Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Japan's $273 Million Satellite Has Broken Up Into 'Multiple Pieces' (techinsider.io)

Posted by BeauHD on from the sad-day-for-astronomers dept.

An anonymous reader writes: The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) announced that it has lost contact with its "Hitomi" satellite -- a state-of-the-art X-ray observatory, developed in conjunction with NASA, to spy on energetic processes in space including black holes, massive galaxies, and exploding stars. On Sunday, March 27, the Japanese Space Agency announced it had lost contact with the satellite on March 26, just a little more than a month after it was launched on February 17. Now, Members of the U.S. Joint Space Operations Center (JSpOC), a military organization that identifies and tracks space debris near Earth, said five objects were drifting near the location of Hitomi at around the same time it lost communication with Earth, Nature reports. It's being reported that Hitomi has separated into "multiple pieces" before March 26. Currently, there are about 40 JAXA technicians scouring the skies, trying to locate the expensive observatory.

140 comments

  1. We asked for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    All that space junk out there - it was bound to happen. We either need to start cleaning up or affixing defensive technology onto satellites...

    1. Re:We asked for it by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Informative

      We either need to start cleaning up or affixing defensive technology onto satellites.

      China does have anti-satellite missiles. If the Japanese telescope got pointed in the wrong direction, they may have mistaken it for a spy satellite and taken it out.

      http://thediplomat.com/2014/03/china-secretly-tested-an-anti-satellite-missile/

    2. Re:We asked for it by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I think an anti-satellite missile would result in more than 5 pieces. Although the tweet referenced in the summary states 2 breakup events, one resulting in 5 pieces and the other in 21 pieces. And for some reason it seems to conclude that the 2 events are unrelated. While it would be interesting if it were struck by either a natural object or debris, it sounds like the events are actually related and that it experienced an onboard failure. Or, the second breakup event could have also been caused by the first.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    3. Re:We asked for it by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Anti-satellite missiles are not stealth weapons - the launch would certainly have been noticed by one of the many countries that monitors for missile-like objects riding a controlled explosion into the sky.

    4. Re:We asked for it by sl3xd · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think an anti-satellite missile would result in more than 5 pieces.

      To say nothing of the fact that any interceptor capable of getting to Hitomi would be detected by the US Joint Space Operations Center and the Russian equivalent.

      It takes a big rocket to get up there.

      Given the velocities involved, a few flecks of paint that broke off of an earlier mission could do it, especially if they managed to hit something pressurized. (Note: I have no idea if Hitomi had propellant).

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    5. Re:We asked for it by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 0

      What exactly are the typical velocity differences in any particular orbit? Anything in the same circular orbit would have roughly the same velocity. Stuff like chips of paint breaking off would remain in the same orbit as well. Wouldn't it take something being knocked into an elliptical orbit to produce substantial differences in velocity on intersecting orbits?

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    6. Re: We asked for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The odds of space debris destroying this spacecraft are less than the odds of you being run over if there were only one car randomly driving somewhere on the planet.

    7. Re:We asked for it by Teun · · Score: 1

      So what about this North Korean missile that was apparently tumbling in space?
      Being launched from a similar latitude it might have been very close, being a very recent launch it's trajectory might not have been well understood.

      Regardless, Kim Jong-un is the Supreme Leader and he knew where to hit.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    8. Re:We asked for it by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      The velocities are massive, can be 10 km/s. Not all satellites orbit the same direction - they can be opposite or 90 degrees off or anything in between. Picture a 1g flake of paint traveling at a relative velocity of 20 km/s hitting something explosive and fragile like a lithium battery!

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    9. Re:We asked for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You fail on reading comprehension. The 21-pc event was a completely different bit of orbital debris, on an entirely different orbit from Hitomi.

    10. Re:We asked for it by sl3xd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Insane velocities. First off: Equatorial orbits are rare. This means nearly every orbit has a significant north/south vector. And we have polar orbits as well. In short: you have to try really hard to have anything resembling the same direction. Wolfram Alpha pegs the average orbital velocity at 29.8 km/s. Thes velocities can easily be nearly 'head-on' at 60 km/s of impact velocity. Even a fraction of a gram impacting at those speeds is a very bad day.

      The ISS has over 100 shielding systems for kinetic impact (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whipple_shield). EVA suits are designed to be 'bullet' proof, and to maintain pressure after being hit by a meteor (for a while, at least).

      The space shuttle generally flew 'backwards and upside down' to attempt to protect the crew from impacts. (http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae524.cfm)

      A big reason for the large inspection time between shuttle flights was to find & replace tiles damaged by micrometeors.

      Seriously: space ain't a walk in the park.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    11. Re:We asked for it by dbIII · · Score: 1

      (Note: I have no idea if Hitomi had propellant).

      They all have propellant or they end up slowly descending. There's not a lot of air up there but there are enough molecules of gas impacting stuff in orbit to produce drag so if you want something to stay up for years it needs to be able to come back up to speed every now and again.
      Also the earth is not a perfect sphere so local gravitational effects drag things out of their desired orbits. It's not just a problem on inclined orbits, apparently things in geostationary orbit will tend to drift towards a spot over Indonesia if they are not corrected (at that altitude drag is almost non-existent compared with where the ISS is so the propellant is more about keeping position than altitude).

    12. Re:We asked for it by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it take something being knocked into an elliptical orbit to produce substantial differences in velocity on intersecting orbits?

      Yes. There's a lot of that happening. It can't be looked at as a one dimensional system of circular orbits.

