China Criticized For 'Unplanned' Tumbling of Its Booster Rockets Back to Earth (msn.com) 99
China launched the final module for its space station last Monday. But this also meant that a massive booster rocket re-entered the earth's atmosphere, notes the Washington Post — "for the fourth time in less than three years."
This one came down in the Pacific Ocean shortly after 6 a.m. Friday, and "there were no initial reports of damage or injuries. "But its return to Earth highlighted a tension among space faring nations over China's practice of letting its spent rockets tumble back to Earth after days in orbit." While the chances are low of any one person getting hit by the returning space debris, several of the tracks the rocket possibly could have taken passed over a large swath of the Earth's populated areas. NASA Administrator Bill Nelson has repeatedly condemned China for the practice. In a statement Friday morning, he said: "It is critical that all spacefaring nations are responsible and transparent in their space activities and follow established best practices, especially, for the uncontrolled reentry of a large rocket body debris — debris that could very well result in major damage or loss of life."
China is alone among space-faring nations in allowing the unplanned return of its boosters, instead of ditching them at sea, as most others do, or returning them to a soft landing, like Space X. "The technology exists to prevent this," said Ted Muelhaupt, a consultant in the chief engineer's office at the Aerospace Corporation, a nonprofit that drew possible tracks for the rocket's return. The rest of the world doesn't "deliberately launch things this big and intend them to fall wherever. We haven't done that for 50 years."
As of Wednesday, the [research nonprofit] Aerospace Corporation's calculations had the stage possibly landing over areas of land where 88 percent of the world's population lives. And so the possibility of casualties, Muelhaupt said, was between one in 230 to one in 1,000. That risk far exceeds the internationally recognized standard that says a reentering space object should not have greater than a one in 10,000 chance of causing injury.
The Chinese rocket stage is massive — weighing 22 metric tons and measuring as long as a pair of 53-foot semitrailers parked end to end, Muelhaupt said. He estimated that between 10 and 40 percent of the booster would survive reentry.
This one came down in the Pacific Ocean shortly after 6 a.m. Friday, and "there were no initial reports of damage or injuries. "But its return to Earth highlighted a tension among space faring nations over China's practice of letting its spent rockets tumble back to Earth after days in orbit." While the chances are low of any one person getting hit by the returning space debris, several of the tracks the rocket possibly could have taken passed over a large swath of the Earth's populated areas. NASA Administrator Bill Nelson has repeatedly condemned China for the practice. In a statement Friday morning, he said: "It is critical that all spacefaring nations are responsible and transparent in their space activities and follow established best practices, especially, for the uncontrolled reentry of a large rocket body debris — debris that could very well result in major damage or loss of life."
China is alone among space-faring nations in allowing the unplanned return of its boosters, instead of ditching them at sea, as most others do, or returning them to a soft landing, like Space X. "The technology exists to prevent this," said Ted Muelhaupt, a consultant in the chief engineer's office at the Aerospace Corporation, a nonprofit that drew possible tracks for the rocket's return. The rest of the world doesn't "deliberately launch things this big and intend them to fall wherever. We haven't done that for 50 years."
As of Wednesday, the [research nonprofit] Aerospace Corporation's calculations had the stage possibly landing over areas of land where 88 percent of the world's population lives. And so the possibility of casualties, Muelhaupt said, was between one in 230 to one in 1,000. That risk far exceeds the internationally recognized standard that says a reentering space object should not have greater than a one in 10,000 chance of causing injury.
The Chinese rocket stage is massive — weighing 22 metric tons and measuring as long as a pair of 53-foot semitrailers parked end to end, Muelhaupt said. He estimated that between 10 and 40 percent of the booster would survive reentry.
Re: (Score:2)
Space is being commercialized, and within 50 years, companies will be profitable enough to change the balance of power. That will allow them to ignore safety, as the trend always goes, and they would let any old shit fall back to earth uncontrolled.
Re: You mean exactly like how NASA and Russians di (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
obvious.
china knows it has a problem with its booster management.
they want you to believe that it is a low priority.
to be negotiated.
true is.
china is just to stupid to be able to fix it.
