by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      When I was a kid, I read a story about a murder on a space station. The gimmick was that the space station cops were pretty sure they knew who'd done it, but he'd committed the crime and disposed of the body on a spacewalk, so they had no actual evidence. They decided to take a spacesuit identical to the dead man's and have it float up to the suspect on his next spacewalk, the idea being that it would startle him into a confession. Well, they set everything up, sending an undercover cop out with the guy to watch his reaction ... and at just the right time, two suits floated up. The murderer freaked out and they ended up hauling him off to the loony bin instead of prison. He thought he'd been clever, killing the guy and shoving his body out into space -- but he'd forgotten that nothing ever really goes away in orbit, and sooner or later it will come back.

      It was a silly story, written specifically for kids, but that image of the two suits floating out there, one empty and one with a corpse inside, haunted me for a looong time.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    10. Re:Floating corpses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder why they don't extend this fascinating concept to, like, toolbags maybe?

    11. Re:Floating corpses by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      I point you toward "Space Oddity" by David Bowie. He beat you to it by 30-some years.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    12. Re:Floating corpses by GanjaManja · · Score: 1

      people-sized shooting stars...

  13. Lost it! by d0n0vAn · · Score: 0

    That is awesome!

  14. NASA Bloopers Tape by syousef · · Score: 5, Insightful

    NASA funniest home videos?

    Seriously though, I feel sorry for this woman. One minor slip up and because the media latched onto it this is all she'll ever be remembered for. NASA astronauts risk life and limb and while the humour's good we shouldn't forget the effort and sacrifice they make should not be dismissed lightly.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:NASA Bloopers Tape by darkvizier · · Score: 1

      Yeah, she's never going to live this one down. Life will be fun for her back at HQ!

    2. Re:NASA Bloopers Tape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NASA funniest home videos?

      Seriously though, I feel sorry for this woman. One minor slip up and because the media latched onto it this is all she'll ever be remembered for.

      She would probably not be remembered at all otherwise.

      And there are worse nicknames than "Toolbag."

    3. Re:NASA Bloopers Tape by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Serious question: if she can't tether a bag properly (follow the YouTube links to where she admits to not tethering it), what else is she forgetting, and who will make the "sacrifice" for her mistakes?

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    4. Re:NASA Bloopers Tape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah exactly, I think we should also be reminding people just how intelligent and whatnot you need to be just to be considered for the astronaut program, let alone actually get to go in space to do something. Your chances of making it into the NBA or NFL are probably higher!

    5. Re:NASA Bloopers Tape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      NASA funniest home videos?

      Seriously though, I feel sorry for this woman. One minor slip up and because the media latched onto it this is all she'll ever be remembered for. NASA astronauts risk life and limb and while the humour's good we shouldn't forget the effort and sacrifice they make should not be dismissed lightly.

      Yes, let's not have another horrible NASA acronym. I propose "Need Another Sticky Adhesive" be used instead of a Challenger-eque one.

    6. Re:NASA Bloopers Tape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, as opposed to not being remembered at all? Barring disaster, astronauts haven't been household names since the moon landings. She's doing fine - she's a top professional who's got an anecdote to tell, and it doubles as instant twit-filter to identify fools who make too big a deal of such things.

    7. Re:NASA Bloopers Tape by Krishnoid · · Score: 4, Funny

      One minor slip up and because the media latched onto it this is all she'll ever be remembered for.

      "I dropped a toolbag on a spacewalk. But I learned my lesson. And that's why I'll use nothing but Husky brand tethered toolbags, now with lined pockets for those messy grease gun spills."

      The possibilities are endless.

    8. Re:NASA Bloopers Tape by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      Can't we enjoy it without you fucking slashdotters trying to ruin it for us?

      Yeah, that's a real knee-slapper there, losing a bag and all.

    9. Re:NASA Bloopers Tape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NASA funniest home videos?

      Seriously though, I feel sorry for this woman. One minor slip up and because the media latched onto it this is all she'll ever be remembered for. NASA astronauts risk life and limb and while the humour's good we shouldn't forget the effort and sacrifice they make should not be dismissed lightly.

      EVERYONE really knows the truth that she ditched the toolkit for her make-up kit....the proof is on tape.

    10. Re:NASA Bloopers Tape by syousef · · Score: 1

      Serious question: if she can't tether a bag properly (follow the YouTube links to where she admits to not tethering it), what else is she forgetting, and who will make the "sacrifice" for her mistakes?

      Yep if she makes a more serious mistake people could die. However if you build a system on the basis that a small error will get you killed, people will die anyway. NO ONE is 100% mistake free!

      Should she be reprimanded? Perhaps. I don't know the circumstances well enough. Should she be ridiculed and lose her job. No.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    11. Re:NASA Bloopers Tape by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      No, you all really are that stupid. People in general are stupid. Yes, it's an elitist thing to say, but it's true! People in general have repeatedly shown themselves to be complete idiots. Individuals may be bright, but intelligence seems to be inversely proportional to crowd size.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    12. Re:NASA Bloopers Tape by Tokerat · · Score: 1

      ...One minor slip up and because the media latched onto it this is all she'll ever be remembered for...

      At least she doesn't wear diapers and kidnap people. Losing a tool bag? Could have happened to anyone, from any space program.

      --
      CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
    13. Re:NASA Bloopers Tape by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      Don't feed the troll.

    14. Re:NASA Bloopers Tape by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      It's an inverse square law actually, like most obvious things in the universe.