    13. Re:We asked for it by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      All satellites have propellant. If they didn't they'd all end up a Lagrange point with all the other dead satellites.

    14. Re: We asked for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except there is more than one piece of space junk, it moves alot faster than a car ( I.e. covers a large volume) and things are not randomly distributed over the whole volume above the Earth's surface. Your analogy is not relevant all, especially since there has been at least one previous example of something hit by space junk.

    15. Re:We asked for it by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      I'd agree overall, but a Lagrange orbit isn't necessarily the final destination.

      My personal favorite is the flaming fireball of awesomeness.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    16. Re:We asked for it by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      While it is possible, it is extremely unlikely that it collided with orbital debris. Hitomi was traveling at 575km, a relatively low Earth orbit that is not terribly debris-heavy (the Earth's atomsphere actually de-orbits debris for us, thanks to drag effects). The objects spotted in its vicinity around the time of lost contact were debris from the satellite itself. Given the relatively short period of time it was operating for, the most likely problem was a failure in one of its systems (coolant or propellant) that caused an explosion. Deeply unfortunate, but it happens from time to time.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    17. Re:We asked for it by Strider- · · Score: 1

      Depends on how high they are. Above about 500km or so, the residual atmosphere is thin enough that it will take decades for something to decay. Above around 1500km or so, the decay time is measured in millennia.

      For example, the Hubble Space Telescope does not have thruster systems (the exhaust would damage the optics, so it wouldn't be able to use them anyway. One of the tasks of the servicing missions was re-boosting it to a higher orbit.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    18. Re:We asked for it by Strider- · · Score: 2

      Sorry, no, the Lagrange points are all out beyond the orbit of the moon, dead satellites will certainly never migrate that far way from the earth. Secondly, the only two stable ones are about 1/3 ahead and behind us in our orbit around the sun.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    19. Re:We asked for it by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      Launching a huge rocket to destroy a single satellite isn't very efficient. Better to launch an anti-satellite weapons system that remains in orbit and can be used against multiple targets.

    20. Re:We asked for it by hankwang · · Score: 1

      "Wolfram Alpha pegs the average orbital velocity at 29.8 km/s."

      That's the orbit of Earth around the sun, not really relevant here. The escape velocity from earth is 11 km/s; a low-earth orbit is a factor sqrt(2) slower (8 km/s).

      "Thes velocities can easily be nearly 'head-on' at 60 km/s of impact velocity."

      Head-on would result from (debris from) a satellite going east-west, against the rotation of the earth. I don't see why anyone would want to launch satellites other than west-east. It would add 900 m/s to the required Delta v of the launch rocket. Launch costs are exponential in Delta v.

      --
      Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
    21. Re: We asked for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or.. you inow maybe Japan is just not very good at space stuff. Hoe many mission losses now?

      Asia reverse engineers well but when it comed to pushing out further and deeper its all US and Europe. India looks promising though

    22. Re:We asked for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      while it's highly unlikely that hitomi was hit by an ASAT (if just 5 pieces), but I'd like to point out that ASAT missiles are relatively small and light. You only need to launch a ~marble-sized active component in a suborbital trajectory.

      The kill is achieved by means of the -frankly huge- delta-v difference between the suborbital object at apoapse "standing still" vs an orbital object ""A bullet can't go half this fast".

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon

      The ASM 134 could be launched by an F15 even:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-135_ASAT

    23. Re:We asked for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they should send out the "Toy Box" of the Space Debris Section...

    24. Re:We asked for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What exactly are the typical velocity differences in any particular orbit? Anything in the same circular orbit would have roughly the same velocity.

      Hitomi has an orbital inclination of 31 deg (ref). So, given that a low-Earth orbital velocity is ~8 km/s, a satellite in an equatorial orbit would have a relative velocity of 8*sin(31) ~ 4 km/s with respect to Hitomi.

    25. Re:We asked for it by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      They wouldn't fire a missile at it, they would blind and damage the electronics with lasers. That's what they have been doing for years, and probably what the US has been doing too. They only do it intermittently though, more as a kind of "we can blind you any time we like" than a serious effort to prevent observation.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    26. Re:We asked for it by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Given the relatively short period of time it was operating for, the most likely problem was a failure in one of its systems (coolant or propellant) that caused an explosion.

      That's not sexy and doesn't fuel speculation or nerd-rage about space debris.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    27. Re:We asked for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are Lagrange points around any couple of corps orbiting one around each other. Earth/Sun but Earth/Moon, etc. Earth/Moon also has L4 and L5 points (1/3 ahead and behind on the Moon's orbit). L1 isn't behind but between both corps and L3 is diametrically opposed. Correct is the fact that you need energy to migrate to those points.

    28. Re: We asked for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My analogy is completely relevant as it demonstrated the relative odds. Yes there are lots of objects in Earth orbit. But space is far larger than you are considering. If you take the volume contained by the orbits of all the objects within that space, you'll find it is greater than the area of the surface of the Earth divided by two objects. Even low Earth orbital space is enormously vast. Your example proves it. Over the 60 or so years we've been orbiting objects there has been exactly one unintentional collision. And you think it is likely that Hitomi was hit by something after 40 days in space? Do the math.

    29. Re:We asked for it by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      The correction is appreciated!

      Tthere are many sources of micrometeors. Debris from launches are one, but earth has collected plenty of pebbles in retrograde orbits over the æons.

      I also wonder what the relative velocities of objects in the various seasonal meteor showers are (persied, gemenid if I remember right)

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    30. Re: We asked for it by khallow · · Score: 1

      There have been numerous collisions over that time. For example, this article details eight known collisions. There may have been more unknown collisions of inactive satellites with small debris.