Re: (Score:2)
It is more profitable to return the boosters to Earth
Yet other rocket makers don't do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You seem incapable of understanding that one size does not fit all.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not about one size fits all, this is about conducting your business in a proper manner. I can give many examples for not conducting your business in a proper manner and thereby causing harm to others or the environment, but haven't we come to the conclusion that that is not the best way of conducting your business?
Re: (Score:2)
The original point was about profitability. And my response was that it's not clear cut because not many rocket companies do it.
I never said anything about whether it was good or bad. All I said was that the CCP is just doing what every other rocket company wished they could do, that they are not behind, but ahead, in this matter.
For the record, I don't think it's good. But that is completey IRRELEVANT to the comment I was replying to, and the point I was m
Drop the racist garbage (Score:5, Insightful)
The skin color of the people who initially did this stuff is not relevant, unless YOU are asserting that there's something special about white people that makes them first to do all this advanced stuff (I'm making no such bigoted assertion, I'm challenging you to drop it).
The POINT is that the first people to do this stuff did it the hard way, having to spend all the time and money figuring out how to manage the tasks at all, and then made the knowledge for how to be more safe and eco-friendly available for free to others who came along behind them - so there's no damned excuse for any of the followers to do it the bad/wrong/primitive way. The US did all its big rocket programs out in the open, for all the world to see, and even published papers on tons of it, including on how best to dispose of spent stages. The Russians were far less open during the cold war, and yet they too moved to proper stage disposal eventually and have surely shared any info the Chinese would need to do it, given the degree to which they have allowed China to clone large parts of their space program. Let me know when the Chinese government invents some entirely new tech, perfects it, and then lets the non-Chinese have access to to knowledge to do the same thing faster, cheaper, and more safely... I'll not hold my breath...
Re:Drop the racist garbage (Score:5, Insightful)
Every other country used to do these uncontrolled re-entires. Bits of Skylab landed in Australia IIRC. The Russians had some radioactive RTG parts land in other countries.
You seem to miss the point that those were isolated and unintended. China is deliberately dumping these boosters randomly with no attempt at a controlled re-entry.
Its not a huge deal, as the chances of hitting a person or building is small. But still, surprising for a country that seems to care a lot about how they are perceived.
Oh, and BTW, Russia did not drop just "RTG parts", but a full-blown nuclear reactor on Canada. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
But still, surprising for a country that seems to care a lot about how they are perceived.
If they cared a lot about how they were perceived, they wouldn't do half the shit they do. Spin control is cheap. They give few fucks.
Re: (Score:2)
Unintended is questionable. NASA had planned to boost Skylab's orbit with the Shuttle, but didn't really have a plan for eventually bringing it back down. The Shuttle couldn't have steered it into a safe re-entry. It was very much a case of figuring that out when the time came, because when Skylab was being developed they were only really concerned with finding applications for the left over Apollo hardware.
It's not fair to say that the Chinese are "deliberately dumping these boosters randomly" though, they
Re: (Score:1)
Different kinds of boosters/stages are being mixed up here. First stage boosters normally never make it to orbit, they just follow a well-defined parabolic trajectory to splash into the sea (everyone except SpaceX) or adjust their course and land in a specific location (SpaceX).
The problem we're talking about here, is the upper stage that delivers the satellite. That stage does make it to orbit and can keep circling for a very long time until the tiny bit of drag from the atmopsphere brings it down enough f
Re: (Score:2)
In the case of the Long March 5, the booster makes it to orbit. It's an unusual configuration, essentially the first and second stages combined. It then de-orbits. Since the whole booster made it to orbit, not all of it will burn up on re-entry. Second stages are normally small enough to be vaporized.
The issue is that the engines on that stage can't be re-started in orbit yet. They control re-entry location by timing the jettisoning of the booster, but from then on it's uncontrolled.
Nobody will give them th
Re: (Score:1)
I had a look at wikipedia, and indeed, it has a bunch of side boosters and then just one big single stage rocket in the middle (If it's the CZ-5B).
Well, if everyone refuses to share the technology for a relight in orbit, I guess they can't really complain about them not deorbiting their rockets properly.
Re: (Score:2)
The Chinese almost certainly have the technology to re-light their engines in orbit. It's not *that* hard.