    15. Re:NASA Bloopers Tape by lxs · · Score: 1

      I don't really get this argument.

      Windowcleaners, builders and undersea welders risk life and limb on a daily basis (and not just three weeks out of their entire career) and nobody blathers on pompously about their "effort and sacrifice" when they simply do their job.

      Put a monkey in a uniform and suddenly everybody treats them as a hero.

    16. Re:NASA Bloopers Tape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people are willing to pay millions of dollars just to be in space. If you happen to be paid to do it, it seems more privilege than sacrifice to me.

      Things they would expect you to do in exchange of that privilege and all the money they spend on your training, would be to do your job properly, which would include not loosing a 100,000 USD toolkit in space.

      I donÂt feel sorry for that woman at all.

    17. Re:NASA Bloopers Tape by lpontiac · · Score: 1

      Windowcleaners, builders and undersea welders risk life and limb on a daily basis (and not just three weeks out of their entire career) and nobody blathers on pompously about their "effort and sacrifice" when they simply do their job.

      Huh? Tune into something like the NatGeo channel; documentaries highlighting these professions and the risks are a dime a dozen.

    18. Re:NASA Bloopers Tape by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      It's very courageous of you to keep her colleagues in danger. Not many people would have the guts to make that kind of call.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    19. Re:NASA Bloopers Tape by syousef · · Score: 1

      It's very courageous of you to keep her colleagues in danger. Not many people would have the guts to make that kind of call.

      Perhaps you should take a look at your own role in the space mission before you start bitching at me. I guess you're in a much better position to make life and death decisions on behalf of NASA? To top it off you began the speculation with your assertion that this woman is dangerous because she made a single mistake. Pot. Kettle. Black. Your ability for self-dillusion is truly epic.

      Have you ever considered getting your hand off it for long enough to stop trolling and do something useful with your life.

      What an asshole!

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    20. Re:NASA Bloopers Tape by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Need Another String Attached

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    21. Re:NASA Bloopers Tape by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm thinking she's a candidate spokeswoman for Velcro.

    22. Re:NASA Bloopers Tape by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Actually, you sound like you'd do better at the Department of Homeland Security.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    23. Re:NASA Bloopers Tape by syousef · · Score: 1

      Actually, you sound like you'd do better at the Department of Homeland Security.

      What a pity there's no department of homeland trolls.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  15. A reason for exploring underground by gmuslera · · Score: 3, Insightful

    at least there when you screw something down there you dont have the whole world watching you

    1. Re:A reason for exploring underground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      at least there when you screw something down there you dont have the whole world watching you

      ...unless you are Britney Spears

    2. Re:A reason for exploring underground by sleeponthemic · · Score: 1

      People would probably pay good money to see some subterranean screwing. You might have located your niche.

      --
      I record my sleeptalking
  16. How? by bXTr · · Score: 1, Insightful

    How, exactly, do you *drop* something in space?

    --
    It's a very dark ride.
    1. Re:How? by TuaAmin13 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Because of GMm/R^2

    2. Re:How? by Puffy+Director+Pants · · Score: 1

      Pretty easily, anything you don't have tied down is going to start drifting off on its own just by sheer entropy. It's not like they were out in deep space.

    3. Re:How? by bXTr · · Score: 1

      Well, she let go of a toolbag, and it floated away from her. That's not the same as dropping something. It didn't hit the ground. It might in a few days, but not immediately which is what happens when you or I drop something here on Earth.

      --
      It's a very dark ride.
    4. Re:How? by MrNaz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Incorrect. Had she not imparted momentum to it by shoving it aside, it would have stayed right there and not moved, at least in any time frame likely to be relevant to the ISS personnel.

      --
      I hate printers.
    5. Re:How? by Kagura · · Score: 1

      Depends on how high you are, and your forward movement, I would say.

    6. Re:How? by Kagura · · Score: 1

      Follow-up on my comment, according to your definition, if you jump off the Burj Dubai and let go of your purse while you're at terminal velocity, did you "drop it"?

    7. Re:How? by karlwilson · · Score: 1

      Drop doesn't necessarily imply "towards your feet."

    8. Re:How? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Incorrect. Had she not imparted momentum to it by shoving it aside, it would have stayed right there and not moved, at least in any time frame likely to be relevant to the ISS personnel.

      From what I see on NASA TV it's really quite hard to move something and have it remain perfectly still. A little momentum goes a long way in space.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    9. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not fair at all. It's not as if when you let go of something in space it plummets downward toward the Earth instantly. There's a lot of (1/2)mv^2 to compensate for.

      There are two good retorts to the GP. First you could say Newton's first law applies and now that this object is in motion it ain't never comin' back.

      Second you could say the tiny amounts of atmospheric particles that exist in LEO will slowly de-orbit the toolbag. Drag will take away from velocity, which will lower the stable orbit until it's captured by atmosphere completely.

  17. Dark Star by owlnation · · Score: 4, Interesting

    On top of the toolbag as it glides, sits Doolittle the Spider.

  18. Send the shuttle to retrieve it by Dr_Banzai · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Simple: when the shuttle's done at the station, detach and intercept the bag in orbit. Voila, $100k saved. They could think of it as a drill for retrieving an astronaut who floats away during a spacewalk.

    1. Re:Send the shuttle to retrieve it by the_other_chewey · · Score: 4, Informative

      Simple: when the shuttle's done at the station, detach and intercept the bag in orbit. Voila, $100k saved.