  2. My condolences by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Rest In Pieces

    Science took an unfortunate whack to the guts. I'm glad to see resources spent on science instead of war, however. Even with occasional failures like this, the overall payoff is usually far better than war of late.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
    1. Re:My condolences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      All well, but I hope the increasing amount of debris don't get us stuck on the surface of the Earth for a long time. Time to act,

  3. Back at JAXA's assembly facility by idontgno · · Score: 3, Funny

    workmen cleaning up in the HITOMI clean bay are overheard saying "look at all these extra screws and bolts!"

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  4. Speculate on Causes by Noble713 · · Score: 1

    I really doubt the Japanese built something that just fell apart after 30 days in orbit. Hit by pre-existing orbital debris? If it were hit by a meteor coming from outside Earth orbit, the parts wouldn't be in quite the same area as the satellite afterwards, right?

    So much for "Big Sky Little Bullet"...

    1. Re:Speculate on Causes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      China.

    2. Re:Speculate on Causes by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Government funded project. It's a special category.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:Speculate on Causes by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      If it were hit by a meteor coming from outside Earth orbit, the parts wouldn't be in quite the same area as the satellite afterwards, right?

      I think that a micro-meteor would punch a hole right through it. If that hole passes through something like a tank or bottle of gas then that would cause a problem.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    4. Re:Speculate on Causes by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here's a tweet that shows a sudden change in orbital period. That could be consistent with an impact pushing it slightly closer to the planet. That's a small change, I think the Y axis on that graph is orbital period in minutes, so it only represents a change of about 2 seconds. Even so, it's obviously noticeable. Although it's a little odd that it didn't keep changing that quickly. If an impact pushed it into a slightly lower orbit it wouldn't just stop there, it would keep falling. Although maybe the impact came from the rear and it just slightly sped up the satellite. If the speed slightly increased then that should result in a 1-time drop in the orbital period.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    5. Re:Speculate on Causes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      If an impact pushed it into a slightly lower orbit it wouldn't just stop there, it would keep falling.

      That's not how orbits work. A lower orbit is still an orbit, and it's perfectly stable unless the satellite was pushed clear into the atmosphere. Without adding significant kinetic energy or subtracting it from the satellite, any impact that makes it deviate from its normal course would send it on a more elliptical orbit.

    6. Re: Speculate on Causes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The orbital period will only keep changing for as long as an external force is applied. Once the force is gone, the change stops. The period does not change with altitude, it changes with *average* altitude.

    7. Re:Speculate on Causes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really doubt the Americans built something that just fell apart after 73 seconds into launch....OH wait a minute...

    8. Re:Speculate on Causes by dbIII · · Score: 1

      If an impact pushed it into a slightly lower orbit it wouldn't just stop there, it would keep falling.

      It is falling, gravity is what makes things orbit. It's not a one dimensional system - the impact has made it fall in a different way to earlier.

    9. Re:Speculate on Causes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Hollywood version of orbits, where you jump out of the spaceship and fall to Earth, would only make sense if you were hovering, but that's not what orbiting is. In an orbit you're always "falling", but you're also moving forward so quickly that you end up not actually losing any altitude.

      Now, you get a little impulse in the direction of your orbit. What does this do? Well, you end up higher at the highest point of your orbit, but Earth's still there and still pulling so you haven't escaped, you're just out a bit further. Still orbiting.

      You take an impulse in the direction opposite your orbit. What now? You're still moving forward really quickly, so you're still going too fast for Earth to pull you back down, but the lowest point of your orbit is now just a little bit lower. You're not going to fall out of the sky.

    10. Re:Speculate on Causes by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      NASA and NORAD have said that the satellite broke into 5 pieces. They've got a video on National Geographic that shows the satellite passing overhead and changing brightness continuously as if it's spinning or tumbling. Japan is getting an intermittent signal which would also support tumbling or spinning.

      IMO it was clearly hit by something or one of the propellant tanks ruptured. Given the 5 pieces NORAD said it broke into I'd wager an impact more than a rupture. Remember that Russian satellite that ran into a commercial communication satellite about a year ago? That released something like a thousand objects going several thousand miles per hour in all directions. Even a single bolt (hell even a paint chip if the speed is high enough) hits a satellite like this and the thing would be pretty much destroyed.

    11. Re:Speculate on Causes by ctrl-alt-canc · · Score: 1

      > I really doubt the Japanese built something that just fell apart after 30 days

      You never bought a japanese appliance, isn't it ?!?

    12. Re:Speculate on Causes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If an impact pushed it into a slightly lower orbit it wouldn't just stop there, it would keep falling.

      Nope.

      If the speed slightly increased then that should result in a 1-time drop in the orbital period.

      Also nope.

      Unless your orbit is low enough to experience atmospheric drag, *any* orbit is going to be stable, with a fixed period. If your satellite is subjected to an impact which increases its speed, that will put it in a higher orbit, with a longer (fixed) period. If your satellite is subjected to an impact which decreases its speed, that will put it in a lower orbit, with a shorter (still fixed) period.

      The graph you linked shows a decrease in the orbital period, so we're looking at the second of these two scenarios. The change is about 2 seconds against an orbital period of 96 minutes, or proportionally about 0.03%. This corresponds to a similar proportional change in the orbital velocity of ~8 km/s, or 8000*0.0003 = 2 m/s. (There'll be some constant factor if you do the orbital mechanics properly - the answer might be too high or too low by a factor of, say, two - but this is good enough for an order-of-magnitude estimate.) So the satellite has probably been slowed down by about 2 m/s, which is a pretty substantial jolt.