Re: (Score:2)
The Atlas 1 used approximately this system to reach orbit, too: at launch, three more or less identical engines lifted the rocket and started it on its way. At some point enough propellant was used up that it was more economical to drop two of the engines, known as booster engines, making the rocket that much lighter (the engines are the biggest part of a rocket's dry weight). The remaining engine--the sustainer engine--continued firing to bring the rocket up to orbital speed. The US launched an Atlas in
Re: (Score:1)
It's very fair to say because that's exactly what they're doing.
China -could- safely dump the final stages like the US and Russia do but they don't bother.
Stop with the "but the west did it wrong 40 years ago!" noise. Irrelevant.
Today it is a solved problem, they know how, they just don't give a fuck.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell us how they could do that with a Long March 5 and technology they have already.
Re: (Score:1)
Don't use an ancient piece of crap rocket. Use a rocket they can safely dump if that one can't.
Oh that might cost money? Ok that's fine then if they risk flattening some random people somewhere on the planet to save a buck.
Re: Drop the racist garbage (Score:2)
While Iâ(TM)m not a fan of the Chinese behaviour here, we need to remember that a lot of know how is not shared amongst nations, due to ITAR and other policies which treat rockets as missiles.
This all means countries are often having to reinvent the wheel. China has big ambitions, so like the US and Russia, in the past, is running faster than the technology can keep up.
The irony here is that China is looking to copy the Falcon 9, but isnâ(TM)t there yet. It is ironic because they are the only ones
Re: (Score:2)
Tell us how they could do that with a Long March 5 and technology they have already.
So because I can't build a cotton harverster it is ok for me to use slaves? Or what are you saying.
Re: (Score:2)
Add a retro rocket on to the booster. It's been done for manned spacecraft since 1961 (Vostok) and 1962 (Mercury), and it could easily be done with the booster--at a slight cost to payload capacity.
Re:Drop the racist garbage (Score:4, Informative)
It is entirely fair: the Long March V core booster ends up in a low orbit, and where and when it comes down is entirely a crapshoot. China does not plan where it comes down; China does not care. In contrast, and barring equipment failures, Western launch companies deliberately de-orbit their upper stages to ensure they come down in a fairly safe manner.
The technology exists, and it not particularly difficult. If you can propel and guide a rocket into space, you definitely can propel and guide it back down at the time and place of your choosing. It's not all that costly, either, in terms of reduced payload. It's pretty clear from China's repeat behavior that they just don't give a damn.
And this is to say nothing about their inland launch facilities (e.g., Xichang Satellite Launch Center), where boosters with toxic hypergolic fuels are routinely dumped over populated areas.
Re: (Score:1)
This is complete nonsense. Aside from anything else, bits of Chinese rocket falling on other nations and causing injuries and damage would be extremely embarrassing.
They plan where it comes down based on when they detach it.
If you want them to adopt the latest tech sooner, share it with them. Otherwise you are just complaining that they are doing the same thing everyone else did decades ago, before they learned to more precisely de-orbit stuff. As it happens they are working on it, they have developed a few
Re:Drop the racist garbage (Score:4, Insightful)
The idea that it's not right to criticize them because we won't share tech with them that advances their weapons program while they are ruled by autocratic fascists who care little for even the lives of their own citizens is frankly idiotic. That this same concern applies to other nations proves the point, rather than detracting from it. "You should help China build better ICBMs because otherwise you don't get to complain about China choosing to launch craft they can't gracefully deorbit" is complete bollocks.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying it isn't right to criticise, I'm saying
- We did the same stuff so it's hypocrisy
- We won't help them so criticism isn't constructive
- They are working on this already so it's not true to say they don't care
- Underestimating or misunderstanding China is a bad idea
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying it isn't right to criticise, I'm saying
- We did the same stuff so it's hypocrisy
That doesn't make it hypocrisy. Times have changed.
- We won't help them so criticism isn't constructive
Even if we would help them, criticism wouldn't be constructive, because they're not interested in what we have to say.
- They are working on this already so it's not true to say they don't care
What's that behind the cart? It looks like a horse.
