The World's Oldest Scientific Satellite is Still in Orbit (bbc.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The World's Oldest Scientific Satellite is Still in Orbit (bbc.com)

Posted by msmash on Friday October 6, 2017 @08:10AM from the fascinating dept.

walterbyrd writes: Nearly 60 years ago, the US Navy launched Vanguard-1 as a response to the Soviet Sputnik. Six decades on, it's still circling our planet. Conceived by the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in 1955, Vanguard was to be America's first satellite programme. The Vanguard system consisted of a three-stage rocket designed to launch a civilian scientific spacecraft. The rocket, satellite and an ambitious network of tracking stations would form part of the US contribution to the 1957-58 International Geophysical Year. This global collaboration of scientific research involved 67 nations, including both sides of the Iron Curtain.

80 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

The most stupid title. by whoever57 · 2017-10-06 08:21 · Score: 0, Troll

The title is either like saying:
"The world's oldest living person is alive"
or it's wrong, because Sputnik is older.
Or, to be pedantic, the moon is a satellite, and it's still in orbit.

--
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
1. Re:The most stupid title. by MightyYar · 2017-10-06 08:30 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Why not? They used the signal to measure atmospheric characteristics and the ionosphere. Sure it only went "beep-beep-beep", but it was the first time something went "beep-beep-beep" up there and at least some science was conducted.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
2. Re:The most stupid title. by Megane · 2017-10-06 08:35 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  As long as its orbit is high enough not to have atmospheric drag, and it doesn't hit something, of course it's still in orbit. Without atmospheric drag, orbits can last for centuries.
  What would be more interesting is if it is still operational after all these years, like OSCAR 7.
  
  --
  #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
3. Re:The most stupid title. by Strider- · 2017-10-06 08:37 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Actually it was. The use of two radio frequencies in its transmission (20MHz and 40MHz) allowed the density of the ionosphere to be determined by receivers on the ground. The spherical shape was chosen so that it could be used to map the density of the upper atmosphere. It also provided information on the near space environment, as the internal temperature and pressure of the satellite could vary the duration of the beeps.
  So yes, it was a scientific satellite, albeit a very basic one. It, of course, was also a big political F-U to the west, but that's realistically been the case for most things that have been done in the space age, especially the early part.
  
  --
  ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
4. Re:The most stupid title. by PmanAce · 2017-10-06 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  The moon is not a scientific satellite.
  
  --
  Tired of my customary (Score:1)
5. Re:The most stupid title. by Major_Disorder · 2017-10-06 09:04 · Score: 0
  
  The moon is not a scientific satellite.
  That's right. It is a repository for nuclear waste.
  For anyone too young to remember:
  Space 1999
  
  --
  First law of people: People are generally stupid.
6. Re:The most stupid title. by Vulch · 2017-10-06 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  Sputnik 1, Sputnik 2 and Explorer 1 had all successfully launched into orbit before Vanguard 1C joined them.
7. Re:The most stupid title. by ChrisMaple · 2017-10-06 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  As a side note, the U.S. could have put up the first satellite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redstone_(rocket_family) but Eisenhower's foolish insistence on going with a "civilian" rocket prevented that.
  Similarly, the U.S. could have put the first man in space, as back then space was considered 50 miles and the X-15 was capable of 50 miles altitude.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
8. Re:The most stupid title. by AmiMoJo · 2017-10-06 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  It's actually something of a failure to not de-orbit it, because now it's a hazard. Space junk.
  Forgivable perhaps because it was a feat just getting it up there, but still...
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
9. Re:The most stupid title. by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2017-10-06 09:48 · Score: 2
  
  That's right. It is a repository for nuclear waste.
  . . . and a home to the folks from SHADO (chicks in tinfoil bikinis and purple hair), who are protecting us from an alien invasion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  . . . and on the dark side of the Moon . . . we have the secret Nazi base: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  . . . and for shits and giggles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  All in all, the Moon is a hoot and a half. So tell me Mr. Vice President Pence . . . why do you really want to go there . . . ? I'm guessing that it's NOT for the nuclear waste, chicks in tinfoil bikinis and purple hair or Nazis. I'm thinking that it's the last link . . .
  