    13. Re:Speculate on Causes by Noble713 · · Score: 1

      I live in Japan and just bought a Hitachi dehumidifier, but it was Made In China.

      The Rinmai(?) gas range I've been using for over 2 years is still going strong. I think that was made locally...

      While Japan has had some issues with auto-related products (Takata airbags especially), their precision manufacturing and electronic sub-components, i.e. things that are far more important to a space satellite, are still very well regarded. Rightfully so.

    14. Re:Speculate on Causes by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Nope.

      Yep. If a force is pushing the object towards the earth then even when that force is no longer acting on the object it will continue moving in the same direction. It will only stop if another force acts to stop it from moving relative to the earth.

      Unless your orbit is low enough to experience atmospheric drag, *any* orbit is going to be stable, with a fixed period.

      Look at the graph in the tweet. Does the period look fixed or does it look like it is very slightly decreasing over time? The vast majority of things that we launch have orbits which degrade. Even the ISS orbit degrades and they periodically use propellant to push it back a little higher.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    15. Re: Speculate on Causes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Changing your orbital velocity doesnt raise/lower your orbit. It raises/lowers one side of your orbit. Namely the opposite side. Raising or lowering your enitre orbit requires burns on both sides of your orbit. And if the impulse lowers the opposite side of your orbit enough to intersect with the Earth or its atmosphere, or raises it enough to become parabolic or hyperbolic, it certainly isn't stable anymore.

    16. Re: Speculate on Causes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In case you're too young to be aware, "Made in Japan" has been an indicator of high quality for many decades.

    17. Re:Speculate on Causes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If an impact pushed it into a slightly lower orbit it wouldn't just stop there" Bro, do you even Newton's first law?

    18. Re: Speculate on Causes by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      And an indicator of low quality for a decade or two before that.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    19. Re:Speculate on Causes by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Note that gravity isn't really a force, and even if it were it doesn't vary, and so could not change an orbit.

      If a force is pushing the object down (or back), it would lower the orbit on the opposite side of Earth. When the force ends, the object will be in a stable orbit, until some other force acts on it. (One possible force is friction from Earth's atmosphere, or, more effectively, Earth's oceans or solid surface.) If there are no other forces, the object will return to its starting point in a stable orbit with a fixed period.

      If the orbital period is decreasing, it means that there is a continuing force on the satellite. If it's low enough, this could be atmospheric friction. The atmosphere is why low Earth orbits degrade: they're sufficiently low that there's a slight but significant force caused by friction. Higher orbits, which take significantly more energy to attain, don't degrade noticeably. The Moon's orbit is affected by tidal forces, but doesn't degrade.

      If you want a satellite to just drop, you need to change its speed from what it needs to orbit to zero, which takes almost as much energy as putting it in that orbit to begin with. Typically, the things are deorbited by changing their orbits to intersect slightly thicker parts of the atmosphere and using the atmosphere as a brake.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    20. Re:Speculate on Causes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A speed increase would result in a longer period - the new orbit would have greater radius at all of the points other than where the discontinuity happened. The resulting orbit traverses a greater distance, and the furthest positions would have a slower speed than before the change.

    21. Re: Speculate on Causes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the eccentricity of the orbit will change

    22. Re: Speculate on Causes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if the satellite was hit the eccentricity of the orbit will change

  5. And may god help you if that carried the Spice Ch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And may god help you if that carried the Spice Channel.

  6. Where was X-37 when this happened? by aliquis · · Score: 1

    Not serious:

    1) Let country launch space object.
    2) Tear it into pieces.
    3) Point at North Korea (or Russia or whatever middle-eastern or African country or ..)

    1. Re:Where was X-37 when this happened? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      3) Point at North Korea (or Russia or whatever middle-eastern or African country or ..)

      Well, the summary did say it was a spy satellite produced with the assistance of NSA. Of course North Korea or Russia would do something about it.

      What? NASA? Sneaky three-letter agencies, using four letters!

    2. Re:Where was X-37 when this happened? by meglon · · Score: 1

      Of course North Korea.... would do something about it.

      Yes, but how effective is it to keep shooting missiles into the ocean? I mean, sure, it probably keeps a few fish up late at night, but other than that....

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    3. Re:Where was X-37 when this happened? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      NK is a crazy homeless guy with a sign "will threaten for food". So it is effective. Batshit insane but it gets the job done when they have deliberately destroyed most of their agriculture and want to keep threatening instead of rebuilding.

  7. Alternatively by aliquis · · Score: 1

    Not serious:

    1) Let country launch space object.
    2) Tear it into pieces.
    3) Point at North Korea (or Russia or whatever middle-eastern or African country or ..)

    Mean-while Kim Jong-un announces their latest space-satellite is a huge success and work just as intended.

    1. Re:Alternatively by sl3xd · · Score: 2

      You forgot the threats against international 'meddling' that will accompany Kim Jong-un's proclamation. That or it's a reaction against recent provocations against the DPRK.

      I'm sure my most recent trip to the toilet will be among the listed provocations.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    2. Re: Alternatively by AmazingRuss · · Score: 2

      Deployment of toxic gas is no joke.

  8. Maybe this will get people's attention. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    It's about some those nations that exploit space commercially contributed something to managing space junk better, even if it's only funding a few prototypes to test potential cleanup methods.

