Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

NASA Loses Contact With Comet Explorer 29

Posted by timothy from the at-least-it's-only-taxpayer-money dept.
linuxwrangler writes: "According to this article in the SF Chronicle, NASA lost contact with the Comet Nucleus Tour ('Contour') satellite just after firing engines to boost it out of orbit. The spacecraft was launched July 3 with the mission to probe comet Encke in 2003, Schwassman-Wachmann 3 in 2006 and perhaps d'Arrest in 2008. NASA is calculating possible trajectories in an attempt to search for and contact the probe. Let's hope they regain contact/control. This sounded like a cool project." Liquor adds: "The BBC has a report that indicates that the launch window for the $159M spacecraft closes tomorrow. If it hasn't successfully fired the engine by then, it can't make the planned mission."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NASA Loses Contact With Comet Explorer More

NASA Loses Contact With Comet Explorer

Comments Filter:
  • Does anybody know what self correcting mechanisms to contact NASA or meet the launch window, or anything else, that the probe has?

  • They find it collecting dust samples on Mars.

  • Am I the only one getting sick of NASA constantly screwing up? They say they arent getting enough money but it seems as if they are wasting the money they do get on mishap after mishap, you would think that they would realized that if they stopped screwing up, and wasting our money that maybe they would accually be able to convince congress to give them a larger budged. I dunno, over all I like NASA they just are pissing me off as of late.

    Just my 2 cents.
    • Sigh, I always forget to proof read stuff before I post it. Please forgive the spelling errors.
    • They usually get it right. The news loves to make a massive deal about their screwups, but all of these things are high-risk.

      With paper-thin budgets thanks to our damn legislators, they do what they can with what they have...but space is not cheap, and mistakes happen when you try to "do it cheap".
    • How many ships do you think people lost during the age of exploration? And what fraction of wealth do you think was spent on exploration?

      Space travel is much, much more complex. It's amazing that we manage to do it at all. And, on balance, NASA is doing very well, in particular given the limited resources they are getting.

    • Your 2 cents aren't worth jack shit. Oh, and if you LEARNED to spell, you wouldn't NEED a spell checker.
  • ...that NASA should be eliminated. Not only are the Space Admins stifling free-market efforts towards space, but they are also bungling fools who mess up English to Metric conversions and throw satellites into space without thoughts towards back-up comm methods. I mean, shite, dude, even Amateur Radio guys know that if you're dealing with something important, you have a second method of communication.

    If, back after we landed on the moon, we switched to subsidizing private Space Exploration rather than feeding mega-Trillions to NASA, we'd already have our colonies on the damned moon, and we'd probable have it for alot less than what NASA's blown on the Space Shuttle program alone.

    From the Apollo 1 to Apollo 13 to Challenger to this day, NASA's proven itself to be an organization that is all too self-aware of their job security.

    • Re:This is why I see... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by PD ( 9577 )
      Twas Lockheed that made the error, not NASA.

      And how is NASA stifling private competition? Seems like there's more private space companies now than there ever has been.

      Privatizing everything is not the solution.
      • And how is NASA stifling private competition? Seems like there's more private space companies now than there ever has been.

        Because, as it is now, there's only one American organization that is actually sending things into space. I mean, PHYSICALLY moving them. NASA. Most other Satellite and other orgs pay NASA to send their junk up there.

        Not only that, but if the money that's given to NASA each year went to private companies (that proved themselves capable and responsible) as a subsidy, you'd have more innovation and less stagnation because different competant companies would compete for bigger grants and more money from people. I pose the question: Is there a Slashdotter who, if given the chance and a decent internet connection, would join up to colonize the Moon? I think we'd find at least a hundred on this site alone.
        • Surely if NASA is so bad, then private companies would be taking it business away from it as we speak. Any satellite company would jump at the chance for cheaper launches, that is, if a private launch company would offer something other than hot air.
          • You mean like how parcel companies were great competition back for the USPS in the early 1800s? A government-established monopoly is immune to market forces until the government removes the barrier. That's why FedEx and UPS are so big now, because the barriers were removed.
            • I'm not saying that NASA would be bankrupted by private industry, but rather, there is lots of money too be made by putting stuff into orbit, and if private companies can really beat NASA, surely they would be doing it now.