      Not a chance. That bag doesn't just float somewhere around the station, it is on an orbital trajectory of its own -
      by now probably quite far from the ISS in fact. And unless Heidemarie aimed very carefully, it isn't even in the same
      orbital plane. The shuttle doesn't carry enough fuel to do plane transfer maneuvers (that's the main reason why timing is important when launching), and even if it did, it would take a hell of a lot of maneuvering to do a full orbital
      realignment - which would probably cost more in fuel alone than those $100k.

    2. Re:Send the shuttle to retrieve it by OriginalArlen · · Score: 2, Interesting
      1. there is no way the shuttle could retrieve an astronaut who "floated away". Hence, no drill.
      2. For the same reasons that they can't intercept you putative astronaut marshmallow, they also can't intercept the toolbag.

      The nature of those reasons are left as an exercise for Dr _Banzai. (Hints: delta-v, ranging.)

      --

      Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
    3. Re:Send the shuttle to retrieve it by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      Seems pretty simple to me:

      1. Include a magnet in the space suit (tool bag, etc)
      2. On the space station, install a small aimable gun that propels a small electromagnet on a long tether
      3. When something starts floating a way, quickly point the gun toward the lost object and shoot
      4. When the electromagnet is close enough to the target, turn the magnet on so that it draws the target toward it
      5. Once the target is firmly attached to the electromagnet, reel them both back to the station
      6. Crack open a beer with your fellow astronauts and start making up stories about 'the one that got away'
      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    4. Re:Send the shuttle to retrieve it by MichaelSmith · · Score: 0

      The fuel is going to get used or dumped anyway. The bag is being tracked on radar because it is a hazard to space craft. I actually think picking it up is a good idea.

      And good practice for when HAL murders the 2IC and the commander has to go out in a space pod to retrieve him.

      Bonus points if they get out and in fast enough to do without a helmet.

    5. Re:Send the shuttle to retrieve it by the_other_chewey · · Score: 1

      I actually think picking it up is a good idea.

      So do I. In theory.
      But let me be clearer: They can't.
      Technically impossible with what is currently up there.
      It would require its own mission.

    6. Re:Send the shuttle to retrieve it by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, actually, Shane was going to bring along his fishing pole (you know, just in case), but then Heide was like "That's ridiculous, Scott! There aren't going to be any fish up there, for god's sake. There's no room for all your useless toys. I need room for the sandwiches and extra socks. If your socks get wet what good is your stupid fishing pole?"

      And so the fishing pole stayed home, and you should have seen the look Steve got as they watched the bag drift away and he suddenly turned to Shane and said "Hey - where is your fishing pole?"

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    7. Re:Send the shuttle to retrieve it by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The shuttle doesn't carry enough fuel to do plane transfer maneuvers (that's the main reason why timing is important when launching), and even if it did, it would take a hell of a lot of maneuvering to do a full orbital realignment - which would probably cost more in fuel alone than those $100k.

      This is only partly true. The impetus she could have given the toolbag, even deliberately, is no more than whatever her arm can generate. A Major League Pitcher can manage maybe 100 mph (45 m/s) with a baseball, much less with a backpack sized toolbox.

      I doubt this woman could have come close to that by accident. Which means maybe a few meters per second velocity differential at the beginning. Which the Shuttle could quite easily have matched.

      Letting it go for a while gives it time to move around its new orbit enough that the Shuttle would require multiple burns to match orbits (not because the initial impetus was high, but because you need to change to an orbit that reaches the toolbag's new orbital position and velocity when the toolbag gets to there). Which makes it prohibitive.

      This, of course, ignoring the fact that it's mostly silly to try to recover a toolbag in a situation like that, unless it's clearly going to smack into the ISS or Shuttle in an orbit or three....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    8. Re:Send the shuttle to retrieve it by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I actually think picking it up is a good idea.

      So do I. In theory. But let me be clearer: They can't. Technically impossible with what is currently up there. It would require its own mission.

      I think you are wrong. The velocity relative to the ISS is a few metres per second at the most. Because it got a single impulse it will keep coming back once an orbit. I don't think catching it with the shuttle on this mission is impossible.

    9. Re:Send the shuttle to retrieve it by the_other_chewey · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think you are wrong.

      I know I'm not. I've calculated stuff like this before.

      The velocity relative to the ISS is a few metres per second at the most.

      You'd be surprised how difficult it is to catch up even in those orders of magnitude.
      Orbital maneuvering is hard, and very unintutive. NASA had to learn this the hard way:
      The early rendez-vous missions assumed it would be possible to fly manual visual approaches once the
      target is in sight. Didn't work. Maneuvering out-of-plane is also energetically very expensive.

      Because it got a single impulse it will keep coming back once an orbit.

      True, the orbits intersect in space. But not in time, due to different excentricity.
      The shuttle/ISS will not be at the section point the next time the bag comes along.

      I don't think catching it with the shuttle on this mission is impossible.

      If the orbital periods have a common integer multiple (unlikely), they could wait and try a very risky
      catch-the-bag EVA (exactly one chance) - but they will probably run out of time, air and other
      supplies before this would be possible even then.

      Just accept it: It's impossible.

    10. Re:Send the shuttle to retrieve it by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      unless it's clearly going to smack into the ISS or Shuttle in an orbit or three....

      And, considering the relational velocity the toolbag had (if you watch the video, we are talking about a half a meter/second kind of velocity) said collision would be harmless. She herself was hitting the station harder just moving around.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    11. Re:Send the shuttle to retrieve it by Dr_Banzai · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nothing's impossible - haven't you seen Apollo 13?