  9. Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Japanese manufacturing has been been good, so far as I've experienced in all my electronics and motorcycles, '85 honda rebel is the most resilient bike I've ever had

    I wonder if something struck the satellite

  10. Why only one by Moof123 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Honest question here. We only make and launch one Hubble, one Jim Webb, etc. Design of these things is a large portion of the budget. The mirrors are the main item where the manufacturing cost greatly outstrips the design and tooling costs (I think?). So why don't we make a half dozen of each of these of these things instead of just one?

    1. Re:Why only one by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Huh, good question. I wonder why? Why not build 5 identical billion dollar satellites instead of just one and throw the other four away? What could possibly be the reason?

    2. Re:Why only one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honest question here. We only make and launch one Hubble, one Jim Webb, etc. Design of these things is a large portion of the budget. The mirrors are the main item where the manufacturing cost greatly outstrips the design and tooling costs (I think?). So why don't we make a half dozen of each of these of these things instead of just one?

      Because it makes no sense at all?

    3. Re: Why only one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They did make two sets of hubble optics. The other set is now in the smithsonian.

    4. Re:Why only one by Teun · · Score: 1

      We usually do build most parts in multiples.
      After rigorous testing the best goes in service.
      An example of 'recycled' parts is the Indian ScatSat-1 but there are others.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    5. Re:Why only one by meglon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think the OP is asking why we don't try to use economies of scale to lower the cost while increasing the science capabilities we have available. It's a perfectly good question, one that ultimately is probably answered by "there's too many politicians who don't see value in science." Hubble's been up there ~25 years, and has only resolved a small portion of space. If we'd placed 5 of them up there all working on separate things, we'd still only have resolved a small portion of space, but it'd be 5 times what we have now.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    6. Re: Why only one by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

      "Indian scat sat"

      The money could have been better spent on toilets.

    7. Re:Why only one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe that resolution is the main reason, one big telescope can give you a lot better resolution in the FOV that you need than a bunch of smaller telescopes can economically. At least that is the theory, in practice you could very well be right. At least here in the US telescopes are quoted at some pretty reasonable number (a billion or two) but by the time it has launched they most often have doubled, tripled or even more than quadrupled. James Webb Space Telescope is a more recent example, originally budgeted at $1.6 Billion it is now expected to exceed $8 Billion. At that cost you could build in excess of 20 of the Japanese telescopes, I'm not quite sure how the resolution, sensitivity, etc stacks up but I have a hard time believing that you couldn't engineer a dozen or so smaller satellites that could do the same job as the full scale satellite.

    8. Re:Why only one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't remember the exact numbers, but design for a typical comm/science satellite is around 60% of the cost and manufacturing+testing+launch+operations is 40%. Well, if you build and launch two of them using the same design, you're now 40% over budget. There are some economies of scale for building multiple, but it's still going to cost more overall. In fact, many projects do build multiple copies as spares/simulators, but only one gets launched due to the cost ($100M+ per launch).

      That said, if companies like SpaceX and others can drastically bring down launch costs, it might be more cost effective to build cheaper, less reliable satellites, and launch multiple copies for redundancy. Not having to aim for perfection could bring down design, manufacturing, and testing costs. For spacecraft that don't take decades to reach their destination, you might even be able to launch one, see how it does, and then fix the problems in the Mk 2 version.

    9. Re: Why only one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm not quite sure...."
      You should have led with that.

    10. Re:Why only one by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The probable answer is that these devices are all painstakingly hand-made. I'd imagine there ARE no economies of scale with hand-made items of this size and complexity, at least, not enough to be significant, and not at such low counts. See: Space Shuttle.

      Also, consider this: if we had made five Hubbles, we would have screwed up all five of them with the same mistakes we made on the first one, and would never have been able to repair them all. It cuts both ways. We could barely pull together rescue and repair missions to repair the one craft.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    11. Re:Why only one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      In order to resolve a single target at the same resolution using a fleet of space telescopes vs a larger one, they would have to be flying in formation. Which is harder than it sounds; even a few hundred meters in altitude difference gives the satellites a slightly different orbital velocity which over time causes them to drift apart. Not to mention rotation, sun shielding, etc. Positioning them at L2 (like JWST) might reduce the issues to a manageable level but it's still very unproven doing it with dozens or more satellites vs one expensive one.

      Long term, building a massive fleet of space telescopes will be necessary to scale up to even more powerful resolving capability (direct imaging of extrasolar planets comes to mind), but it's not going to be cheap.

    12. Re:Why only one by thrich81 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I asked just that question of some people who build scientific spacecraft. They told me that building the second copy doesn't cost much less than the first one -- the second costs about 70% of the cost of the first was their guess. Economies of scale don't kick in for just a couple or few units. And you have to consider that these things seem to usually run over budget so any extra funds for a second spacecraft will be eaten up by overruns on the first unit. As far as building more than a few copies, by the time a science spacecraft actually gets built and launched the design is pretty old and the investigators would want to move on to the next generation rather than repeat capabilities. There have been times when twin spacecraft were built (Mariners 1&2, Mariners 3 Mariners 6&7, Mariners 8&9, Voyager 1&2, Viking 1&2) but those were a long time ago when launch vehicles were less reliable (Mariners 1, 3, and 8 were all lost to launch vehicle failures) and in those cases the second vehicle complemented the first rather than just providing redundancy.

    13. Re:Why only one by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      I think the OP is asking why we don't try to use economies of scale to lower the cost while increasing the science capabilities we have available.