  --
  Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
10. Re:The most stupid title. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-06 10:01 · Score: 0
  
  "The moon is not a scientific satellite." - The mice would disagree. They paid a lot for this experiment - twice.
11. Re:The most stupid title. by Brymouse · 2017-10-06 10:32 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  The really cool thing to mention about OSCAR 7 is it died in 1981 due to a short in the batteries. On June 21, 2002, Pat G3IOR heard some telemetry of W3OHI, which was OSCAR-7 transmitting on the 2 meter band. A follow up by one of the designers decoded the telemetry and found it to be authentic.
  21 years of being silent in space was long enough for the short to open and the satellite booted when light hit it's solar array. The controllers came back online and it started transmitting.
  That's simply cool.
12. Re:The most stupid title. by Teancum · 2017-10-06 10:39 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I wouldn't say it was a foolish insistence and in many way letting Russia launch the first satellite was a brilliant move on the part of the Eisenhower administration. The most significant thing is that by having Russia send a satellite over America, it established the overflight principle that low-Earth orbit was a separate domain in international law similar to international waters in the oceans.
  A legitimate concern was that if America sent a satellite up into space, that any time it traveled over the Soviet Union that it would be treated as invading Soviet airspace. In theory that could be considered a casus belli for some sort of significant response that would provoke military action.
  You could say ditto for even sending a crew member in orbit.
  As a result of the Soviet Union sending the first satellite and then sending Yuri Gagarin over the USA at orbital altitudes, the USSR had no justification and reason to be objecting if the USA did the same thing over the USSR. IMHO that was utterly brilliant.... and at the same time making the USSR prance around like some sort of victory was achieved when in fact they gave up a major diplomatic point of order in international law. It really didn't cost the USA much of anything other than temporary prestige that is largely irrelevant today... and was completely made up for anyway with Neil Armstrong's landing on the Moon.
  The goal of the Eisenhower administration was to send spy satellites over the USSR, something that happened not too much longer after Sputnik. Unlike what happened with Gary Powers and the U-2 plane getting shot down over the USSR, they had no reason to complain about satellites.
  How is that foolish that Eisenhower waited to have the Explorer satellite launch few weeks after Sputnik?
13. Re:The most stupid title. by Megane · 2017-10-06 10:45 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  The even cooler thing was that someone had gone to the trouble of renewing its license during those 21 years. The Mode B uplink uses a band that is no longer allocated for satellite service, and that renewal is the reason that there is now an FCC waiver for using it.
  
  --
  #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
14. Re: The most stupid title. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-06 11:08 · Score: 0
  
  4-D Chess!
15. Re:The most stupid title. by MangoCats · 2017-10-06 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, Sputnik was scientific, so calling Vanguard-1 the first scientific satellite is a little reaching.
  Preening over who was first - 60 years later - when a mere 164 days separated their launches, seems like way too much vacuous national pride for a healthy perspective on anything.
16. Re:The most stupid title. by WindBourne · 2017-10-06 12:48 · Score: 2
  
  actually, No. Sputnik 1, was NOT meant to be the scientific sat. Sputnik 3 was supposed to the original. Sputnik 1 was developed as a SIMPLE sat so that they could beat the Americans into space.
  Fearing the U.S. would launch a satellite before the USSR, OKB-1 suggested the creation and launch of a satellite in April–May 1957, before the IGY began in July 1957. The new satellite would be simple, light (100 kg or 220 lb), and easy to construct, forgoing the complex, heavy scientific equipment in favour of a simple radio transmitter. On 15 February 1957 the Council of Ministers of the USSR approved this simple satellite, designated 'Object PS'.[20] This version allowed the satellite to be tracked visually by Earth-based observers, and it could transmit tracking signals to ground-based receiving stations.[20] The launch of two satellites, PS-1 and PS-2, with two R-7 rockets (8K71) was approved, provided that the R-7 completed at least two successful test flights.[20]
  
  Sputnik 1 was NOT a scientific sat, and nor was the transmitter meant for science. The fact that something useful came from it, was simply a side thing. The transmitter was meant to tell the world, 'Look, we beat the Americans'.
  In fact, all through the space race, almost 100% of the times was USSR finding out that America was about to do certain things so they would cut corners to beat us. That is why America made the moon and USSR/ Russia STILL has not put a boot print on the moon.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
17. Re:The most stupid title. by Scarletdown · 2017-10-06 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  The article is about the oldest scientific satellite still in orbit. I don't think Sputnik 1 is still up there.
  