    12. Re:Send the shuttle to retrieve it by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Unless it's on a short decaying orbit, why not launch a smart probe (like a guided missile) to track it down, latch onto the tool bag, and then drag it back down to Earth out of harms way.

      Or is that just making too much common sense to solve the problem?

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    13. Re:Send the shuttle to retrieve it by toiletsalmon · · Score: 1

      "When something starts floating a way, quickly point the gun toward the lost object and shoot" It's my understanding that even that would change the trajectory of the station enough to need to be compensated for.

    14. Re:Send the shuttle to retrieve it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happens when you drop the magnet?

    15. Re:Send the shuttle to retrieve it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if the tether snaps. You can't propel yourself in a frictionless environment by throwing something and pulling it back on a tether. You could change the orientation of the space station that way, but not the trajectory.

    16. Re:Send the shuttle to retrieve it by JamesP · · Score: 1

      At least if it's an astronaut they can throw him a fire extinguisher...

      (obscure?)

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    17. Re:Send the shuttle to retrieve it by zaphle · · Score: 1

      Simple: when the shuttle's done at the station, detach and intercept the bag in orbit. Voila, $100k saved. They could think of it as a drill for retrieving an astronaut who floats away during a spacewalk.

      I can't believe that was just given a 3 interesting. As if the spaceshuttle can just go fly around anywhere. As if the spaceshuttle has even enough fuel for that. Even with enough fuel, as if the fuel usage for retrieval would cost less than 100K. As if the risk of such operation wouldn't be tremendous. Etcetera. Who gives mod-points these days? A bunch of 7-year olds?

      Here's a quote for you sir: "Frankly, I'm suspicious of anyone who has a strong opinion on a complicated issue." - Scott Adams

      Simple? Yeah, right.

      --
      And what if there's nothing behind the door until it is being opened?
    18. Re:Send the shuttle to retrieve it by TheLink · · Score: 1

      http://www.space.com/news/spaceshuttles/sts101_jetpack_safety.html

      The article could be wrong, but it does imply that a space shuttle could chase and retrieve a spacewalker that drifts away.

      If the shuttle can do that, I don't see why it can't retrieve a tool bag that has gone adrift at such a slow speed.

      --
    19. Re:Send the shuttle to retrieve it by MentalMooMan · · Score: 1

      The impulse given to the station would be equal and opposite to the one given to it when the tool bag was accelerated away.

      --
      43rd Law of Computing:
      Anything that can go wr
      fortune: Segmentation violation -- Core Dumped
    20. Re:Send the shuttle to retrieve it by saltydogdesign · · Score: 1

      I know I'm not. I've calculated stuff like this before.

      True, the orbits intersect in space. But not in time, due to different excentricity.

      Hey, you seem like a bright guy. You seem to know what you're talking about. But don't the people who teach you orbital math ever bother to teach you how to spell "eccentricity?"

      I'm just sayin'.

      --
      // This is not a sig.
    21. Re:Send the shuttle to retrieve it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. First of all, if you want to catch it in any reasonable amount of time, you need to burn unnecessary amounts of fuel. NASA prefers to keep fuel reserves relatively large leading up to re-entry so they can delay it if necessary. Secondly, the shuttle has limited amounts of food, water, and oxygen for the crew, so they would need to do it within a day or two or they'd be reducing their margin for factors like bad weather at the landings sites.

      Third, there's a lot of people who work extra hours when the shuttle is in flight, including the shuttle crew (they get hazard and overtime pay while on orbit, IIRC). That's going to add up quickly to well beyond $100,000.

      Fourth, the toolbag was a kit assembled for this particular mission. It has essentially zero value once the mission is over. Most of the cost is designing the kit, which for things like this, includes designing the spacewalk it will be used on. Spacewalks, btw, are not on-the-fly events. They're planned, practiced, and refined for months ahead of time, so they can get as much done as possible in the alotted time.

    22. Re:Send the shuttle to retrieve it by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Yes, just unpack the lunar module that is on the ISS in cargo bay 4!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  19. danger? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's hope those tools won't be an orbital hazard in the future.

  20. The "Don't get sick" health plan by JSBiff · · Score: 1

    "It probably would be cheaper just to have the astronauts make sure the bag is continually tethered to something."

    Yeah, and it's a hell of a lot cheaper to just "not get sick or have any accidents" than to pay for health insurance.

    Seriously, sh-t happens, as the saying goes. I really don't think it would be that hard to create some sort of little robot, like the person suggested, to fetch stuff. Heck, it doesn't have to even be a robot in the sense of being autonomous. It could just be an R/C device. You probably wouldn't even need any sort of combustion-based engine for the bot, just some sort of compressed gas (air, nitrogen, CO2) nozzles.

    1. Re:The "Don't get sick" health plan by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > Seriously, sh-t happens, as the saying goes. I really don't think it would be that hard
      > to create some sort of little robot, like the person suggested, to fetch stuff.

      But it's probably cheaper to just let the stuff go.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:The "Don't get sick" health plan by TBoon · · Score: 1

      Given that the total costs of the ISS is around $100 Billion over 10 years, or $27 millions a day, that tool-belt set them back about 5 minutes!

  21. Neat! by killermookie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let's put aside any blame, mistakes, whether the media is being unfair...for just a moment.

    Seeing that bag just drift off, only a few feet away from the station and then a few days later we see it pass by in orbit from Earth is just amazing. I'm always impressed with whatever we do in space.