      Because "economies of scale" isn't a magic wand that you can just wave and magically make everything cheaper. In particular, items with enormous amounts of touch labor (such as the mirrors carried by Hubble or Hitomi) aren't really susceptible to economies of scale because the costs of actually building the thing far exceed the costs of setting up to build the thing.
       

      It's a perfectly good question, one that ultimately is probably answered by "there's too many politicians who don't see value in science."

      No, as usual, the answer is far more pedestrian - it's "a Slashdot poster pulled a term out of his ass without actually understanding what the term means and implies".

    14. Re:Why only one by meglon · · Score: 1
      Economy of scale is a pretty simply thing to understand, so i have to wonder like Ripley did if the average IQ around here dropped dramatically when you logged in. Perhaps you have trouble understanding it, which is why you can't fathom that someone else might, but cheer up bucko, maybe you can pull something else out of your ass... like your head.

      As the OP asked:

      Design of these things is a large portion of the budget. The mirrors are the main item where the manufacturing cost greatly outstrips the design and tooling costs (I think?). So why don't we make a half dozen of each of these of these things instead of just one?

      What he is suggesting is economy of scale. If designing is a large enough portion of a projects budget, economy of scale works with smaller manufacturing batches (caveat: i'm not one of the designers or builders of Hubble...and i'd bet, neither are you).... but his question was a general question. Now, in this specific case, it looks like the mirrors were budgeted at ~5% of the overall budget.

      Now, economy of scale isn't a magic wand... i'm not sure what shit you have covering your glasses, blocking your vision, or preventing you from comprehending the written word, but i never said that it was. It CAN work in small batches; it won't always... there ain't many real magic bullets around. But before you start criticizing someone for not understanding something you think they wrote, you might want to pull your head out of your ass and learn to understand what is actually written first.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    15. Re:Why only one by khallow · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Hand-made routinely has economies of scale to it as well. And there's the obvious matter that there are huge one time costs in the development of the first spacecraft that would not need to be duplicated in copies.

      Also, consider this: if we had made five Hubbles, we would have screwed up all five of them with the same mistakes we made on the first one, and would never have been able to repair them all.

      You wouldn't need to. When the first one demonstrated the error in space, then you can remake the mirrors for the other four before launching them. The gyroscope problem also turned up well before the first service repair mission.

      So then you have one bad Hubble that you can deorbit and four working ones that you don't need to deorbit.

    16. Re:Why only one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The probable answer is that these devices are all painstakingly hand-made. I'd imagine there ARE no economies of scale with hand-made items of this size and complexity

      That's clearly rubbish, you won't get the economy of scale like you do on making 100,000 copies, but even just making two of something won't be double the effort. It won't even necessarily even be double the material when you factor in waste.

      The realistic answer for why not though is that the largest portion of the cost is always the launch(es).

      ** Pre-launch costs total $ 2.5 billion, yet the subsequent five service missions add $ 9.6 billion to the total bill

      Source: http://www.science20.com/hammock_physicist/hubbles_20th_taxpayers_perspective

    17. Re:Why only one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We do use economies of scale. You just don't know about the other satellites that use much of the same technology, pointed at the Earth instead of outer space. You might have forgotten this.

    18. Re:Why only one by Strider- · · Score: 1

      Because large precision devices are expensive, take a long time to build, so there's no economies of scale. The mirror onboard the Hubble is a highly precise piece of glass (it's precisely incorrect, but precise non the less), and building large telescope mirrors is tough.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    19. Re:Why only one by khallow · · Score: 1

      I think the OP is asking why we don't try to use economies of scale to lower the cost while increasing the science capabilities we have available.

      Because "economies of scale" isn't a magic wand that you can just wave and magically make everything cheaper. In particular, items with enormous amounts of touch labor (such as the mirrors carried by Hubble or Hitomi) aren't really susceptible to economies of scale because the costs of actually building the thing far exceed the costs of setting up to build the thing.

      The obvious rebuttal is that R&D on the first one is a one-time significant cost. You don't have to re-research or redevelop Hubble from scratch with each additional telescope constructed. Additional development would have to be done to correct for errors found in either the construction process or the final product, but those costs would pale compared to the cost of the original development.

      Similarly, you don't need separate operations for each telescope. It is not significantly harder to manage five telescopes than it is to manage one.

      It's a perfectly good question, one that ultimately is probably answered by "there's too many politicians who don't see value in science."

      No, as usual, the answer is far more pedestrian - it's "a Slashdot poster pulled a term out of his ass without actually understanding what the term means and implies".

      The answer is the first answer, it's political status signalling. If the science were that important, there'd be more telescopes in Hubble's category.

    20. Re: Why only one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Japan should have used those millions of USDs to clean up their nuclear mess. What's that? Only applies to India?

    21. Re:Why only one by jandersen · · Score: 1

      I think the OP is asking why we don't try to use economies of scale ...

      I think we are probably already going that way, slowly; we are already exploring things like the Very Large Array (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_G._Jansky_Very_Large_Array) and Very Large Telescope (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_Large_Telescope) use "small and cheap" (well, you know ...) components and achieve better resolutions by spreading out the components over a larger area. We could probably produce a space telescope along the same principle, as a swarm of very many, small mirrors that cooperate - there are challenges to doing this, but if we make it work, it will probably be cheaper, more resilient (losing a few components is no longer critical), and more maintainable (replacing one of many autonomous components is easier).

    22. Re:Why only one by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      You kinda did build more than one, actually. Much of Hubble was based on spy satellite tech. In fact NASA recently had two space telescopes that were originally spy sats donated to it.

