NASA Prepares to Launch Comet-Buster

Chessphoon writes "NASA's Deep Impact, a spacecraft named after the 1998 movie, is scheduled to launch on January 12. If all goes as planned, the spacecraft will collide with Comet Tempel 1 six months later on July 4, and create a crater so that the inside of the comet can be analyzed."

Re:What a waste of money

[rpozz]

Maybe the technology could be used to take a comet off-course when it's about to hit something we don't want it to (eg Earth)?

When a comet is on a collision...

[rarose]

course with earth and we have to figure out how to nudge it off course, the data this mission gathers will be invaluable.

The ass we save may be our own.

Re:What a waste of money

[albn]

Why did we go to the moon? It was a political "mine is bigger than yours" game. Also, we want to send miners up there to compensate for dwindling natural resources. How is that going to cost effective?

you must be a jock

[cheekyboy]

Because if all comets are NOT ice, but just normal asteroids that generate massive plasma/electric charges, then that changes *ALL* theories on how the earth/solar system was evolved, and that throws out other derived theories, and then it makes more new ones, which would lead to more discoveries and finally allowing you to get your anti-gravity device to get to the moon. OK.

Re:Price is right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do people still insist that there is a difference between "BIG BUSINESS" and the "government" that we currently have in this and many other countries?

Are we not being currently run like a company, wasn't that touted when we elected (selected if you like) the first "CEO" president/Harvard Business school graduate? Do you ACTUALLY think that the "government" is building and running these programs? Those government workers are actually getting the bloated paychecks? It's BIG BUSINESS! And, the last time I checked, the two largest government run agencies or programs made a profit last year - the good ole' U.S. Post Office (THEY want to privatize it, darn, if it could only lose money for a while) and Social Security, which never missed a payment, has enough money to maintain solvency to 2052 (and then would still be able to meet obligations up to 80% of it's current payments) and has been the most successful GOVERNMENT program in history (ask all the presidents from LBJ to Baby Bush who have "borrowed" and left IOUs and continued to borrow from the system). Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know the argument is that it is a part of the general fund, therefore the money can be use for any purpose. But tell me this, how can we use the money for the General Fund when it's there, yet not help out the program FROM the general Fund when it needs it? Why does it then have to stand alone as a self-funding program?) To continue, both these programs are genuinely for the greater good of society. And both are being targeted for privatization. Along with all the overgrown, hazardous trees that are causing all the fire hazards in our National Parks. Yes, BIG BUSINESS would run it better. And before you go point to the example of the Millau bridge in France being built with "private" funds and for only an estimated 394m euros ($524 U.S.), instead of the billions that that the erstwhile Bay Bridge is costing in San Francisco. Remember your fables: "The devil WILL get is due!" The company(s) that built the bridge have a contract for 75 years to collect fees. How many times will this private corporation raise fees? What happens when it can't meet its obligation to repair the bridge, because their calculated fees aren't high enough or the public balks at paying them? Will the "government" then simply close the bridge? No, they will come in and "bail" out this private "BIG BUSINESS" to keep the bridge safe and operating. Instead of letting this private sector enterprise simply fail. Just ask the "private, BIG BUSINESS" airlines in the U.S.

Sorry for the rant, but of course business is a part of the success of the U.S. and the world, not the end-all and be-all. It has always been thought of as a partnership. That is why the founders of this "democracy" put such constraints on commerce; they saw the dangers as well as the reward. Unfortunately, BIG BUSINESS as risen to such heights, that more than likely, it will choke on it's own greed and take the rest of us with it.

Regards, A small business owner!

Re:What a waste of money

[Mr2cents]

I have a better idea: why don't you divert money meant for the military to that worthy cause and stop whining about some millions spent on a space probe? Billions and billions are spent each day developing and building weapons. Incidentally, most misery on earth is caused by war (eg, famines are often caused by long wars causing farmers to stop cultivating the land).

You could also split it 50/50 between humanitary aid and space programs, you could still solve most if not all diseases and famine, while launching a mission like the two mars rovers EVERY DAY!

Because they can?

[Gorffy]

So, blow up a chunk of what we expect to be ice and rock... just to confirm that it is, indeed. Ice and rock. Maybe it's magic space rock! i think this project might just be:
a.) a geologists wet dream
b.) a way for nasa to prove it can do something right, and get more money. (1.) Shoot missle at comet. 2.)?? 3.) Government Funding!)

The Titan project (forget the name) is far better.

Re:What a waste of money

[bungalow]

Incidentally, most misery on earth is caused by war (eg, famines are often caused by long wars causing farmers to stop cultivating the land).

No. War is a symptom. It exacerbates the problem, but it is not the problem.

Most misery on earth is caused by selfishness. Uncontrolled selfishness between two humans will often lead to either a fistfight or exclusion of the other person.

War is either a fistfight (WWII) or a hissy fit (cold war and its multiple unofficial wars) fought for leaders of nations who are pissed off at each other for verious reasons (some unjust, some just).

remember?

[Striker770S]

NASA's Deep Impact, a spacecraft named after the 1998 movie

why would anybody want to remember that movie let alone name something after it. The only reason it was made was because celestial objects destroying the planet was in that year. I mean remember that one fad where volcanoes destroying stuff was in. But i dont think NASA would be that connected into hollywood-movie-pop-fopa to name something after a movie because movies are so fake. I mean hell no one would name a fusion generator the octavious because a guy in spiderman2 created the most bullshit fusion reaction ever. Just my feeling.

Re:Price is right?

[pnewhook]

You completely miss the point of NASAs existence.

Of course things cost more when NASA does it because the purpose of NASA is to take government money and spread it out to as many other companies as possible. Without this, companies such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin and numerous other aerospace companies big and small would never exist (or be radically different).

This is a method to keep engineers, scientists, average joe workers, and the thousands of other workers that provide related services and materials to them employed. Doing something interesting with that money is completely secondary.

Some other countries choose to give direct subsidies to their high tech companies. Americans seem to frown or this so the government chooses to get NASA to do it indirectly.