- Underestimating or misunderstanding China is a bad idea
Yes, thinking they give a fuck about human life is a very, very bad idea.
Re: (Score:2)
"We did the same stuff so it's hypocrisy": To add to drinkypoo's response: they problem bringing Skylab down in a controlled fashion in 1974 was precisely the motivation behind developing a better way to de-orbit large objects without potential harm to people. Indeed, NASA attempted to bring down Skylab in a controlled way, but it didn't work as well as hoped.
"We won't help them so criticism isn't constructive": They don't need our help, all their astronauts' capsules come down in a controlled way, so Chin
Re: (Score:3)
Which part, specifically?
China has largely made itself immune to embarrassment. If they were susceptible, then the forced labor camps of Xinjiang would not exist; Russia would not have their tacit support in Ukraine. China, I believe, is making a calculated gamble that 1) it'll come down someplace that won't cause damage, and 2) even if it does, they are likely to
Re: (Score:2)
Bam, you got your few m/s of delta-V.
Re: (Score:2)
"They plan where it comes down based on when they detach it." This makes no sense. I presume you're referring to when they detach it from the payload (satellite). But at the point of detachment, both the booster and the payload are travelling at 18,000 mph, and they continue to travel at that speed until air drag slows them (I presume they have a small rocket attached to the satellite to boost it into a higher orbit, so it lasts more than a few days). So when you detach it has nothing to do with when or
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The soviet union did drop a nuclear reactor on canada, but this satellite was not intended to do that. The design of this satellite was that it would be in orbit for an extended period of time. They suffered a failure, which resulted in an unexpected and uncontrolled re-entry.
They also took steps to prevent a recurrence by adding in mechanisms to eject the core and propel it to a safer orbit in the event of future failures.
What the chinese are doing is different, their rockets are designed to simply discard
Re: (Score:1)
Typical lefty stuff. Your original namesake has posted racist rants, too. See my sig.
Re: (Score:1)
NASA is banned as of when? And China despite having all the information available on how to safely launch n return still doesn't bother.
The racism of low expectations. So ugly.
It's 2022 not the 1950s or 1970s. Please join us.
Never advertize your ignorance (Score:2)
First, only certain narrow tech is blocked - in the interest of not helping hostile nations become better armed. Safety information along the lines of "well,, since you're putting stuff up there on your own already, here's a safe way to not drop your junk on innocent people" is not (yeah, I'm being a tad sloppy here - there's lots of specific rules, but I'm making a point). For example, you are apparently unaware of all the tech papers NASA openly published for anybody to access and read for many decades -
Re: (Score:2)
Let's do some math:
There are about 8 billion people.
The area of the earth is 510 million sq km = 5.1e14 sq meters.
Probability of it hitting someone = 8e9 / 5.1e14 = 0.000016
Probability of it hitting me: 0.000000000000002
I have better things to worry about.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
0.000016 is the number of people per square meter on earth. That's not the same as the chance of a falling chunk of rocket hitting someone, because it's not going to fall vertically into a one-square-meter area. It's going to be bigger, and almost certainly have horizontal motion that increases its effective size.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's do some math:
Why? Your math is worthless. It doesn't take into account the area where the rocket was expected to come down, nor the uneven distribution of humans on the planet. Your mathematical operations can all be done correctly and still produce a worthless result, which is what you've done there.
Re: (Score:2)
"It doesn't take into account the area where the rocket was expected to come down": That's the problem right there: no one knew (not even the Chinese) where the rocket would come down. The only clue was that it wouldn't be north of about 41.47 degrees north latitude, nor south of the same south latitude, because that's the inclination of the orbit. So yes, there would be a somewhat smaller area of potential impact.
Re: (Score:2)
You not caring is the bigger issue.
Let's do some more math. Let's say that a controlled reentry will add $1M to the design.
$1M/0.000016 = $62B per life saved.
Meanwhile, 500,000 children will die of malaria this year, and many of those lives could be saved with a $10 bed net.
That is 6.2 billion times more cost-effective.
Do you care?
Re: (Score:1)
Bad dumb mod. This is a 100% direct reply to clown I was replying to.