      NASA is planning to use those donated telescopes, but there are still significant costs involved.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    23. Re:Why only one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can think of two more possible reasons. Firstly, building more, identical instruments may not be the best way to do more science. For the cost of one James Webb telescope, you might be able to set up a manufacturing line and build twenty copies of the Hubble telescope - but the James Webb will be able to do things that no number of Hubbles could ever achieve. (It'll have better resolution, able to image things that a Hubble would only ever see as a blob; spectral coverage, able to see redshifted galaxies that Hubble simply wouldn't detect; etc.)

      Secondly, the research and development for one of these instruments isn't money wasted. Arguably, it's the most important part. You may be able to do a bit more science by spending less on developing a cutting-edge instrument and spending more on making a bigger one with existing technologies - but all the nifty spin-off benefits, the high-precision optics industry, the calibration and imaging algorithms, etc., come from the development process.

    24. Re:Why only one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not significantly harder to manage five telescopes than it is to manage one.

      No, but it would be significantly more expensive. You might be able to convince a few engineers and low level personnel to take on more work without more pay, but good luck getting that out of managers, middlemen, administrators, bureaucrats, outside contractors, scientists, etc.

      Yes, I said scientists. Scientists would also be amongst people who would drive up the costs. Look at how they drummed up the costs (and therefore how much funding they need to study it) for climate change.

    25. Re:Why only one by dj245 · · Score: 1

      Because large precision devices are expensive, take a long time to build, so there's no economies of scale. The mirror onboard the Hubble is a highly precise piece of glass (it's precisely incorrect, but precise non the less), and building large telescope mirrors is tough.

      No, there absolutely are economies of scale. The tooling you buy/build to make that megahuge mirror probably was custom designed and built. If you can build 2 mirrors, the tooling and tooling design cost drops to 50% on a per-unit basis.

      The procedures, qualification, and documentation benefit also. You need procedures for your technicians to work to, which someone has to write, then someone has to review, and someone has to approve it. You often need to make small qualification parts to prove that certain processes can be repeated with the desired quality, and you need to document the qualification of the procedure. Then you need to qualify your technicians to those procedures. Designing the part and creating all the drawings takes a while. Drawings need to be reviewed for correctness, and inevitably things are found which are corrected. Finding vendors who can provide what you need, qualifying them, and getting them to fully understand exactly what you want them to do is a big effort also. All these tasks cost a substantial amount of money, BUT after you have done them once, you can make 1, 2, or 100 parts and not have to pay those costs again.

      Direct labor and material do cost money too, but they are often a small portion of projects like this.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    26. Re:Why only one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because 5x 90,000,000 is more than 1x 100,000,000.

      Economics of scale rarely lowers the total cost of all units . Instead it lowers the per unit cost usually by spreading out the fixed costs over more units and sometimes by using more efficient production methods that produce larger batches of units.

    27. Re:Why only one by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 1

      The problem with the mirror on Hubble was caused by a measuring device malfunctioning when they where grinding it. The backup mirror, a second complete mirror* that was made in case something went wrong with the first during manufacture, did NOT have the same issue. NASA dropped the ball by not testing both the mirrors and using the best one, which is SOP for a ground based observatory.

      If the USA had built 5 Hubble telescopes odds are the the others would not have had any issues with their mirrors.

      *The mirror is currently sitting in a crate in some storage facility.

    28. Re:Why only one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Launches are expensive and for any given size of the infrastructure, a limited resource.

    29. Re:Why only one by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Which doesn't mean there are significant economies of scale. Direct labor and materials tend to be very large parts of bleeding-edge scientific stuff.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    30. Re:Why only one by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      It's worth noting that you don't generally want exhaust gases around your supertelescopes, so keeping them in formation is going to be real tricky.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    31. Re:Why only one by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      What's the marginal value in another Hubble? Being able to see that clearly is a real good thing, but would having two for not quite double the cost be worthwhile?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    32. Re: Why only one by interstellarsurfer · · Score: 1

      Who says we don't? NASA gets one 'for science', pointed into deep space. The NSA gets 4 pointed earthward 'for national security'. The science instrument foots most of the R&D/tooling bill for the spy toys. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    33. Re:Why only one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point. Depending on spacing and maneuvering requirements, ion propulsion might be efficient enough to produce minimal exhaust. Assuming you can find a way to keep the solar panels from blocking the other satellites. Hypothetically, you could have a power relay spacecraft to collect and wirelessly transmit power (focused lasers/microwaves) to the swarm to reduce the need for larger panels. Heat management still remains an issue for sensitive telescopes though, and wireless power adds to the interference challenges.

    34. Re:Why only one by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      The oft-overlooked part of this is all of the infrastructure needed to manage the sats once in orbit. There are only so many earth stations and only so much TDRSS satellite bandwidth available.

      Also, by the time a satellite is finished, technology has usually outpaced the onboard systems and made it illogical to duplicate the original sat.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  11. Re:ChimpanzIII by Arkh89 · · Score: 0

    Bold Futura, subsidiary of Tagruato Corp., has already issued this press release detailing the incident.
    Nothing more to see here, let's go home and drink some Slusho!

  12. I guess we found it by AndyKron · · Score: 2

    I guess we found the North Korean satellite.

  13. how sad! by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    all that time and effort and money invested all lost, all the new discoveries it could have made now lost

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  14. multiple pieces by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As opposed to breaking up into a single piece?

  15. Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Black holes have rights too. We shouldn't spy on our neighboring galaxy guzzlers. Stars should be allowed to die in peace without worrying about who's watching them.