              My skeptism towards private launch companies arises because they have only produced plans and nothing solid, whereas NASA actually (more often than not) puts things into space.
              • I'm not saying that NASA would be bankrupted by private industry, but rather, there is lots of money too be made by putting stuff into orbit, and if private companies can really beat NASA, surely they would be doing it now.

                It's against FAA rules to attempt a launch of a space vehicle from American ground and airspace without prior permission. And they only give NASA and a few select companies (that can't send people, only cargo) the clearance to do so.

                My skeptism towards private launch companies arises because they have only produced plans and nothing solid, whereas NASA actually (more often than not) puts things into space.

                And then, like a spoiled kid, lose their expensive toy, shrug, and ask their Uncle Sam for a new one.
                • It's against FAA rules to attempt a launch of a space vehicle from American ground and airspace without prior permission. And they only give NASA and a few select companies (that can't send people, only cargo) the clearance to do so.

                  If a company truely believes that it can make money off sending people to space it will get around this, by either lobbying for permission, or moving to a different country. If your the sort of person who is willing to travel to the moon/mars/whatever, then an international flight shouldn't worry you.

                  And then, like a spoiled kid, lose their expensive toy, shrug, and ask their Uncle Sam for a new one.

                  Has NASA requested more money because of this loss?

        • First, money subsidizing a private company is really the worst of both worlds. Private space companies can and do survive on their own.

          Second, you seem unaware of all the space companies out there that move things into space. I'm thinking of at least SeaLaunch and Orbital. There are others.
    • Everything is Snafu as usual at the National Anus Spelunking Administration.
    • Privatize it? That's just brilliant! Let the likes of Enron, Worldcom, and US Airways run it! Corporate robbber barons care only about grabbing money. They would take every cent of the space agency's budget as their salaries and bonuses, then would lay everyone off, file bankruptcy, and laugh all the way to the bank. Greedy businessmen destroy everything they touch. Consider what could happen to your parents or grandparents if Social Security were privatized. The Social Security Corporation would piss it all away grabbing fat salaries, and speculating in stock like Enron, Worldcom, and Imclone. Some things are way too important to leave to greedy businessmen.
  • Turns out there was a 1 gram misbalance caused by SOME GUYS ASHES in an old film cannister, glued to the wing...
  • I know how they must be feeling. I lost my car keys the other day. That was embarrassing.

    raccoon

  • Here's the latest press release from the CONTOUR people, which can be found here [contour2002.org]:

    CONTOUR: Latest News
    August 16, 2002 -- 1 p.m. (EDT)
    Search for CONTOUR Continues

    Mission operators continue to listen for a signal from CONTOUR.

    Using its 34-meter antennas, NASA's Deep Space Network stations are scanning the spacecraft's expected path beyond Earth's orbit, attempting to pick up radio signals from CONTOUR's transmitters. The CONTOUR team is also awaiting feedback from several NASA-sponsored and other optical and radar sites that have been searching the skies for signs of the spacecraft.

    CONTOUR's STAR 30 solid-propellant rocket motor was programmed to ignite at 4:49 a.m. EDT on Aug 15, boosting the spacecraft out of an Earth parking orbit and onto a trajectory to encounter two comets over the next four years. The spacecraft was too low for DSN antennas to track it during the burn - about 140 miles (225 kilometers) above the Indian Ocean - and the CONTOUR mission operations team at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory expected to regain contact about 45 minutes later to confirm the burn. No signal was received, and the team has been working through plans to find the craft along the predicted trajectories for a successful burn.

    CONTOUR's onboard computer was carrying a command that, starting at 6 a.m. EDT today, would have turned the spacecraft and pointed another of its four antennas toward Earth. So far, however, no signal has been received.

    CONTOUR, a Discovery-class mission to explore the nucleus of comets, was built and managed by the John Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, Md., for NASA. Additional information about CONTOUR is available on the Internet at: http://www.contour2002.org [contour2002.org].
  • They aimed a telescope at the position where it is expected to be, and they found what appears to be TWO moving spots instead of one.

    Not a good sign.

    Here is an image that appears to be a positive/negative overlay to help seperate star images from moving things:

    http://spacewatch.lpl.arizona.edu/Jeff/contour.j pg

    There are 4 streaks here because there are two sets of positive/negative plates overlapped I am speculating.

Slashdot Top Deals

Suggest you just sit there and wait till life gets easier.

Close