Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Universe-Watching Satellite Losing Its Cool

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the grandma-made-it-a-sweater dept.

coondoggie writes "NASA this week said its Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer, or WISE satellite is heating up — not a good thing when your primary mission instrument needs to be kept cold to work. According to NASA, WISE has two coolant tanks that keep the spacecraft's normal operating temperature at 12 Kelvin (minus 438 degrees Fahrenheit). The outer, secondary tank is now depleted, causing the temperature to increase. One of WISE's infrared detectors, the longest-wavelength band most sensitive to heat, stopped producing useful data once the telescope warmed to 31 Kelvin (minus 404 degrees Fahrenheit)."

153 comments

  1. hi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Redundant

    first post!

  2. Orbit by AnonymousClown · · Score: 1

    Sometime in it's orbit, would it drop down to 12K? Meaning, could it be still used when and if it cools down enough - at least until someone can get up their to replenish it?

    --
    RIP America

    July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    1. Re:Orbit by snookerhog · · Score: 2, Interesting
      depends on whether the primary source of the offending heat is internal or external.

      (no i did not RTFA)

    2. Re:Orbit by esocid · · Score: 1

      From my understanding of the article, they didn't have any plans to replenish it.

      --
      Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
    3. Re:Orbit by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Like the Hubble it's probably a lot cheaper to replace it when it finally breaks than fix or upgrade it. You don't save money by sending a manned space crew to replenish it when you could just send up another one on a rocket. Which is expensive, but frequently less so than trying to fix things in space. Not to mention less risky to personnel involved.

    4. Re:Orbit by Abstrackt · · Score: 1, Informative

      depends on whether the primary source of the offending heat is internal or external.

      (no i did not RTFA)

      A real shame there. You didn't even read the summary. It's not really a source of offending heat that's the issue so much as a lack of proper cooling. The outer, secondary cooling tank is depleted. The primary one is still functional but apparently it's not enough to keep it at optimal temperature.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    5. Re:Orbit by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      It's not really a source of offending heat that's the issue so much as a lack of proper cooling.

      Yeah, and it's not the fall that kills you, it's the short, sudden stop at the end.

      A real shame there. You didn't even read the summary.

      It's really a shame you don't understand that there's no difference between the two. Hint: If you don't have heating, you don't need cooling.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Orbit by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      There's a neat thing in logic... the knowledge to know the things you can change, accepting the things you cannot change, and the wisdom to know the difference.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    7. Re:Orbit by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      Hint: If you don't have heating, you don't need cooling.

      Logically very true, but given that this is a satellite whose purpose is to collect sensor data then the heat generation must be assumed. Heat is a given byproduct of running the sensors. NASA could solve the problem very quickly by just shutting down the sensors. But that defeats the purpose of putting the thing into space in the first place.

      Though the GP might have been better informed by reading the article, but the point was valid. The problem is not that the spacecraft is generating more heat than designed, the problem is that its cooling capacity has diminished.

    8. Re:Orbit by Abstrackt · · Score: 1

      It's not really a source of offending heat that's the issue so much as a lack of proper cooling.

      Yeah, and it's not the fall that kills you, it's the short, sudden stop at the end.

      A real shame there. You didn't even read the summary.

      It's really a shame you don't understand that there's no difference between the two. Hint: If you don't have heating, you don't need cooling.

      You're drawing some irrelevant conclusions there. You're absolutely correct that if you don't have heating you don't need cooling, but there is heat and cooling is necessary because of it.

      They're using solid hydrogen to achieve the optimum operating temperature. NASA was only able to include a limited amount of it and one of the tanks is now empty; that is the problem. Hopefully this clears things up for you.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    9. Re:Orbit by fadethepolice · · Score: 1, Funny

      My take on this: God grant me the alcohol to accept the things I cannot change, the ammo to change the things I can and the inablity to tell the difference...

    10. Re:Orbit by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Funny

      You're drawing some irrelevant conclusions there. You're absolutely correct that if you don't have heating you don't need cooling, but there is heat and cooling is necessary because of it.

      You are being a toolbag here, because I said nothing about cooling not being required, nor heating not occurring. In fact, if you read between the lines slightly, you can see that I believe that heating is occurring and that cooling is necessary, because my comment makes no sense otherwise. Kind of like yours.

      They're using solid hydrogen to achieve the optimum operating temperature. NASA was only able to include a limited amount of it and one of the tanks is now empty; that is the problem. Hopefully this clears things up for you.

      I knew all of this before I even commented. Hopefully you go fuck yourself.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Orbit by Abstrackt · · Score: 1

      To be honest, I don't believe you've said much of anything. We can debate about what you meant to say or implied all day long but you're just taking things further off track.

      That aside, I think it's great that NASA has been successful with this project and I can't wait to see the pictures.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    12. Re:Orbit by drinkypoo · · Score: 0, Troll

      To be honest, I don't believe you've said much of anything. We can debate about what you meant to say or implied all day long but you're just taking things further off track.

      I was going to just let you have the last word but then I realized hey, how can we be further off-track? This whole comment thread is about who said what. Consequently, you are a hypocrite. HTH, HAND.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:Orbit by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Which tank is dead doesn't matter, his question is focused on where the heat the tanks are combating /comes/ from. Is it solar radiation warming it, or the device itself (ie, electrical waste heat or something).

      It's a real shame you didn't even think the post through before you fired off a snippy reply.

      Also, "It's not really a source of offending heat that's the issue so much as a lack of proper cooling." - this doesn't even make sense. Read it again - if offending heat isn't an issue, then why is proper cooling even required?