  16. Re:baHjan jorneb... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's Klingon for "Fire torpedo... goodbye satellite".

  17. I hear this in Clouseau's voice by paiute · · Score: 1

    "That's a priceless satellite!"

    "Not anymore."

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  18. The aliens finally react... by iusty · · Score: 1

    It's clear this was shot down by aliens. What discoveries did they want to prevent, I wonder? /s

  19. sounds like.. by strstr · · Score: 1

    secretly some country blew it up with directed energy. this wreaks of sabotage ..

    could be domestic or foreign.

    drrobertduncan.com
    obamasweapon.com

    1. Re:sounds like.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this wreaks of sabotage

      Stop reeking havoc with the English language.

  20. Putin killed it. by newdsfornerds · · Score: 1

    Thanks, Obama!

    --
    Damping absorbs vibrations. Dampening is caused by moisture.
  21. Five Objects? by tsotha · · Score: 4, Funny

    Those five objects are going to reform into a giant robot.

    1. Re:Five Objects? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those five objects are going to reform into a giant robot.

      The child inside of me is screaming for this to be true...

    2. Re:Five Objects? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh god, VOLTRON incarnate... yes.

  22. Look you your own glass house moron. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

    What he is suggesting is economy of scale.

    No shit Sherlock. Here's a free clue, repeating yourself pointlessly doesn't make you right. It makes you look like more of a moron.
     

    If designing is a large enough portion of a projects budget, economy of scale works with smaller manufacturing batches

    No shit Sherlock. Why the fuck do you think I pointed out the precise reason why it wouldn't work in this case? Did you even read what I wrote? (You may be ignorant of the situation with regards to such matters, but if you weren't a moron it might occur to you that doesn't mean others aren't.)

    Go back to kindergarten child.

    1. Re:Look you your own glass house moron. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Why the fuck do you think I pointed out the precise reason why it wouldn't work in this case? Did you even read what I wrote?

      It would help, if you were right, but you aren't. There's nothing magical about hand-made projects that makes them impervious to economies of scale. R&D and costly production errors don't need to be replicated. Molds and similar construction aid tools can be reused. Everyone is more experienced with making the project and can to some degree work more efficiently on further copies.

      I wonder how much the US would have gotten done in space by now, if the grown ups who actually know something about economies and manufacture had been in charge.

  23. Now Isn't That So Fuck'n Bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ha ha.

    JAXA Fuckers !

    ha ha

  24. Take That Tree Diagram by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dragon's Breath - 1, Technology - 0

  25. Head-on collisions by hankwang · · Score: 1

    P.S. It turns out that there actually are a few satellites in retrograde orbits, notably a few satellites launched from Israel, which georgaphical location makes eastward launches unpractical. Still, the head-on collision speed would be 16 km/s, not 60. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

    --
    Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
    1. Re:Head-on collisions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      High velocity rifle bullet, about 4000fps, or very generously, 2km/s. This could be 16km/s, so 8 times faster. But E=0.5mv^2 so enery per unit mass is 64 times higher. A rifle bullet is 30 to 40 grain, so about 2 to 3 g. So the speck of paint has only to be about 37milligram to do the damage of a rifle.

    2. Re:Head-on collisions by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      A rifle bullet is 30 to 40 grain ...

      That's a little low for anything but a .22 LR bullet. .223/5.56 NATO bullets run 45-70gr, .308/7.62 NATO run 150-220gr. My favorite groundhog round is a .223 diameter bullet massing 52gr at 4000 fps or so.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    3. Re:Head-on collisions by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the correction!

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
  26. thats what you get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when you name your satellite after a gravure idol...

  27. HITOMI Lives up to its name! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmmm, so some thing hit the satellite.

    I guess the "HITOMI" lives up to its name in English as, come and "HIT" .... "ME" I dare you....

  28. I repeat, by transami · · Score: 1

    We need to build in space.

    --
    :T:R:A:N:S:
  29. You think they'd stop naming them ASTRO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After ASTRO-E blew up during launch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzaku_(satellite)#ASTRO-E

  30. Please put this in perspective by TarPitt · · Score: 1

    A $273 million research satellite was dashed into pieces, resulting in a financial disaster

    A major studio (Disney) spends $307 on "John Carter", another major financial disaster.

    We spend more making bad movies about space travel than we spend on actual research.

    At least the Japanese can try again with an improved version of their satellite, while Disney will never be able to turn something like "John Carter" into a successful movie.

    --
    If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
  31. Not knowing anything about this by pebear · · Score: 1

    Not knowing anything about this stuff I would say that loosing 1/4 of a billion dollars is a lot of money. I wonder how the aver joe on the street in Japan feels about this?

    --
    Paul E. Bahre
    1. Re:Not knowing anything about this by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      About a dollar or two per Japanese citizen. Seriously, from a government point of view, and major scientific satellites are typically government projects, this isn't much money.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  32. Obviously this is Voltron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    VOLTRON, FORM UP!

    Robeasts watch out...

  33. Optimus Prime? by tmjva · · Score: 1

    Isn't it obvious? Optimus Prime transformed too many times and just fell apart.

    --
    Tracy Johnson
    Old fashioned text games hosted below:
    http://empire.openmpe.com/
    BT
  34. Meteor speed by hankwang · · Score: 1

    I didn't get around to looking it up earlier, but according to Wikipedia: 58 km/s for the Perseids and 35 km/s for the Geminids. Fortunately, none of those are in an orbit around the earth where they may intersect with other satellite orbits every hour.

    --
    Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.