    Was it my tax dollars that paid for that lost bag? Still worth the money.

    1. Re:Neat! by marcop · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Best method for our government to loose (or some would consider: waste) $100K, IMO.

    2. Re:Neat! by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Was it my tax dollars that paid for that lost bag?

      No, actually, for that particular toolbag they held a bake sale.

  22. The Tool Tray NASA clip... by pentalive · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I was watching some sort of NASA clip that showed a tool tray for on-orbit work. It locked the tools down until you plugged the lanyard from your suit into the tool, then the only way to get the lanyard off the tool was to lock it back into the tray..

    Guess that wasn't in use this time.

  23. Mirrored WMV by antdude · · Score: 3, Funny
    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  24. Don't be a fool, by Revenger75 · · Score: 0

    Tether your tool!

  25. She fumbled, but it's not her fault. by Qbertino · · Score: 4, Insightful

    She fumbled, in a high-stress enviroment under high-stress circumstances, but it's not her fault. I actually instantly saw the flaw with something/somebody else when I read this the first time.

    what in heavens name is up with a space grease gun leaking grease were it's not supposed to? Were does Nasa get these? At the local hardware store for 10 Dollars a piece or what? This stunt actually went quite well. Imagine her not being able to do her job (or get back to the airlock) because a grease gun explodes all over her helmet visor or something simular.

    Say what you want, but somewhere some Nasa engineering team has to get back to the drawing table ASAP and design a greasegun that actually works relyably - Nasa style wise. Or something simular with no moving parts at all. Maybe get a vaseline can and a spatula tied to a string or something - that's probably how the russians do it.
    I'd actually be super-pissed at gear that goes haywire on me 7 hours into a stressy EVA. I do climbing - imagine your backback shedding mission-critical gear at 300 meters in the vertical or something simular. Multipling that by a thousand hints the scale of issues we're talking about.

    Way more people than just the astronaut are responsible here.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    1. Re:She fumbled, but it's not her fault. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read this and thought.. "Chelated Noisemaker Extreme" of the Naked Purple, almost.

    2. Re:She fumbled, but it's not her fault. by __aawkdb2598 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, NASA needs to get right on that. Reminds me of the story of how NASA spent all that money developing a special gel, pressurized cartridge, etc. so that they could have a pen that works zero gee. You can buy them (or something like it) at any museum of flight now.

      The Russians used pencils.

    3. Re:She fumbled, but it's not her fault. by sqrt(2) · · Score: 3, Informative
      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    4. Re:She fumbled, but it's not her fault. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now say "simular" once more...

    5. Re:She fumbled, but it's not her fault. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish I were a grammar and spelling Nazi so I'd correct all those annoying errors you made.

    6. Re:She fumbled, but it's not her fault. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >because a grease gun explodes all over her helmet visor or something
      you're a sick motherfucker you know that?

    7. Re:She fumbled, but it's not her fault. by saltydogdesign · · Score: 1

      She fumbled, in a high-stress enviroment under high-stress circumstances

      Time to put Terrell Owens in a spacesuit.

      --
      // This is not a sig.
    8. Re:She fumbled, but it's not her fault. by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      At the local hardware store for 10 Dollars a piece or what?

      That might actually have worked out better (and cheaper too). One problem with NASA is that they frequently go to the trouble and expense of designing a special space version of a common tool, even when a specially designed tool is probably not needed, and then spend even more money fixing the defects in their custom designed tool (which the consumer and commercial equivalents worked out decades ago). Perhaps the most well known example is the space pen. Many engineering hours were spent developing a liquid ink pen that would write (and not leak) in zero gravity. What did the Soviets do? They took a pencil instead of a pen.

    9. Re:She fumbled, but it's not her fault. by __aawkdb2598 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that, I deserved it :D

    10. Re:She fumbled, but it's not her fault. by sqrt(2) · · Score: 1

      Don't mention it. Although I think it's worth noting--as the Snopes article does--the moral of the story is one we should remember; that the most technological solution is not always the best one.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    11. Re:She fumbled, but it's not her fault. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing that bothered me about that footage was that she couldn't move to retreive it.

      You could sense the stress and understand the slip of the bag but I'd think Nasa would train their astronauts to move comfortably in Zero G and trust their safety devices.

      It might seem risky to jump after the bag, something that might have been an option if she'd admitted there was a problem slightly earlier... and it would have been an amazing save.

      I don't think there's any blame on this one but it might be worth the effort to get future spacewalkers more comfortable with safety equipment and zero g.

    12. Re:She fumbled, but it's not her fault. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm certain your English is better than my German. You might want to run a spell checker; phonetic spelling doesn't quite get everything correct.

  26. tether by zogger · · Score: 1

    I think even home depot quality rope, cable or chain would have been sufficient for a toolbag tether.

  27. Hmm... by ohxten · · Score: 1

    What's that thing falling from th

    --
    Need an automatic screenshot taker? Try here.
  28. The Astronaut's Prayer by Animats · · Score: 4, Funny

    One of the Apollo astronauts once remarked that what they really think about is "Please let me not fuck up.".

  29. So just what... by tfbit · · Score: 1

    made it a $100,000 tool bag as reported by the BBC?

  30. The ONLY people by Runaway1956 · · Score: 0

    who never screw up, are those people who never DO ANYTHING. The broad dropped some tools. The only thing a couch potato, or an armchair warrior has ever dropped was their arse, or a potato chip. Tools are replaceable - sooner or later. This time, maybe $100,000 later.........