If you can't read basic English and comprehend it then do everyone a favor and stop modding.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting that every nation follow the archaic learning processes that other nations have battled through? Is China still going through the early industrial age, driving around with steam trains? No. They have modern technology like high speed rail, looking to other nations and learning from their technology.
Just because someone in the past did something stupid because there was no better way doesn't force everyone else down the same path.
China is letting boosters tumble because they choose to. Chi
Headline criticized for reporting reactions (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
It seems to have gotten a reaction out of you. Mission accomplished, and they appreciate all that you are.
Re: (Score:2)
The simple fact of the matter is that it splashed down in the Pacific ocean. Nobody was injured. Dumping in the ocean is what many other countries do to. China issues the appropriate warnings to avoid the area.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That is a simple fact, but it's not the only one. Another simple fact of the matter is that Spain closed part of its airspace, delaying 300 flights [reuters.com] because the risk of an impact with the uncontrolled stage was above that considered acceptable.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They didn't plan it to come down in the ocean. In fact, on an earlier occasion, debris landed near a village. This time it happened to fall into the ocean, which is the most likely result because there's so much more ocean than land, but it could just as well have hit land, the location is basically random.
Other countries perform a deorbit burn to set up a trajectory that ends in the ocean. Only takes a very small amount of fuel.
Re: (Score:1)
Why are you trying to paper over CCP apathy and incompetence?
It's ok that they are uncaring, stupid and incompetent because "this time" nothing happened?
Jfc.....
Re: (Score:2)
Because I don't underestimate the CCP. If they are stupid and incompetent then why is China such a huge threat to us? Why was a trade war needed if they are so dumb? How come Huawei beat everyone else to the punch on 5G? How come they have the best battery technology?
Because so many people think like you, imagining some weird moustache twirling villains running things, we are finding it hard to compete. It also results in poor policy decisions when people don't understand what motivates the CCP.
You describe
Re: (Score:1)
If they care about their image then why did they drop the booster at random?
Why did they shoot up satellites in orbit and fill already busy orbital space with even more space junk? That was good for their image?
Yes they care about their image but only after everything else. They got lucky this time. It was an uncontrolled de-orbit which could have landed anywhere and on anyone. What are you going to say if they aren't lucky one of these times? That's the nature of luck. Eventually someone wins the lot
Re:Headline criticized for reporting reactions (Score:4, Informative)
No. China doesn't issue warnings to avoid the area because they don't know the target area. That's the whole point. Other nations target specific points of the pacific ocean to crash these. China lets them roll around the world and hope they hit a patch of water.
If a drunk blindfolded person walks into a bar pulls out a gun spins and shoots unaimed and happens to hit the bullseye of a target, you don't go around and tell everyone that it was a safe practice because everyone aims at the bullseye.
Re: (Score:2)
No, China did NOT--and could not--issue the appropriate warnings to avoid the area, because they didn't know until the last moment where it might come down--and it's too late to move a few thousand miles out of the way at that point. Yes, it happened to come down in the Pacific, but that was sheer luck, aided by the fact that the surface of the Earth is something like 65% water. The only way to be sure to avoid hitting populated areas is to do a controlled re-entry, which other space-faring nations do. C
Re: (Score:2)
Summary of the event: "China lets boosters tumble to earth". It's right there in The Fucking Headline.
Re: (Score:2)
Learn some fucking english, dipshit. Everyone else literally understood that's what I was talking about. You are the ONLY one who DELIBERATELY chose to misunderstand.
Re: (Score:2)
Headlines resorting to reporting reactions to an event, instead of the actual fucking event, should summarize the fucking event, and not the fucking reactions to said event.
I don't know enough about rocket launches to know that "unplanned" tumbling of the boosters back to earth is considered dangerous or irresponsible enough to be worthy of criticism.
The fact that a wide group of knowledgeable people is criticizing China for this practice is newsworthy and helps my understanding of the story.
A spacecraft "graveyard" has been used since 1971 (Score:5, Informative)
There's a spacecraft graveyard in the South Pacific between New Zealand and South America that's used for safely disposing of defunct spacecraft.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sc... [dailymail.co.uk]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, is that what happened to those Easter Island Statues [bbc.com]...?