  --
  This space unintentionally left blank.
18. Re:The most stupid title. by Scarletdown · 2017-10-06 12:52 · Score: 1
  
  But are any of those three still in orbit? That was the jist of the article, oldest scientific satellite still in orbit.
  
  --
  This space unintentionally left blank.
19. Re:The most stupid title. by aberglas · 2017-10-06 14:00 · Score: 1
  
  NO, it said "The World's Oldest Scientific Satellite is Still in Orbit"
  It should have said "The World's Oldest US Scientific Satellite is Still in Orbit". Bit like celebrating the first American in space. Or the first American landing on the moon...
20. Re:The most stupid title. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-06 15:58 · Score: 0
  
  It certainly was a scientific satellite. It was part of a research program to learn how to put satellites in space. Or do you think it was lifted into orbit on a sea of prayers?
21. Re:The most stupid title. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-06 16:00 · Score: 0
  
  You're an idiot.
  
  How did they learn to build later satellites? Oh yeah, they practiced on Sputnik 1. Grow a brain, you fucktard.
22. Re:The most stupid title. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-06 16:06 · Score: 0
  
  Then that is as stupid as saying the oldest living person is still alive. It's a meaningless tautology.
23. Re:The most stupid title. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-06 16:24 · Score: 0
  
  The title does not call it the first scientific satellite but calls it the oldest. That's because Sputnik 1 and Explorer 1, which went up earlier, have both re-entered. That leaves Vanguard 1 as the oldest man-made object in space.
24. Re:The most stupid title. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-06 16:31 · Score: 0
  
  Doesn't matter, the fact that we had a verifiable artifact that met the requirements to validate the time signature and longitudenal resolution to verify its altitude and velocity signified the begining of a new era. Orbits we real.
25. Re:The most stupid title. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-06 16:35 · Score: 0
  
  sorry.... orbits were real......
26. Re:The most stupid title. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-10-06 18:15 · Score: 1
  
  It's difficult to estimate the general idioticity of a person from a single comment, but even idiots can be occasionally right, and he's spot on in this matter regardless of whether he's actually an idiot or not. Sputnik 3 was not actually a "later satellite", they started building it first. *Then*, they started building Sputnik 1 to beat US to space since Sputnik 3 wasn't finished yet, *then*, they launched Sputnik 3.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
27. Re:The most stupid title. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-06 20:55 · Score: 0
  
  110010001000 guy happens to be creimer. Pulling shit out of his ass is his specialty.
  He has already been outed as the "wow freakout kid" and yes he does love sticking the remote control in his ass while being videotaped. His mom has busted him for doing it and for trolling on slashdot. His mom has even posted and stated that his internet privileges had been taken away for it.
28. Re:The most stupid title. by michelcolman · 2017-10-06 21:50 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure that launch got them plenty of science points to unlock several nodes in the tech tree.
29. Re:The most stupid title. by fisted · 2017-10-06 23:24 · Score: 1
  
  By that definition, "The World's Oldest Scientific Satellite is Still in Orbit" is always, meaninglessly, true until there is literally no scientific satellite left at all.
  