      --
      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...
    14. Re:Orbit by ppanon · · Score: 1

      While it may not have been his point, his quote from the summary indicating that the outer cooling tank depleted first would seem to indicate that chances are the heat source is external to the device (aka the sun). Also engineers aren't stupid - if a device needs to be kept cool with a non-renewable coolant, they'll probably try to use a power source like solar panels that generate less heat than something like an RPG. The heat put out by whatever electronics are used for image capture, processing and transmission is likely to be much lower than the heat from incident radiation of unshielded solar radiation for most of its orbit duration.It's probably not a coincidence that this has happened shortly after a major solar flare spewed more energetic particles our way than usual.

      Not surprisingly, if you actually RTFA, you'll see an "artist's conception" painting showing a large combination solar panel/solar shade. That said, the article also indicates that the instrument's inner cooling layer is liquid hydrogen (not surprising if it needs to be at 12K since not many things get that cold this close to the sun), so the outer cooling layer which has gone dry was most likely using much warmer liquid nitrogen as a buffer to limit the cooling requirements for the LH layer. If the liquid nitrogen has evaporated then the liquid hydrogen won't last much longer either since it is now carrying the heat load for both cooling layers.

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
  3. So that's like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't understand your numbers. I talk in Celsius.

    1. Re:So that's like... by esocid · · Score: 1

      K - 273.15 = C

      --
      Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
    2. Re:So that's like... by Abstrackt · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't understand your numbers. I talk in Celsius.

      I talk in English myself.

      NASA is US-based, Slashdot is US-based, and the US uses Fahrenheit as the common measure of temperature. As for Kelvin, it's very easy for the rest of us to convert it to Celsius.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    3. Re:So that's like... by mano.m · · Score: 2, Informative

      I talk in English myself.

      The entire British Commonwealth uses Celsius.

      --
      Karma fed to this user will be promptly burnt. Be warned; be wary.
    4. Re:So that's like... by esocid · · Score: 4, Informative

      But NASA is a scientific entity. We use SI units. Fahrenheit is, as you put it, just a common measure of temperature.

      --
      Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
    5. Re:So that's like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you'll find it is true that the US 'left' the Commonwealth some time ago.

    6. Re:So that's like... by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      You're obviously not too cultured, then.
      There are things outside of your door, my friend.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    7. Re:So that's like... by arkane1234 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The entire British Commonwealth uses Celsius.

      Language wise, English equals British about as much as Spanish equals Spain.

      In other words, lots of countries were subjugated many hundreds of years ago by the two empires. English is simply a footprint from that period of time, as is Spanish. Since most of the countries are now separate entities and disparate, logic would dictate that the ousted countries' activities would hold no bearing on said countries' activities.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    8. Re:So that's like... by jbssm · · Score: 1

      But NASA is a scientific entity. We use SI units.

      Unfortunately it's not that simple. Astronomers and astrophysicists don't use SI, we use cgs (centimetre, gram, second) in Europe. I'm not sure about USA.

    9. Re:So that's like... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Even more interesting, there's a lot of people in Spain who don't speak Spanish. They speak Galician, Basque, or Catalan. Also interesting, there really isn't any such language as "Spanish". The language referred to by that name is really called Castillian, only one of the languages of Spain.

    10. Re:So that's like... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      If you don't understand Kelvins, then you're no geek and you have no business on this site. Anyone with a half-decent college education, who took Chemistry in college, would understand Kelvins.

    11. Re:So that's like... by MonkeyClicker · · Score: 1

      My favorite language is Mexican.

    12. Re:So that's like... by chihowa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Frankly, this whole discussion is moot. -404F isn't any more or less informative to most people than -242C. They're both "really really fucking cold".

      The only useful unit for temperatures that low is K.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    13. Re:So that's like... by mano.m · · Score: 1

      The entire British Commonwealth uses Celsius.

      Language wise, English equals British about as much as Spanish equals Spain.

      In other words, lots of countries were subjugated many hundreds of years ago by the two empires. English is simply a footprint from that period of time, as is Spanish. Since most of the countries are now separate entities and disparate, logic would dictate that the ousted countries' activities would hold no bearing on said countries' activities.

      a) The British Commonwealth includes the United Kingdom.
      b) The British Commonwealth equates to 'the English-speaking world' more legitimately than the United States alone.

      --
      Karma fed to this user will be promptly burnt. Be warned; be wary.
    14. Re:So that's like... by mano.m · · Score: 1

      I think you'll find it is true that the US 'left' the Commonwealth some time ago.

      I did not mean to imply the United States is still part of the Commonwealth.

      --
      Karma fed to this user will be promptly burnt. Be warned; be wary.
    15. Re:So that's like... by mrsquid0 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Astronomers use a hodge-podge of units in different systems. Cgs units are common, but for the really fun things we tend to use units like solar masses, parsecs, magnitudes, and foes (although that one never really caught on).

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    16. Re:So that's like... by Zantac69 · · Score: 0

      b) The British Commonwealth equates to 'the English-speaking world' more legitimately than the United States alone

      Are you bloody kidding? The US, has, by far, the greatest number of primary and first language English speakers than the rest of the world combined. KTHXBIBI.

      --
      1331461 is only semiprime *sigh* Alas - I am just short of 1337.
    17. Re:So that's like... by BobMcD · · Score: 0

      b) The British Commonwealth equates to 'the English-speaking world' more legitimately than the United States alone

      Are you bloody kidding? The US, has, by far, the greatest number of primary and first language English speakers than the rest of the world combined. KTHXBIBI.

      Not to mention the fact that the US is leading the way in multiple cultural fronts: technology, entertainment, etc.

      If we didn't have the most speakers, we'd probably still have the most influence over the development of the language.

    18. Re:So that's like... by Jellodyne · · Score: 1

      Ask the Mars Climate Orbiter which set of units we use.

    19. Re:So that's like... by rvw · · Score: 3, Funny

      Frankly, this whole discussion is moot. -404F isn't any more or less informative to most people than -242C. They're both "really really fucking cold".