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  31. SAFER by mortonda · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's not that morbid, though it probably would give a spacewalker a bit of a scare. But in the event that they lose both tethers and float off, they also have the SAFER packs to get them back.

    1. Re:SAFER by mortonda · · Score: 1

      Man, and I forgot worst case scenario, they *can* undock the shuttle quickly if they have to and chase the astronaut down.

  32. Spy game in space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, since Bush produced some new weapon funding for space, I'm sure its fun being an astronaut wondering if someone just was intentionally ejected into space like a ... lost grease gun POP

  33. Far older than Apollo.... by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 5, Informative

    The statement "Lord, please don't let me fuck this up" was originally referred to as "The Shepard's Prayer", after the first US astronaut, Alan Shepard. He reportedly "recited" it while on the pad awaiting his Mercury flight, not knowing that his mike was hot, and everyone in launch control was listening in.

    Shepard also ended up having to pee in his spacesuit on the pad, because the engineers hadn't considered the effects of having a man lying on his back with his legs elevated for several hours before launch.

    The glory days of manned spaceflight...:)

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    1. Re:Far older than Apollo.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:Far older than Apollo.... by freeweed · · Score: 1

      Shepard was also an Apollo astronaut. ;)

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
  34. Houston, we have a (litterbug) problem... by KudyardRipling · · Score: 1

    If space baggies are the problem, Quark is the solution.

    --
    Submission as evidence constitutes plaintiff and/or prosecutorial misconduct.
  35. Unrelated news: James Trafficant out of jail soon. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's better than that pigfucking actor who plays "Scotty." James Trafficant stands up in the House and says it to those non-resident aliens in their face whenever they pork Americans in the a$$: "Beam. Me. Up." Look it up on Youtube. The guy is legend.

  36. I was shocked at how sexist that Astronaught was. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not that hard for a woman astronaught to stop insulting us menfolk. In a job where you should be yourself, those womens should stop trying to mock us men losing our tools and stuff. Why didn't she just attach a 10' rope and swing around to pick it up or did she want to stop mocking how us men solve our tool-losing powers? Even Indiana Jones' loudmouth ladyfriend throughout the first couple movies could do that. But no, she's gotta be all subliminal anti-man, even so much as giving us the idea that she said "damn broke a nail" just as she remembered she deep9'red the toolbag.

    If they want to slap some of us men around any more, why didn't they just admit they lost the tools somewhere in the shuttle like they said they lost the spiders. Nobody cared, but instead they gotta mock us menfolk with the sublminal message that she farked-up because us men are the one's in control of the mission. Sure, us men should've put a better tool-stowing strategy when in the open bay and spacewalking all over the work. I can talk for days on this subject, but I think I'll let an hundred man-hours of Slashdot posts within the next 30 minutes resolve this sexist anti-man hype being put here by the likes of the 4chan crows.

  37. Free tacos! by dorix · · Score: 1

    Another opportunity for a publicity stunt by Taco Bell when this thing falls out of orbit?

  38. Just tell the Chinese by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 1

    Just tell the Chinese that the bag really contains our new secret death ray. I'm sure they'll find a way to "deal with it."

  39. When will the toolbag enter the atmosphere? by Giometrix · · Score: 1

    I don't recall seeing this figure, but maybe someone has seen it.... When will the toolbag enter the atmosphere? Months? Days? Years?

    --
    Download free e-books, lectures, and tutorials at bookgoldmine.com
    1. Re:When will the toolbag enter the atmosphere? by X0563511 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes. The ISS is in a decaying orbit (a non-decaying orbit would be way-the-fuck-up-there and at blistering velocity), which means the toolbag is too. The difference? The toolbag won't be getting an orbit boost from a spacecraft later.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    2. Re:When will the toolbag enter the atmosphere? by Giometrix · · Score: 1

      Yes. The ISS is in a decaying orbit (a non-decaying orbit would be way-the-fuck-up-there and at blistering velocity), which means the toolbag is too. The difference? The toolbag won't be getting an orbit boost from a spacecraft later.

      Yes, I know. I was actually wondering how long it would take before the bag reentered the atmosphere. Any clue?

      --
      Download free e-books, lectures, and tutorials at bookgoldmine.com
    3. Re:When will the toolbag enter the atmosphere? by the_other_chewey · · Score: 2, Informative

      The ISS' orbit decreases by about 4km per month. If we consider reentry at ~75km (completely arbitrary,
      and probably quite a bit off), the ISS itself would come down in about five to six years, give or take. The toolbag
      has a higher density than the ISS, so the deceleration by atmospheric drag should be a bit lower. That puts the time to reentry
      in the order of magnitude of very roughly ten years.

    4. Re:When will the toolbag enter the atmosphere? by StickyWidget · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm sorry, did you really mean to say "density"? Atmospheric drag affects surface area of an object, not the number of atoms per unit of volume.

      ~Sticky
      //I do not think that word means what you think it means...

    5. Re:When will the toolbag enter the atmosphere? by inviolet · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, did you really mean to say "density"? Atmospheric drag affects surface area of an object, not the number of atoms per unit of volume.

      Meanwhile, the kinetic energy of the object (which is what atmospheric drag is carrying away) is based on the number of atoms in the object. Therefore, the rate at which atmospheric drag bleeds energy off an object is a function of density and shape.

      To wit: compare the rate at which a marshmallow and a marble, both the same size and shape, differing only by density, would be affected by drag.