Non-retardspeak (Score:2)
I know they are presumably quoting the guy directly, but I guess even few Americans have a good idea what a semitrailer is. Good thing he included some measurements.
So the quote could actually have read The Chinese rocket stage is massive - weighing as much as 5 African elephants piled on top of each other and measuring 32 metric meters, which would have been much more info
Re: (Score:1)
weighing as much as 5 African elephants piled on top of each other and measuring 32 metric meters
How many non-metric meters does it measure? Does it measure with a tape measure, a metre stick, or something else? Do African elephants weigh more or less when piled on top of each other than when standing in a line?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Good thing those are African elephants and not European elephants.
But were the elephants laden?
Just like Tom Lehrer said (Score:1)
"wonz ze rockets are up, who cares where they come down"...
I guess he correctly predicted that von Braun was learning Chinese.
Just like their virus research (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Please explain why banning tech exports to a country run by evil people is a bad thing.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't its just daft post-christian moral relativism that passes for enlightenment these days. "Oh deer we are not perfect so we can't question the absolute horror shows of others.."
"remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye." - I don't think was to imply we should ignore/condone/excuse the sins of others. Rather it was an admonishment to prioritize work on ourselves.
In the grand scheme of things it would be silly, and wrong of us to g
× China Space China Criticized For 'Unplanned (Score:1)
Big difference. (Score:2)
There is a big difference between a whole booster, dropping tens of tonnes of debris onto the earth's surface, and a lightweight trunk section jettisoned from a manned spacecraft, dropping tens of kilograms of debris.
Also important is that the reason they don't de-orbit the Dragon trunk as soon as it is finished with is that doing so would cause extra risk to human life. The engines to do the de-orbit are in the capsule, so it would de-orbit near the capsule, creating risks. And U.S. capsules re-enter over
Re: Big difference. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
how about a truly International Space Program where people actually work together for peaceful purposes?
Are the 'peaceful purposes' to space really? Communications and some research that gains from not being inside the atmosphere is about it. Nobody who is capable of meaningful participation in an international program really needs 'help' doing com satellites at this point.
Basic physics says we are not leaving the solar system for any kind of economic ends EVER, that always be one-way tips, sorry dreamers just nothing else in the cards there. Fundamentally Space is about pressing some national political/econ
Everyone knows how to avoid this. (Score:5, Informative)
Mostly, you design your main stage(s) to fly into a sub-orbital path, so it comes back down straight away - for these launches, that would leave the stage to fall in a known and safe part of the empty Pacific. You then use a small boost engine, either in a small boost stage or with an engine on your payload, to put it into the desired orbit.
The U.S. did this with the shuttle. It would have been much better to take the Shuttle all the way to orbit with it's main engines and fuel from the main tank, but that would have left the large external tank in orbit to enter in an uncontrolled, random manner, and that wasn't acceptable. So they always stopped short, jettisoned the external tank so it would splash down soon after in the Atlantic or Pacific, and used the less efficient Orbital Maneuvering Engines to insert the Shuttle into orbit.
If that really isn't possible, then you fit your main stage with the ability to do a de-orbit burn - either reserving a bit of fuel and fitting your rocket with re-light capability, or beefing up your RCS system so it can de-orbit in a controlled manner.
The Chinese space program doesn't do this because they don't care, not because they don't know how or because they need some help.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Everyone knows how to avoid this. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
China doesn't need (or probably want) our help; if they can bring their astronauts down in a safe and controlled manner, they know how to bring their boosters down in a controlled manner.
They will just do what American companies like (Score:2)
Why should China care (Score:5, Insightful)
You think they care where their rocket lands? Please.
Re:Why should China care (Score:5, Informative)
Don't forget Hong Kong, Tibet, Falun Gong organ theft, and destroying the environment... just to fill out the list a bit. And lots more but between us, point made.
Re: (Score:1)
That's nice of you to try to distract from real things with your CCP nonsense. You earned your 50 cents today! You can afford a bowl of rice. Keep up the good work!
What is "unplanned" here? (Score:2)
They basically did a risk-analysis and found it not worth the effort to do better. They are probably right too.
This is absolutely great! (Score:2)