      The only useful unit for temperatures that low is K.

      It seems the only thing missing here is u. FCK!

    20. Re:So that's like... by chronosan · · Score: 5, Funny

      -404F = Heat not found?

    21. Re:So that's like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Scots may disagree:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rankine_scale

    22. Re:So that's like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No matter where NASA is based, they use metric. Ever since they made sure a certain Mars probe died a fiery death, they have been pretty good at not only pretending to use metric but to really do so.

    23. Re:So that's like... by CarpetShark · · Score: 1, Insightful

      NASA is US-based

      So if your server is in Nashville, all text should be in a southern accent, rest of the country be damned?

      Newsflash: political boundaries are figments of the imagination.

    24. Re:So that's like... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      But NASA is a scientific entity.

      All Kelvin, all the time?

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    25. Re:So that's like... by Abstrackt · · Score: 2, Informative

      NASA is US-based

      So if your server is in Nashville, all text should be in a southern accent, rest of the country be damned?

      Of course not, but I would logically expect the site's text to be in English.

      If a US-based organization's data is released by way of a US-based website (Network World) to what I assume is mostly a US audience I'm not going to be surprised they used Fahrenheit. Celsius would have been nice for the rest of us but it's not hard to convert.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    26. Re:So that's like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans. I fart in your general direction.

    27. Re:So that's like... by Pretzalzz · · Score: 1

      If Britain is on the metric system, why does Top Gear always talk about MPH?

    28. Re:So that's like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NASA is US-based, Slashdot is US-based, and the US uses Fahrenheit as the common measure of temperature.

      You should really change over. It would be like hosting ternary software for a ternary CPU: "Our programmer's computer is ternary, our file server is ternary, and ternary computers run ternary software, so fuck you."

    29. Re:So that's like... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately it's not that simple. Astronomers and astrophysicists don't use SI, we use cgs (centimetre, gram, second) in Europe. I'm not sure about USA.

      NASA isn't a astronomy/astrophysics research organization, but rather an aerospace engineering organization that does some useful astronomy and astrophysics on the side. So it uses SI units. Second, parsecs and solar masses (two commonly used units of measure in the field) don't fit into the cgs system. So saying that astronomers and astrophysics use cgs is not particularly accurate.

    30. Re:So that's like... by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Old news, NASA managed to solve this cooling problem. They'll be sending my ex-girlfriend into space to bring the satellite's temperature closer to absolute zero.

      --
      Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
    31. Re:So that's like... by Golddess · · Score: 1

      I did not mean to imply the United States is still part of the Commonwealth.

      I talk in English myself.

      The entire British Commonwealth uses Celsius.

      So... you meant to imply that we don't speak English in the US? Or what?

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    32. Re:So that's like... by mano.m · · Score: 1

      I did not mean to imply the United States is still part of the Commonwealth.

      I talk in English myself.

      The entire British Commonwealth uses Celsius.

      So... you meant to imply that we don't speak English in the US? Or what?

      I meant to imply that 'talking in English' doesn't necessarily oblige one to use the Fahrenheit scale. Or any of the hideous Imperial units Americans seem to be so fond of.

      --
      Karma fed to this user will be promptly burnt. Be warned; be wary.
    33. Re:So that's like... by mano.m · · Score: 1

      b) The British Commonwealth equates to 'the English-speaking world' more legitimately than the United States alone

      Are you bloody kidding? The US, has, by far, the greatest number of primary and first language English speakers than the rest of the world combined. KTHXBIBI.

      The rest of the world covers more ground than the United States alone. America is not 'the English-speaking world' (related: it is not 'the world'.) America is one country, and unlike military or economic power, size alone does not dictate legitimacy in such matters. Millions use English for commerce or education at a first-language level and aren't counted as primary speakers merely because they have a different mother tongue.

      --
      Karma fed to this user will be promptly burnt. Be warned; be wary.
    34. Re:So that's like... by Golddess · · Score: 1

      Gotcha, thanks for that clarification.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
  4. Aliens by nschubach · · Score: 1

    I'll bet it's because of the alien heating lasers. They don't want us to see too much/far.

    --
    Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    1. Re:Aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CAN'T YOU SEE IT'S GLOBAL WARMING!? THE END IS NEAR!!!!!one!!!

      (Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.)

  5. It's warming up--pretty much on schedule by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you read the article it says that the solid hydrogen was expected to disappear about 10 months after launch, and it was launched in Dec 2009. Now it's 8/10.

    What's so remarkable about something being used up that was designed to be used up?

    Nothing to see here, move along!

    --PM

    1. Re:It's warming up--pretty much on schedule by Demonantis · · Score: 4, Informative
      Not to mention

      NASA said WISE completed its primary mission, a full scan of the entire sky in infrared light, on July 17, 2010.

      Sounds like a non-issue there.

    2. Re:It's warming up--pretty much on schedule by timeOday · · Score: -1, Redundant

      In addition: "NASA said WISE completed its primary mission, a full scan of the entire sky in infrared light, on July 17, 2010."

    3. Re:It's warming up--pretty much on schedule by Kepesk · · Score: 0

      I don't believe it. I think there's an evil villain up there with a blow torch. Bwhahahahahahaha!

      --
      Help me fix my brother's injured butt!
    4. Re:It's warming up--pretty much on schedule by barzok · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Maybe we've just become accustomed to NASA missions far exceeding their expected duration.

    5. Re:It's warming up--pretty much on schedule by natehoy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Are you saying the consumables on board were consumed on schedule, as designed and as expected? STOP THE PRESSES!

      NASA's problem is that Spirit and Opportunity lasted so ridiculously long past their stated mission that merely exceeding expectations by a reasonable engineering design factor now looks like newsworthy incompetence.