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    6. Re:When will the toolbag enter the atmosphere? by the_other_chewey · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, did you really mean to say "density"?

      I did.

      Atmospheric drag affects surface area of an object, not the number of atoms per unit of volume.

      Yup, the force depends on the cross-section parallel to the flight path.
      But the deceleration depends on force per mass (F/m, remember?), and
      a small, compact object will experience less deceleration than a large "airy"
      one of equal mass.

      A compact toolbag packs way more punch than a solar panel of equal cross-section,
      so yes, density - more precisely: "area density" perpendicular to the velocity - matters.

      Throw a pea. Then, throw a sheet of paper... - both weigh roughly the same.
      That's BTW also why uranium ammunition is so popular with the military.

    7. Re:When will the toolbag enter the atmosphere? by whoisisis · · Score: 1

      Parent is overrated.
      Surface area gives drag forces allright, but higher density gives higher inertial mass per surface area, at least for objects like lost toolbags.
      Mathematicians could probably dream up some sort of toolbag where this is not true, however...

    8. Re:When will the toolbag enter the atmosphere? by StickyWidget · · Score: 1

      Surface area gives drag forces allright, but higher density gives higher inertial mass per surface area, at least for objects like lost toolbags. Mathematicians could probably dream up some sort of toolbag where this is not true, however...

      Strike that, reverse it. "higher mass gives a higher density". Density is not a physical property, it is a method of describing how many atoms can fit in certain unit of volume. Density means nothing without mass.

      And for the record, it's just mass when you are talking about both gravitation and inertia. Inertial mass is not a *real* thing, it is the measurement of mass when both the observer and the object are in the same gravitational field.

      ~Sticky

    9. Re:When will the toolbag enter the atmosphere? by StickyWidget · · Score: 1

      I did.

      Density means nothing when calculating forces, velocity, and acceleration. Mass is the important quantity. If the bag were made up of light atoms (such as a carbon mesh) it would be affected slower than a bag made up of heavy atoms (such as uranium), even if they had the exact same density. This is called inertia, and it's a property of mass. Try doing an equation involving motion using an object's density instead of it's mass, it doesn't work out unless you add the mass in (either directly or indirectly).

      A compact toolbag packs way more punch than a solar panel of equal cross-section, so yes, density - more precisely: "area density" perpendicular to the velocity - matters.

      Why are you using "area density"? That is used mainly to measure absorption of radiation by a thin film (or a set of thin films which approximate a 3-dimensional object. Calculus is fun!) And I won't even comment on the attempt to turn a scalar measurement into a vector. Just ridiculous. Amd furthermore, if the panel weighs more than the bag, YES it does "pack more punch", or as us engineers say it "has more inertia, due to the higher mass".

      ~Sticky
      /It's feed the troll tuesday! Come on it's fun!

    10. Re:When will the toolbag enter the atmosphere? by StickyWidget · · Score: 1

      I'm intrigued by this "carrying away" property you speak of. Does it carry it away using a magic bag, or does it tie it up with a magic lasso and tickle it first? Kinetic energy is based upon the acceleration of the object and the object's mass (Newtonian high school physics, 1/2 * mass * velocity^2). The atmospheric drag causes a reduction in the velocity of the object by producing an acceleration in the direction opposite the velocity. Hence, the reduction in velocity causes it to lose kinetic energy. You do know vectors, right? Cause if you don't know vectors, you're pretty much unqualified to do anything in physics but make fart noises.

      The number of atoms in the object is secondary to the object's mass. I can have 1000 atoms of hydrogen and 10 atoms of uranium traveling at the same velocity, and the kinetic energy of the uranium will be greater because it's mass is (10 * 235 AU)=2350 AU while the hydrogen's mass is (1000 AU * 1 ) = 1000 AU. By your logic, the 10 atoms of uranium would slow down faster than the 1000 atoms of hydrogen, which is wrong. Ask your physics teacher sometime.

      The marble and the marshmallow differ by MASS, which is the important quantity. That is why the marshmallow will be more affected by a change in acceleration caused by the atmospheric drag. May I recommend some Galileo? Or maybe some Mythbusters? Or perhaps "Bill Nye's Big Popup Book of Physics"? Look for things involving "dropping items of different weight, which hits the ground first".

      I hope next time I can have an argument with someone who has taken a little more than remedial physics. I'd like fries with my big mac please.

      ~Sticky

  40. This is /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody cares that it's a wmv file?

    1. Re:This is /. by antdude · · Score: 1

      But it's higher resolution!

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  41. Hehe .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too bag it was a tool bad.

  42. Effort? Yes. Sacrifice? Uhm... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Since when it is a sacrifice to perform your dream job?

    The sacrifice may be to give up some things in order to do it, but most likely are negligible compared with the satisfactions and even risks (people do many risky things for far less rewards).

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  43. a very real problem by idigitallDotCom · · Score: 1

    while everyone seems to think this is funny or cool, it's actually a very real problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_debris , and http://www.space.com/spacewatch/space_junk.html Why has none of this stuff plummeted out of orbit and plonked someone on the head?

    --
    blog.idigitall.com
    1. Re:a very real problem by Olivier+Galibert · · Score: 1

      Part of this stuff plummets out of orbit all the time. Most of it burns up, as for the rest, it's very hard to hit someone. The earth's surface is big (510 million square kilometers), mostly water, and we're only 6 billions or so with a rather small surface area each. A quick estimate of the hit-a-human probability puts it around 1e-6 or so.

          OG.