  --
  CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
30. Re:The most stupid title. by WindBourne · 2017-10-07 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  meh, that is the same AC that chases me around. I just ignore him.
  The fact is, that when you are quoting something that backs it up, you would think that s?he would simply shut up, but s?he really never does.
  But even then, he is truly an idiot since wiki/I said that it was NOT a science based sat, but simply one to announce to the world.
  And then he clains it was for practice building, which is not science either. So, that AC is a real idiot. Just ignore him.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
31. Re: The most stupid title. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-07 03:45 · Score: 0
  
  Sputnik went beep beep beep and temperature and pressure was encoded in the timing of the beeps.
32. Re: The most stupid title. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-07 03:55 · Score: 0
  
  Ao-7 does not transmit telemetry since recovery. The transponder is active on a random basis whenever it is in sunlight, and the beacons are unmodulated.
33. Re: The most stupid title. by Megane · 2017-10-07 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  Ao-7 does not transmit telemetry since recovery. The transponder is active on a random basis whenever it is in sunlight, and the beacons are unmodulated.
  As I recall, its telemetry has to be requested with a special command signal, which is kept confidential, and can I think it can cause unstable behavior or something. And it is constantly in sunlight most of the time, except during certain months of the year, because of its altitude and inclination.
  The transponder mode is also not quite random when it stays in sunlight; it was designed to switch modes every 24 hours or so (or with a command), and darkness resets it, though I recall reading that the automatic mode switch can be a little unstable. But sure, it's random if you suddenly decide you want to make contact with it and don't have a recent history of when it last switched modes.
  But really, in its current state, it seems like a perfect challenge for hams who want to do some satellite contacts. It is primitive and weak enough that you have to do some work to make use of it. So in that sense, it is doing exactly what it was put there for.
  
  --
  #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
34. Re: The most stupid title. by MightyYar · 2017-10-07 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  Well, sort-of. The timing would change in a binary fashion if the temperature went either below or above a threshold. Same with the pressure - it was meant to indicate pressure loss (as it was gas-filled). So the temperature and pressure "measurement" were more of a failure analysis tool than a scientific instrument. But engineering at that level is still "science" IMHO.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Sputnik 1 was a scientific satellite by mbone · 2017-10-06 08:28 · Score: 2

Sputnik 1 was a scientific satellite. It was spherical so that atmospheric drag could be measured simply, without worrying about the spacecraft orientation, and the beeps at two frequencies made it possible to estimate the density of the ionosphere underneath it.
1. Re:Sputnik 1 was a scientific satellite by will_die · 2017-10-06 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  Was looking it up and saw that the USA owned the last remaining part of it. https://airandspace.si.edu/mul...
  Any idea on how we got it?
2. Re:Sputnik 1 was a scientific satellite by MightyYar · 2017-10-06 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  On the display at the Air and Space Museum it says it was provided by Art Dula. He's a "space lawyer" :)
  I have no idea how he got it, but it's probably not that interesting - he's worked extensively with Russians on various space projects. I'm sure many obscure artifacts became available after the Cold War and people like Mr. Dula snatched them up.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
3. Re:Sputnik 1 was a scientific satellite by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-06 12:36 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, no.
  Sputnik 3 was the originally planned satellite. When the politburo learned that they were going to launch AFTER America, they forced them to quickly develop a new minimal sat. Sputnik 1 was developed and built in a couple of months. As such, the transmitter was included just so that the world would know that USSR was successful. No other reason. The science from it was just a side thing, but sputnik 1 was not about science.
4. Re:Sputnik 1 was a scientific satellite by aberglas · 2017-10-06 14:07 · Score: 1
  
  More importantly, it was filled with air, and the beeps would let people know if it got punctured. There was a real concern that space might be filled with micro-meteors, in which case satellites would not be practical. That there were no micro-meteors was the important discovery.
  (These days, we are doing our best to create mico meteors of our own.)
Scientific by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-06 08:35 · Score: 0

Calling Vanguard a scientific satellite is a bit of a stretch, it did not perform any scientific functions outside what external tracking stations could gain from it's orbit
The only first was the use of solar cells
Scientific, yes, but no longer with us by Latent+Heat · 2017-10-06 08:36 · Score: 4, Informative