      They should have ended that mission on time by nuking them from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    6. Re:It's warming up--pretty much on schedule by ddillman · · Score: 1

      Exactly! This is not a newsworthy item. At best it's a blip saying it's happened as expected. Poor headline, poor choice to run this as front page news.

      --
      Little girls, like butterflies, need no excuse. -- L. Long
    7. Re:It's warming up--pretty much on schedule by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      This. Keep pushing the bar higher (I'm looking at you Spirit and Opportunity), and when something fails when we predicted, we're disappointed it didn't last longer. Us humans are hard to please.

    8. Re:It's warming up--pretty much on schedule by ConfusedVorlon · · Score: 4, Funny

      PR Dept: We haven't said anything for a while. What's new?
      Scientist: Nothing happening really - we're not even getting much from WISE now
      PR Dept: What? No WISE?
      Scientist: Exactly, it's coming to the planned end of usefulness and heating up
      PR Dept: [hitting speeddial] Is that the New York Times? One of our satellites is about to explode...

      --
      VLC Remote for iPhone and Android
    9. Re:It's warming up--pretty much on schedule by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Dead on. Furthermore, it IS still working on a secondary bonus mission since all but the longest wavelength is still working great. Apparently, NASA is not olny expected to extend it's missions well beyond their designed endpoint, they are expected to do so with no degradation whatsoever.

      I guess at this rate, they'll be given a big rubber band, a sack lunch and a scuba tank for their budget and instructed to carry out a manned moon mission.

    10. Re:It's warming up--pretty much on schedule by natehoy · · Score: 1

      As long as they used the rubber band to strap around the writing arms of all of the Congresscritters so they'd stop mucking up the mission objectives or specifying that the lunch has to consist solely of corn grown in their district, I bet they could do it with just the sack lunch and SCUBA tank.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    11. Re:It's warming up--pretty much on schedule by Angst+Badger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      NASA's problem is that Spirit and Opportunity lasted so ridiculously long past their stated mission that merely exceeding expectations by a reasonable engineering design factor now looks like newsworthy incompetence.

      It's not just the rovers. Despite some genuinely newsworthy fuckups, when NASA gets it right -- which is most of the time -- they usually do a stellar job, pun intended. A fair number of NASA probes have lasted decades beyond their primary mission and continue to produce useful data. Voyager I, for example, is still transmitting thirty-three years after its launch.

      Some people have just got to have their government incompetence stories even when the government is being unbelievably competent.

      --
      Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    12. Re:It's warming up--pretty much on schedule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dead on. Furthermore, it IS still working on a secondary bonus mission since all but the longest wavelength is still working great. Apparently, NASA is not olny expected to extend it's missions well beyond their designed endpoint, they are expected to do so with no degradation whatsoever.

      I guess at this rate, they'll be given a big rubber band, a sack lunch and a scuba tank for their budget and instructed to carry out a manned moon mission.

      It's the curse of doing their job too well. Congress sees NASA exceeding its goals on a regular basis so they assume it's receiving too much funding. Ironically, a spectacular failure every now and then might help.

    13. Re:It's warming up--pretty much on schedule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That.

    14. Re:It's warming up--pretty much on schedule by sjames · · Score: 1

      Ironically, a spectacular failure every now and then might help.

      It makes sense. Congress, like most of us better understand that we have experience with.

    15. Re:It's warming up--pretty much on schedule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those.

    16. Re:It's warming up--pretty much on schedule by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Funny

      Some people have just got to have their government incompetence stories even when the government is being unbelievably competent.

      The government is so incompetent, they can't even fail right!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    17. Re:It's warming up--pretty much on schedule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Deez

    18. Re:It's warming up--pretty much on schedule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These

    19. Re:It's warming up--pretty much on schedule by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      The difference is that this satellite relies on consumable coolant to operate. When the coolant it brought along is gone, it can no longer gather useful data (internal thermal noise becomes greater than the light they are trying to detect). Nothing they could have done would have changed that fact, there's no other way to keep a satellite at those kinds of temperatures. Even so, if I know NASA they'll find a way to re-appropriate this satellite for another mission and it will remain useful for quite some time.

    20. Re:It's warming up--pretty much on schedule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I guess at this rate, they'll be given a big rubber band, a sack lunch and a scuba tank for their budget and instructed to carry out a manned moon mission."

      No fair quoting from the current House version of the NASA appropriations bill like that, meanie! :'(

    21. Re:It's warming up--pretty much on schedule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (I'm looking at you Spirit and Opportunity)

      Start looking at the two Voyagers.

    22. Re:It's warming up--pretty much on schedule by Pharmboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But when you have rovers that end up lasting 30x their expected lifetime, you expect more from a bottle of hydrogen.

      Besides, this is in outer space. You would think that keeping things cold would be easy. Guess not.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    23. Re:It's warming up--pretty much on schedule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are getting warm....

    24. Re:It's warming up--pretty much on schedule by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      Well, there's "expected", and then there's "advertised". CYA. Sewell-style "Underpromise, Overdeliver".

    25. Re:It's warming up--pretty much on schedule by wallsg · · Score: 1

      It's not just the rovers. Despite some genuinely newsworthy fuckups, when NASA gets it right -- which is most of the time -- they usually do a stellar job, pun intended. A fair number of NASA probes have lasted decades beyond their primary mission and continue to produce useful data. Voyager I, for example, is still transmitting thirty-three years after its launch.

      Yeah, but when they mess up things explode and/or people die.

    26. Re:It's warming up--pretty much on schedule by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      Cant see them: they are to far away.

      They have seriously performed above and beyond the call of duty.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    27. Re:It's warming up--pretty much on schedule by natehoy · · Score: 1

      That explains the phrase "hey, this isn't rocket science, people!".

