PDA

View Full Version : NASA is stupid



John Kierein
2002-Jan-15, 09:48 PM
Nobody in the far future will ever know we had Galileo in orbit around Jupiter. They should leave it as an artificial moon for other generations to find. How dumb to crash it into Jupiter.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2002/release_2002_12.html

amstrad
2002-Jan-15, 10:03 PM
1. NASA is anything but "stupid". They may have made some mistakes in the past, but the errors are far outweighed by massive amounts of scientific data from successful missions like the Voyagers and Galileo.

2. No orbit is perfect, it will eventually crash into something.

3. NASA wants to avoid crashing it into a moon and disrupting its environmental system (ecological or not). Jupiter is a much better resting place.

4. Why do we need a physical monument in orbit. I know Galileo was there, you do too. The data is documented, thats enough.

If you were trying to get a rise out of me with that subject line, congratulations.

Russ
2002-Jan-15, 10:24 PM
My objection to them crashing Gal. into Jup. is that; the assumption so far is that there is no life on Jup. yet there is no confirmation of that. The plutonium power supply on the craft could pollute Jup. for millions of years and possibly kill off whatever survived the Shoemaker-Levey 9 impact. If they are going to crash it into something, make it the Sun.

Argos
2002-Jan-15, 10:29 PM
On 2002-01-15 16:48, John Kierein wrote:
Nobody in the far future will ever know we had Galileo in orbit around Jupiter


Do you know now the fate of the 3 ships of Columbus? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

Russ
2002-Jan-15, 10:35 PM
On 2002-01-15 17:29, Argos wrote:
Do you know now the fate of the 3 ships of Columbus? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

Little Known Fact: Columbus actually had five ships but two sailed over the edge and were edited out of the history. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Jan-15, 10:46 PM
John, normally I find your posts to be contentious but polite, but that thread title is over the top. It won't easily sway people to your point of view.

Anyway, there is no way to put Galileo in a stable orbit; gravitational perturbations from the moons would send it either into Jupiter or fling it out of the system in short order.

There is nothing to worry about even if Jupiter is inhabited; it'll burn up very high in the atmosphere, and Jupiter is big. Even if there is somethign for it to hit, the odds are incredibly small.

The last task of the Magellan Venus orbiter was to drop into the atmosphere. It transmitted data back as it fell, giving astronomers back here valuable data on atmospheric density. Even in death it helped our understanding of Venus. Perhaps Galileo will do the same thing. I doubt it, since only the low-gain antenna can be used, but it's possible.

Silas
2002-Jan-15, 11:14 PM
And, while there is no naturally-occurring plutonium on Jupiter at all, isn't the place terribly radioactive anyway? The plutonium won't do any harm...

Silas

ljbrs
2002-Jan-16, 02:16 AM
Perhaps NASA (and the rest of us) will have learned something new from Galileo's fiery death.

Galileo was a great success and lasted much longer than expected. It almost was lost but the brilliance of the folks at JPL and NASA kept it going. Now, let us let Galileo rest in peace. In tiny pieces?

BA - You stated it succinctly. I simply had to put in my feeble two cents' worth.

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

DStahl
2002-Jan-16, 03:23 AM
All the same, I can see John's point of view...it's kind of romantic to think about the machines which represent some of mankind's greatest triumphs remaining as monuments to those achievements. Like the Voyagers, of course, and the probe sitting on the surface of Eros. But of course that is physically impossible for Galileo.

--Don, not the PhD, the other one.

Valiant Dancer
2002-Jan-16, 01:21 PM
On 2002-01-15 17:29, Argos wrote:


On 2002-01-15 16:48, John Kierein wrote:
Nobody in the far future will ever know we had Galileo in orbit around Jupiter


Do you know now the fate of the 3 ships of Columbus? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif


Yeah, The Santa Maria hit the back end of the Pinta and the Pinta exploded. Ralph Nader did a whole thing on the Pinta being unsafe. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

Kaptain K
2002-Jan-16, 03:42 PM
Nader said nothing about Pintas. His book "Unsafe at any depth" was about Corsairs. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

jkmccrann
2005-Oct-21, 02:44 PM
But would the Pinta be unsafe if it was in orbit around Jupiter? Did Nader look into that?

Me, I think it would be more likely to blow-up being in the Iovian system.

worzel
2005-Oct-25, 10:28 PM
What! They're ditching Galileo?:surprised

SolusLupus
2005-Oct-25, 11:00 PM
Speaking of NASA being stupid (which I don't claim personally), I heard a tale from an engineer...

The tale goes like this:

NASA wanted a pen that could write in Zero-G. So they invested millions of dollars to develop one. Meanwhile, Russians just used a pencil.