From Wikipedia,
"Sputnik burned up on 4 January 1958 while reentering Earth's atmosphere, after three months, 1440 completed orbits of the Earth,[1] and a distance travelled of about 70 million km (43 million mi).[10]"
1. Re:Scientific, yes, but no longer with us by wonkey_monkey · 2017-10-06 08:48 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If no longer being in orbit rules it out from being called "oldest," then the headline is just tautological.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
2. Re:Scientific, yes, but no longer with us by JoshuaZ · 2017-10-06 09:07 · Score: 2
  
  There's another important sense that this isn't tautological. Sputnik 1 had no scientific instruments- it really was just a beeping sphere. This was because of delays in the originally planned Soviet satellite which was proving too heavy and too complicated http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/vintagespace/2017/10/04/sputnik-was-the-soviets-backup-satellite/#.WdfwV8iGOUk. After the bugs were worked out, that became Sputnik 3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_3 which was launched after Vanguard, so the oldest satellite with scientific instruments ever launched was Vanguard, and it is still up there.
3. Re:Scientific, yes, but no longer with us by Strider- · 2017-10-06 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  There's another important sense that this isn't tautological. Sputnik 1 had no scientific instruments- it really was just a beeping sphere.
  
  Right, but in a sense it was a scientific instrument in and of itself. The beeping was transmitted on two frequencies to allow the density of the ionosphere to be measured, and the spherical shape allowed the density of the upper atmosphere to be measured by the changes in its orbit over time.
  
  --
  ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
4. Re:Scientific, yes, but no longer with us by Teancum · 2017-10-06 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  That aspect of scientific research wasn't really the point of Sputnik though. The radio signal was simply to announce that the USSR had sent something up into space and something that could be used to verify that it was indeed up there and in orbit around the Earth.
  That some scientific value could be gleaned from the simple instrumentation was really a side benefit... not that I'm complaining.
  Explorer I, on the other hand, was purpose built to carry on several experiments, and was the key item that was used to discover the Van Allen Belts... named in honor of one of the scientists who put together the instruments on that satellite.
5. Re:Scientific, yes, but no longer with us by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-06 16:38 · Score: 0
  
  Right, but in a sense it was a scientific instrument in and of itself
  No, it really wasn't. It was a propaganda device that, like many things, was used by others for scientific purposes.
  Most people define "scientific instrument" as some form of instrument or device made for the purpose of scientific research.
  Under your definition of scientific instrument there is very little in existence that hasn't or at least couldn't be used for science purposes.
  You don't need to redefine "scientific instrument" to refer to the group of things you're speaking of, because we have a word for that already: "Everything"
6. Re:Scientific, yes, but no longer with us by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-10-06 18:28 · Score: 1
  
  so the oldest satellite with scientific instruments ever launched was...
  ...Explorer 1 on the US side and Sputnik 2 on the USSR side, right?
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
7. Re:Scientific, yes, but no longer with us by thegarbz · 2017-10-06 22:08 · Score: 1
  
  If no longer being in orbit rules it out from being called "oldest," then the headline is just tautological.
  Only when you ignore generally accepted meaning of language. When we talk about things in their current active form with respect to age we generally accept the age to be an indication of its active life.
  While you're technically right, being pedantic with a concept as fluid as language when the vast majority of the people understood the meaning and intent is like arguing with your wife. Just remember you have two options: "You can be either right, or happy"
Why is this strange? by fph+il+quozientatore · 2017-10-06 08:51 · Score: 1

Why is this strange? I mean, the whole point about being in orbit around Earth is that, unless you spend energy to get out of it, it keeps circling forever. Or am I overlooking something here?

--
My first program:
Hell Segmentation fault
1. Re:Why is this strange? by Scoth · 2017-10-06 09:13 · Score: 2
  
  A lot of orbits of things are fairly low orbits. Low Earth Orbit is where the space shuttles, the ISS, a lot of satellites, etc sit. There's not much atmosphere there but there's enough drag that most things will need occasional engine burns to stay there. Smaller objects and things higher up in LEO will stay up longer, but most stuff will eventually decay. It takes a lot more energy to get things higher up into, say, geostationary orbit where a lot of communications satellites, GPS, etc are where they need very little effort to stay where they're supposed to.
2. Re:Why is this strange? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-06 09:14 · Score: 0
  