      What NASA does is very, very hard. And they are almost invariably the first ones to try it.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  6. Time for a classic... by hpa · · Score: 4, Funny

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Enfn9PL5htQ

  7. What to do by esocid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    WISE's infrared telescope and detectors are kept chilled inside a Thermos-like tank of solid hydrogen, called a cryostat. This prevents WISE from picking up the heat, or infrared, signature of its own instrument. The solid hydrogen, called a cryogen, was expected to last about 10 months -- the mission launched in December 2009.

    The primary tank is still running, and now will do a

    second survey of about one-half the sky. It's possible the remaining coolant will run out before that scan is finished. Scientists say the second scan will help identify new and nearby objects, as well as those that have changed in brightness. It could also help to confirm oddball objects picked up in the first scan, NASA stated.

    It appears, to the uninformed such as myself, that this satellite was meant to have a life of about 2 years. The good news is that it accomplished its primary mission. The bad news is that the NASA boys either didn't plan accordingly to cool it properly for its second run, or it was a hopeful objective.

    --
    Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
    1. Re:What to do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's "design" was to be able to scan the whole sky twice, even though the minimum mission spec was one scan. It's performance in the on ground thermal test, however, lead to the initial lifetime prediction to be about what we're seeing.

      The satellite could actually work in the two shortest wavelengths without cooling at all. Trouble is there was no funding for a warm mission. The only reason they're continuing to fund it now is because channel three will still work as long as the primary coolant tank does and it's the channel that is excellent at asteroid hunting.

    2. Re:What to do by Confusador · · Score: 3, Informative

      The primary mission was to map the whole sky once. They left themselves some reserves in case of problems, so they were expecting to be able to do a second partial map, but we covered their success when it happened back in July. So, this is news, but not a surprise. You can find more details on their site.

    3. Re:What to do by sjames · · Score: 1

      The secondary objective was just a hopeful one along the lines of as long as it's up there and still partially functioning after completing it's mission, it would be a shame to just switch it off.

    4. Re:What to do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the primary mission was planned for about 6 months, which they easily accomplished. Early estimates indicated that they would stay cool longer than expected and they hoped to survey more. However, it looks like that didn't quite go as well as hoped.

      The overall mission was a success. There were never plans to replenish coolant on the thing.

  8. I blame global warming... by adageable · · Score: 2, Funny

    Plus, you know, it's been rather hot outside. Waaayyyy outside.

    1. Re:I blame global warming... by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      WHY is this labelled offtopic... it's supposed to be FUNNY!
      Laugh dammit, it's a joke!
      Christ.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  9. Global warming caused it to get too hot? by mysidia · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    [j/k]

    1. Re:Global warming caused it to get too hot? by AnonymousClown · · Score: 1

      Yes. As a matter of fact, global warming is heating space! And eventually, the ice caps on Mars will melt and release even more CO2 - heating space even more! Then, the ice rings around Saturn will melt causing more global warming and eventually, it will affect Uranus - then a true disaster, you'll need K-Y.

      --
      RIP America

      July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    2. Re:Global warming caused it to get too hot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then a true disaster, you'll need K-Y

      O I C... Y = 273.15 ?

  10. Fahrenheit... by Ekuryua · · Score: 1

    I think people in the USA with a brain will be able to grasp kelvin/Celsius fine... The others don't need to be reading this.

    1. Re:Fahrenheit... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      The nice thing is that at 12 degrees, to a layman it doesn't really matter if you are talking Rankine or Kelvin...

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:Fahrenheit... by blair1q · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Laymen don't understand thermodynamics at any temperature. It's not about temperature, it's about pretending there's a problem and engaging people's antagonistic streak towards government, which they also don't understand at any temperature.

    3. Re:Fahrenheit... by cycleflight · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'll grasp who I like, thank you very much.

      --
      "...And who wants to make buttprints in the sands of time?" ~Bob Moawad
    4. Re:Fahrenheit... by natehoy · · Score: 1

      Or, if you live too far of the Mason Dixon line, Fahrenheit, for that matter. 12F is cold enough to kill a thin-blooded southerner as dead as 100F would do to thick-blooded me. :)

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    5. Re:Fahrenheit... by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      True. Also it seems elitism functions at a variety of temperatures.

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

      Sorry to derail the topic, but the antagonistic streak towards government doesn't emerge from nowhere. One recent example would be the massive, worldwide bailout of numerous unsound financial institutions, amongst others. That is the equivalent to a root canal without anesthetics to many people.

    7. Re:Fahrenheit... by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Well, first, we're getting the money back. And second, root canal is a whole lot more painful, if lighter on the pocket. You can in fact lose every nickel you ever had and several hundred thousand more and not feel a thing. So equating financial loss with physical pain is never an apt simile.

      But thanks for proving my point.

    8. Re:Fahrenheit... by blair1q · · Score: 1

      But it prefers warmth, light breezes, and endless beaches of sugary sand.

    9. Re:Fahrenheit... by smidget2k4 · · Score: 1

      [Pedant mode on]

      Kelvin isn't a measure of degree, it is a unit. You say 12 Kelvin, not 12 degrees Kelvin.

      [Pedant mode off]

    10. Re:Fahrenheit... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      LOL, yeah but that made my sentence awkward...

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

    > minus 438 F

    What a useless number. Why not put it in useful terms: 21.6 R!

    1. Re:Rankine by lxs · · Score: 1

      Aw nuts! For a second I thought you were talking about the Reaumur scale.

  12. Uh Oh by MrTripps · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Global warming is wider spread then previously thought.