    2. Re:a very real problem by idigitallDotCom · · Score: 1

      I don't know much about things burning up... but what happens to a (metal) screwdriver or pliers that plummets out of orbit? Does that also just burn up and 'disappear'/(vaporize?) or is there the possibility, however small, of a lump/drop of molten metal hitting someone on the head? Also, what exactly does a screwdriver the plummet out of orbit look like when/if it gets to earth?

      --
      blog.idigitall.com
    3. Re:a very real problem by Olivier+Galibert · · Score: 1

      Burn and vaporize.

      As for "however small", in our probability wave word there is pretty much no zero probability. "Small enough not to matter" is where it's at. Someone somewhere being hit by a meteorite, natural or artificial, is improbable enough to be close, yourself or someone you know being hit is straight in that territory.

      In other words, it's billion of times more probable for you to die in a car accident than being hit by a meteorite.

          OG.

    4. Re:a very real problem by janwedekind · · Score: 1

      The atmosphere can protect us from much larger objects. However orbiting debris is a real threat for satellites, spaceships and astronauts.

  44. At least, when they find it.... by PinkyDead · · Score: 1

    it shouldn't be too difficult to narrow it down to which Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper lost it - if she had the good sense to put her name on it.

    --
    Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!
  45. How about following procedures? by zaphle · · Score: 1

    Maybe it's just me, but I would expect a spacewalk to be performed by a strict procedure, (someone telling each step over the intercom or a digital checklist attached to the sleeve of the astronaut's suit), comparable to how surgeons work: well planned and prepared, the placement of the toolbox and its tools included in the planning (open attached toolbag, attach needed tool to suit, detach said tool from toolbag (with double straps, like mountain climbers do), use tool, etc.). Am I getting something fundamentally wrong about spacewalking as to how this would be impossible?

    --
    And what if there's nothing behind the door until it is being opened?
  46. Serious question... by MoeDrippins · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How do we know the thing in the wmv was, in fact, the tool bag? I assume it's tracked or something (based on known orbit/velocity/somethingelseaboutwhichIknownothing)? I.e. we know it should have been there, then? And lo, something was there, then, so that was it?

    --
    Before you design for reuse, make sure to design it for use.
  47. Docked salary by fantomas · · Score: 1

    Well I guess the head of Nasa doesn't get docked for each satellite thats blow up on the launch pad/ disappears into space on the wrong trajectory etc so I don't think the crew will get docked for dropping a tool bag... ... and let's not get into what bankers and politicians should be docked from their salaries for all the money that's disappeared out of the national economies right now!

  48. Space gopher by JerryQ · · Score: 1

    I think this sort of incident around the ISS could drive the development of a simple space ROV for picking up these sorts of things, or serving as a camera platform for observing docking/separations etc. It wont be the last time this happens, and I guess that generally they will be relatively low velocity.

  49. Space Invaders by troll8901 · · Score: 1

    "You don't actually think they spend $20,000.00 on a hammer, $30,000.00 on a toilet seat do you?" - Julius Levinson

    New career choice: Virus Writer!

    Of course, any virus written by the U.S. Government goes into the public domain.

  50. mini grapple pistol...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess a compressed gas powered pistol that shoots a tethered grapple or net device is just too science fiction?
    How the frick would they get an astronaut back?

  51. Speaking of "you must be new here" by orthancstone · · Score: 1

    Take your 7 number UIDs and get off my lawn :p

    (/patiently waits for someone with a lower UID to give me the business)

    1. Re:Speaking of "you must be new here" by Psychochild · · Score: 1

      *raises eyebrow*

      Sorry, best I can do right now. Plus, I'm sure someone with fewer digits will be along sometime soon. I'll let them give you the works.

      --
      Brian "Psychochild" Green
      MMO developer's blog
  52. Grappling hooks? by tadauphoenix · · Score: 1

    Seriously, why don't astronauts carry batman-esqe grappling hooks that they can instantly grab and use for situations like this, or even getting knocked off the platform with a failed suit pack? Obviously not just a spearhead hook, maybe a tethering end to wrap around the target. Reusable.

    Aren't there think-tanks to address these kind of scenarios?

  53. NASA could at least have warned us! by janwedekind · · Score: 1

    We saw it already in earlier news. Thanks to NASA for not warning us!

  54. you tube jerks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is it that these people can keep making these awful petty comments?
    These astronauts are out in about the most lethal environment a person can be in, a rather nasty death waiting on the other side of their suit, potential radiation, floating in 0 G with the difficulty in doing anything inherent in that along with the risk of floating off (SAFER or no backpack), and any time you look down a nice big reminder of just how far you're going to fall.

    Crap happens, things have happened before, they'll happen again.

  55. That's the only concious comment on /. so far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I applaud you and pray that Doolittle baloons safely through the troposphere jetstreams to a certain veterinarian in an unusual niggardly San Francisco houshold.

  56. Keep up the subtle Johny Depp references by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cuz you're never late for US'ian national Butt-Pirate Day. Edward Scissorhands was a lame movie if it weren't for my imagination of a goth Wynona Ryder pinching her pink frosty nipplettes at my general direction while urinating from the top of a frozen water-slide.

    ohhhh-ho ho ho ho. I'm coming to Pepperbees's for all my satisfaction(s).

  57. Toolbag by Spooky-88 · · Score: 1

    Sounds trivial now, but imagine how much of a bummer it would be if you're cruisin' along minding your own business when all of the sudden... WHAM! Hammer, right through ythe hull of your spacecraft.