  No, you're not overlooking anything. And unless I missed something indicating that the satellite is still functioning, this is a story celebrating space junk.
  I mean, it's in orbit... of COURSE it's still up there. That's what "orbit" means.
3. Re:Why is this strange? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-06 09:27 · Score: 0
  
  Why is this strange? I mean, the whole point about being in orbit around Earth is that, unless you spend energy to get out of it, it keeps circling forever. Or am I overlooking something here?
  There's still drag, even in orbit. It just gets really low the higher you go up.
  So Sputnik's orbit which put it less than 215km up at its lowest point decayed in less than a year
  While Vanguard which was over 650km at its lowest point isn't predicted to decay for another ~180 years.
Yes! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-06 09:04 · Score: 0

James T. Kirk: I am the Kirk, the creator?
Nomad: You are the creator.
James T. Kirk: You're WRONG! Jackson Roykirk, your creator, is DEAD, you have mistaken me for him! You are in error!... You did not discover your mistake, you have made TWO errors. You are flawed and IMPERFECT. And you have not corrected by sterilization, you have made THREE errors!
Nomad: Error... Error... Error... Examine...
For an interesting web site on Vanguard by k6mfw · 2017-10-06 09:07 · Score: 1

go to http://home5.swipnet.se/~w-529... (by a Swede!) though website kind of 1990s.

--
mfwright@batnet.com
My Uncle worked on it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-06 09:20 · Score: 5, Interesting

My Uncle designed the communication and tracking systems for Vanguard (and later for NASA.)
It was cool going over to his house and into his basement office to look at the pictures of him with the Vanguard team, him with Wernher Von Braun, him with Eisenhower, him with the first astronauts, him with JFK, with LBJ, with John Glenn, etc. His retirement picture included a hand-drawn picture of him driving away in an old Model T with the Vanguard satellite bouncing in the back seat.
He was a really, really neat, unassuming guy who was fascinated with clocks. He must have had 200 of them in his basement of every shape and size.
Lived in a little town of 800 people.
I loved going to visit him as a kid.
1. Re:My Uncle worked on it by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2017-10-06 10:21 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  200 clocks? Ahh! I think I saw documentary about him.
  Started with all 200 clocks setting alarms off, toast getting burnt, news cast about terrorists stealing plutonium from the powerplant.
  Very cool documentary, remember every detail of it.
  
  --
  sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
2. Re:My Uncle worked on it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-06 11:34 · Score: 0
  
  As a reseller I have to ask, did you sell or save the documents/photos/clocks or did they end up in a landfill?
3. Re:My Uncle worked on it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-06 14:38 · Score: 0
  
  Basically and Autist.
So it is true .. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2017-10-06 09:31 · Score: 2

.. They don't build them like they used to anymore..

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
1. Re:So it is true .. by DerekLyons · 2017-10-06 10:31 · Score: 2
  
  Well, no. Vanguard-I may still be in orbit, but it's nonfunctional and has been for nearly fifty years. It's operating lifetime was a bare six years.
  It's still in orbit not because it was built well, but because it's high enough that atmospheric drag hasn't brought it down (yet). It's low enough that it's orbit will completely decay and it will re-enter in two hundred years or so.
It is very small by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-06 09:53 · Score: 0

Vanguard 1 is 1/50th the mass of Sputnik 1.
1. Re:It is very small by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-10-06 18:24 · Score: 1
  
  So the US was the first to invent the nanosat! ;)
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
Ask Ash-Fox about his NDA lie rotflmao by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-06 11:56 · Score: 0

Ask Ash-Fox about his NDA lie + dns fuckups rotflmao https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11188265&cid=55322595/ as he's a no degree liar.
Re:Heavy Bombs by aberglas · 2017-10-06 14:05 · Score: 2

True about airspace, but not the real reason.
The real reason was simply that the soviet atom bombs were heavier than the US ones, and so they needed bigger rockets to launch them. Those rockets could easily be modified for space. And the US certainly did not wait for Gagarin to launch, they simply did not have any rockets big enough.