    --
    "I'm not a quack, I'm a mad scientist! There's a difference." - Dr. Cockroach
  13. As Planned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    It finished the first pass a month ago and will be doing another pass as it heats up to check for differences since the last pass.
    The new infrared data provided by WISE should be approximately 1000 times more sensitive than previous data.

  14. Hmmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Alright, who's the WISE guy who emptied the coolant tank?"

    If you lose your cool at that joke, well, I'd like to say that wouldn't be a WISE course of action, but...

  15. Not just one satellite... by hsthompson69 · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Apparently their problems include the NOAA-16 satellite too:

    http://www.climatechangefraud.com/climate-reports/7491-official-satellite-failure-means-decade-of-global-warming-data-doubtful

    "readings for June and July 2010 for Lake Michigan showed crazy temperatures off the scale ranging in the low to mid hundreds - with some parts of the Wisconsin area apparently reaching 612 F."

    1. Re:Not just one satellite... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Don't make it worse than it is. IF the data doesn't fit, it's fairly simple to smooth it. Or just correct for the assumed errors. This is not uncommon in other NASA projects.

      Nothing new here.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    2. Re:Not just one satellite... by flaming+error · · Score: 1

      > Apparently their problems include the NOAA-16 satellite too

      I hope WISE scientists aren't up nights worrying about every sensor of everybody else's satellites.

      Nor do hardware glitches support the allegation that climatology is a fraudulent global conspiracy. Such FUD works great in politics, but to disprove AGW, scientists need reproducible counter-evidence. Press releases about anomalous sensor readings shouldn't influence otherwise tech-savvy people like you.

    3. Re:Not just one satellite... by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      but to disprove AGW, scientists need reproducible counter-evidence.

      Actually, to disprove AGW, or more specifically catastrophic AGW, it first must be stated as a falsifiable hypothesis. Simply claiming that every weather condition and every measurement is an affirmation of the theory is a tautology, not science.

      There is plenty of counter-evidence out there, but the AGW dodge is always about "the preponderance" of the evidence, neatly avoiding any refutation by pretending that science is some sort of democracy with majority rule.

      Anyway, it looks like the NASA folks who helped NOAA with NOAA-16 are suffering the same types of measurement problems as the NASA folks who worked on WISE - I certainly hope there is some sort of coordination between groups (if they are different), to share best practices and learn from the failures they've had.

    4. Re:Not just one satellite... by flaming+error · · Score: 1

      > it first must be stated as a falsifiable hypothesis
      For GW, how about
          "Significantly increasing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere causes global temperatures to rise"

      After proving that, for AGW test
          "Human activity has caused a significant net increase of carbon in the atmosphere".

      For catastrophic AGW, pick your catastrophe:
          "Increased global temperature causes polar ice to melt and sea levels to rise."
          "Increased global temperature causes more intense weather events."
          "Increased global temperature makes individual habitats unsuitable for their installed base"

      > the AGW dodge is always about "the preponderance" of the evidence,
      > neatly avoiding any refutation by pretending that science is some
      > sort of democracy with majority rule.

      Ah, the logical fallacy we call "the straw man". You are the one that equated preponderance of evidence with preponderance of opinion.

      And I would think their refutation has merit; the preponderant evidence deserves more weight than anomalies.

      If their data is inaccurate, submit the corrections. If their logic is flawed, woops, never mind, you've demonstrated that's not your specialty. But if you can prove any of the hypotheses above to be false, please do. Until then, you contribute nothing but FUD, of which we have a surplus already.

    5. Re:Not just one satellite... by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      For GW, how about
              "Significantly increasing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere causes global temperatures to rise

      So, let's take the falsification of that as rising CO2 levels, but lower global temperatures. Ice cores clearly show a CO2 lag to temperature, so we've refuted that. Or you could take a 15 year period of rising CO2 and lower or stable temperatures.

      After proving that, for AGW test
              "Human activity has caused a significant net increase of carbon in the atmosphere".

      That's not a test for AGW - that's a test for ACO2 emissions. Not the same thing.

      For catastrophic AGW, pick your catastrophe:
              "Increased global temperature causes polar ice to melt and sea levels to rise."
              "Increased global temperature causes more intense weather events."
              "Increased global temperature makes individual habitats unsuitable for their installed base"

      You've completely missed out on magnitude here - polar ice melting with a 2cm sea level rise isn't a big deal. There of course, is no association between intense weather events and average global temperature (you can have many many distributions of temperature around the globe with an average temp of 22C, not all of them are prone to intense weather), and your last one, on "individual habitats" completely conflates weather with climate.

      But seriously, what would be your refutation test for any of those catastrophes? Higher global temperatures and lower sea levels in the historical record? Lower global temperatures and more intense weather events in the historical record? Stable habitats over the course of thousands of years despite increases and decreases in local "individual habitats"? We got all of those.

      And I would think their refutation has merit; the preponderant evidence deserves more weight than anomalies.

      Um, no. If you have the hypothesis that "all swans are white", finding 10,000 white swans doesn't stop the discovery of a single black swan from refuting your hypothesis. If a theory has to dismiss every refutation by calling it an "anomaly", or come up with ad hoc adjustments to account for contrary evidence, it's not a very good theory at all.

      If their logic is flawed, woops, never mind, you've demonstrated that's not your specialty.

      Well, perhaps explaining logic to you is not my specialty, or maybe you're just having a hard time understanding it :) Let me know what data observations would refute your hypothesis, and we'll work from there.

    6. Re:Not just one satellite... by flaming+error · · Score: 1

      > Ice cores clearly show a CO2 lag to temperature, so we've refuted that.
      Wow. Great news. Please show your work so I can verify.

    7. Re:Not just one satellite... by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth

      Feel free to verify at your leisure.

      Now, can you think of any other observations of either the historical record or future records that would refute your hypothesis. Be specific, like "10 years of increasing CO2 with flat or decreasing temperatures".

    8. Re:Not just one satellite... by flaming+error · · Score: 1
      >> Ice cores clearly show a CO2 lag to temperature, so we've refuted that
      What I see at your link appears to show that historically, temperature increases weren't driven exclusively by CO2.

      I don't see where it refutes the hypothesis that increasing atmospheric carbon causes temperatures to rise. In fact, FTA:

      Any laymen will understand from [Al Gore's] statement that the ice-cores demonstrate a causal link, that higher amounts of CO2 give rise to higher temperatures. Of course, this could indeed be the case, and to some extent, it necessarily is .

      The question before the house is whether increasing carbon increases temperatures, and the page you cite allows that possibility and admits "to some extent" that reality.

      I don't think you have refuted the GW hypothesis, you've only shown that spikes in temperature have happened without a preceding spike in CO2.

    9. Re:Not just one satellite... by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      I don't think you have refuted the GW hypothesis, you've only shown that spikes in temperature have happened without a preceding spike in CO2.

      I think perhaps you need to specify your GW hypothesis more carefully then. We may not have very much disagreement as to whether CO2 can have a positive feedback effect, the disagreement is in the magnitude. There really are three scenarios:

      1) It has a strong positive feedback effect with no upper limit. CO2, once started, overwhelms all other effects. Obviously this is falsified by the fact that we never had a catastrophic feedback in history, and CO2 has been much higher. If CO2 overwhelmed all other effects, we'd never see a return from the positive feedback loop.

      2) It has a strong positive feedback effect with a very high limit. CO2, once started, overwhelms all other effects until it reaches a saturation point, but then it stops applying. If the historical record showed an increase in CO2 to a maximum saturation level, and then that established a temperature floor, we might agree, but obviously the historical record shows no such thing.

      3) It has a minor positive feedback effect. CO2, once started, can add a small bit of positive feedback, but is generally overwhelmed by any other effects, including clouds, Milankovich cycles, etc, etc. Most likely given the ice age cycles observed, and even the past 15 years of cooling with increased CO2.

      For #1, we should definitely be worried, but that's really the least likely of all. #2 might be worrisome, except for the fact that a warmer world has historically been better for humans - if we believed it to be true, we might actually want to encourage CO2 emissions to increase plant growth, crop yields, and habitability across the globe

      Of course, #3 is probably closest to the truth. CO2 is a minor player, and more often follows rather than leads temperature changes.

      But again, I ask you, if you believe either #1 or #2, what evidence could you observe that would be an acceptable refutation?

  16. Any chance of parking it in the shade? by Progman3K · · Score: 1

    Is it possible to change its orbit so it's constantly in the umbra of something? The earth, the moon, IIS, anything?

    --
    I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
    1. Re:Any chance of parking it in the shade? by mrsquid0 · · Score: 1

      No, and even if there was such a place, WISE does not have the fuel to go anywhere (except down).

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    2. Re:Any chance of parking it in the shade? by catmistake · · Score: 1

      Is it possible to change its orbit so it's constantly in the umbra of something? The earth, the moon, IIS, anything?

      Rocket scientists are so stupid sometimes... why would they have opted to launch heavy and nonreplentishable coolant into space rather than it's own light-weight unfoldable heat resistant umbrella umbra, that would forever give it a tiny eclipse of the Sun to remain cool in?

      --
      The Admin and the Engineer
    3. Re:Any chance of parking it in the shade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only fly at night :)

  17. How I keep things cold by El_Smack · · Score: 1

    Several years ago I got the idea to use my wife's feet as a heat sink for an overclocked CPU. Once I solved the issue of frost buildup on the chip, it worked great.

    --


    There are 01 kinds of cars in the world. The General Lee, and everything else.
    1. Re:How I keep things cold by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      but can you do anything about the SMELL? it's getting rather intense over here in Chicago

  18. What's that got to do with NASA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's a NOAA bird. Are you one of those idiots that thinks "America" plus "Space" means "NASA"?

  19. Not much is "constant" in orbit by starglider29a · · Score: 1

    The only place which would be "constantly" in the umbra from the Sun would be the L2 LaGrange point, opposite the sun. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Lagrange_points2.svg The Sun-staring SOHO uses the opposite L1 to stay OUT of the umbra. However, it's roughly a million miles from earth. So, let's just say no and build another one.

    Any other place that you "park it" will end up revolving into view of the Sun. Sorry. I didn't design this system.

  20. NOAA 16 was NASA and NOAA by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

    Well, a quick google on NOAA-16 leads to this:

    http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2000/nov00/noaa00r323.html

    "The NOAA-16 satellite is working beautifully," said Harry McCain, NASA's project manager for the Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite program.

    "We're extremely pleased with the success of the verification process, and look forward to a successful mission for NOAA-16," said Mike Mignogno, NOAA's polar-orbiting operational environmental satellite manager.

    "This success is due to the professionalism of a large team of NASA, NOAA and contractor personnel," McCain added.

    So, you're right, "America" plus "Space" doesn't equal "NASA", but "NOAA-16" equals "NASA, NOAA plus contractors"

    Apology accepted :)

  21. Warm Mission by Freddybear · · Score: 1

    In May of 2009, the Spitzer IR space telescope ran out of coolant and transitioned to a "warm mission":

    http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2009-086

    However...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide-field_Infrared_Survey_Explorer ...The WISE group's bid for continued funding for an extended "warm mission" was recently scored low by a NASA review board, in part because of a lack of outside groups publishing on WISE Data. Such a mission would have allowed use of the 3.4 and 4.6 micron detectors after the last of cryo-coolant had been exhausted, with the goal of completing a second sky survey to detect additional objects and obtain parallax data on putative brown dwarf stars.

  22. YOU fAI8L IT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    the leongest or

  23. tro7l by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    BSD's filesy5tem

  24. Primary missions successfully completed 7/17/10 by peter303 · · Score: 1

    It achieved 100% objectives. Its on extended mission now. But probably will not complete a 2nd full-sky mapping.

  25. Isn't space 'cold'? by BobMcD · · Score: 1

    Okay, stupid question, but isn't space 'cold'? I'm having a hard time picturing why the thing is heating up when it is in outer space.

    1. Re:Isn't space 'cold'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Space doesn't have a temperature. How can 'nothing' have a temperature? That's equally as absurd as thinking space is hot.

    2. Re:Isn't space 'cold'? by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      So 'cold' means only 'has a low temperature'? Because I've been colloquially using it to also mean 'leaches heat'.

    3. Re:Isn't space 'cold'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sun?????????

      Earth is in space, somehow it is heating up though to 300K. Weird eh??

    4. Re:Isn't space 'cold'? by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      It is way colder than 12K, but the density of matter in space is very small, what makes it hard to conduct any heat into it. You could still radiate the heat away, if you were able to carry enough radiative area, and dealed with the problem that is the Sun heating your radiators, instead of deep space cooling them.

      --
      Rethinking email
    5. Re:Isn't space 'cold'? by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't that just be the sunward-side?

    6. Re:Isn't space 'cold'? by stdarg · · Score: 1

      I believe it's a problem of density. Each individual particle is cold, but they are so dispersed in space that you don't come into contact with enough of them to lose much heat. So we have to rely on radiation instead of conduction, which is much less effective, especially for objects that are already really cold.

    7. Re:Isn't space 'cold'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funnily enough the side of the Earth not facing the sun isn't below 12 Kelvin either.

    8. Re:Isn't space 'cold'? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Depends on how you look at it - space everywhere is filled with background radiation from the big bang, which effectively gives it a temperature. Space is also full of all kinds of particles/etc flying around (solar wind, heat from sun, cosmic rays, etc). When you're trying to keep something at 16K it matters. Biggest issues have to be the sun, the earth, and any equipment on-board (maybe even the moon).

    9. Re:Isn't space 'cold'? by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Rotation FTW

    10. Re:Isn't space 'cold'? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's heating up due to absorbing solar radiation and the operation of the electronics on board. Space is cold, but that doesn't help our poor telescope because there's nothing for its heat to be transmitted to. It's not like setting a hot mug of coffee outside on a cold winter day. There, conduction and convection are doing most of the work. Conduction, by the way, is why the sun hitting one side of the scope results in the entire telescope heating up.

      In space the only effective way to lose heat is via radiation. The amount of blackbody radiation emitted is proportional to temperature, and the equilibrium point where the telescope is losing as much heat as it is gaining is well above 12K.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    11. Re:Isn't space 'cold'? by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Cool, thanks!

    12. Re:Isn't space 'cold'? by Agronomist+Cowherd · · Score: 1

      No, it's NOT cool!!! That's the PROBLEM!!

      --
      -DwS
    13. Re:Isn't space 'cold'? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Well, it's pretty cool, just not cool enough.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    14. Re:Isn't space 'cold'? by Raptoer · · Score: 1

      Space doesn't really have a temperature. Temperature and conduction of heat requires particles to bump into each other. You feel something being hot because the molecules in it are moving very quickly. You feel something being cold because the molecules in it are moving slower. However in space there are (almost) no molecules.

      Thus the only ways to lose and gain temperature are via radiation (not necessarily ionizing radiation), and internal heat generation. The sun is radiating energy onto the satellite and the satellite is radiating energy. However as the satellite isn't very hot, it doesn't radiate a whole lot, thus is tends to heat up.

      All of the electronics on the satellite are producing heat as they work, and I suspect that this is where most of the heat of the satellite is coming from.

      This isn't all that important for most satellites as they can work at higher temperatures, however the sensors on the WISE needs to be kept cold. Since the sensors on the WISE work in the infrared part of the electromagnetic spectrum, and all things radiate infrared (unless they're at absolute zero) if the sensors are too hot, they will just detect their own infrared radiation rather than the radiation from the objects in space.

  26. The Infrared Detector's had a bad day, but... by Jenny+Z · · Score: 1

    At least it didn't get on the radio and swear at everybody, then grab two beers and jump out into space.

    Or maybe it did....

  27. This is why SOFIA rocks! by Biff+Stu · · Score: 1

    No need for a disposable satellite if you want to do IR astronomy. It flies in the tropopause above the atmospheric water vapor so the sky is transparent. There's no need to worry about running out of cryogen. Just keep enough for the mission on the plane, and refill with each landing.

    1. Re:This is why SOFIA rocks! by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

      The development & testing phase of SOFIA shows that it probably wouldn't be up there observing enough to be efficient and cost-effective. It's not clear why they keep SOFIA still in development when they were cancelling other projects left and right. Probably some serious pork barreling is going on around that project.

  28. FIRST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    share. *BSD is by simple fucking I see the same of programming Why not? It's quick Lite is straining get touQgh. I hope May do, may not available to and shower. For

  29. The real solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    F&ck it, build another.

  30. Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More NASA cover-ups engineered to hide what they are really discovering.

    Fuck NASA and the Illuminati controled governments.

  31. Low Production Numbers by Chmcginn · · Score: 1

    It's not just the rovers. Despite some genuinely newsworthy fuckups, when NASA gets it right -- which is most of the time -- they usually do a stellar job, pun intended.

    That's mostly a function of how they operate. When you're only going to produce one or two of a particularly complex device that you can't touch after it starts working, it's generally either going to work great (because you spent a whole lot of time making sure everything was perfect) or fail completely (because you missed that one important detail and turned it into a cloud of fine ash).

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?