My question: A) Is this true? B) If so, why would NASA spend millions on a pen to use in Zero G? There HAS to be a reason.

worzel
2005-Oct-25, 11:02 PM
Yeah, they also spent millions just to develop trainers that look cool cos they don't have no laces but let Nike make all the profits, so I've heard anyways.

01101001
2005-Oct-25, 11:12 PM
NASA wanted a pen that could write in Zero-G. So they invested millions of dollars to develop one. Meanwhile, Russians just used a pencil.

My question: A) Is this true? B) If so, why would NASA spend millions on a pen to use in Zero G? There HAS to be a reason.

Tweak your skepticism knob up a notch or two.

Snopes: NASA spent millions of dollars developing an "astronaut pen"... (http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp)

It's been discussed in this forum.

SolusLupus
2005-Oct-25, 11:17 PM
I KNEW IT! I KNEW IT! I knew it was false! I knew it!

HAH! And they called me crazy! They called me mad! HAHAHAHAHAH!

*cough* Moving on...

Ilya
2005-Oct-26, 12:35 AM
My objection to them crashing Gal. into Jup. is that; the assumption so far is that there is no life on Jup. yet there is no confirmation of that. The plutonium power supply on the craft could pollute Jup. for millions of years and possibly kill off whatever survived the Shoemaker-Levey 9 impact. If they are going to crash it into something, make it the Sun.
1. There was no way to crash Galileo into Sun, or even get it away from Jupiter.

2. It was certain to crash into either Jupiter or into one of its moons eventually.

3. Half-life of Pu-238 is 78 years, not "millions".

4. The amount of Pu-238 onboars Galileo is vanishingly small compared to the size of Earth, let alone Jupiter. Natural radioactive substances on Jupiter outmass (and out-radiate) it by the factor of BILLIONS.

5. A comet the size of Shoemaker-Levi 9 hits Jupiter on the average every 1,000 years or so. If Jupiter HAD life, AND it could be affected by comet impacts... Jupiter would have no more life by now!

publiusr
2005-Oct-26, 07:13 PM
In many respects, it is harder to get a probe close to the Sun than to get to Pluto IIRC.

It is also actually easier to thump a craft out of Earth Moon than to circularize it enough for it to be a true geo-stationary platform.

Karl
2005-Oct-26, 07:32 PM
B) If so, why would NASA spend millions on a pen to use in Zero G? There HAS to be a reason.

Pencils have been forbidden in every clean room I've ever worked in. Nobody wants conductive particles floating around after launch.

jrkeller
2005-Oct-26, 07:44 PM
Pencils have been forbidden in every clean room I've ever worked in. Nobody wants conductive particles floating around after launch.

Wood is also a big fire hazard in a pure oxygen environment.

SolusLupus
2005-Oct-27, 12:09 AM
Conductive particles? Conductive for heat or electricity?

spfrss
2005-Oct-27, 06:30 AM
Conductive particles? Conductive for heat or electricity?

Hi, pencils are made of graphite, which is a very good electrical conductor, so having a bit of that stuff floating around inside your spacecraft means having a short-circuit waiting to happen

mauro

SolusLupus
2005-Oct-27, 05:08 PM
graphite is a good electrical conductor?

...cooooool.

publiusr
2005-Oct-27, 07:33 PM
And almost as bad as dandruff. I had forgotten to use Head & Shoulders one day--and made up for that with Selsun Blue. I had even used a whole lot of hair cream...you know, to really keep the clean room spotless?

I spilled some and slipped...and...thats how I knocked over that Lockheed-Martin weather satellite...

harlequin
2005-Oct-27, 08:42 PM
graphite is a good electrical conductor?

...cooooool.

Giant molecular structure (http://www.teachmetuition.co.uk/Chemistry/Chemicalstructureandbonding/giant_molecular_structures.htm) (short scroll to graphite.)

This also explains why graphite can be a lubricant.

Faultline
2005-Oct-28, 12:16 AM
Giant molecular structure (http://www.teachmetuition.co.uk/Chemistry/Chemicalstructureandbonding/giant_molecular_structures.htm) (short scroll to graphite.)

This also explains why graphite can be a lubricant.

Yeah, you can buy a tube of fine powdered graphite to use as lubricant in stubborn locks. It works like WD-40 but lasts for months.

Ilya
2005-Oct-28, 04:45 PM
Aren't buckyballs (C-60) an even better lubricant?

Faultline
2005-Oct-28, 04:51 PM
I consider "cheap" a significant part of being "better," but NASA doesn't often have the luxury of being frugal.

SolusLupus
2005-Oct-28, 04:55 PM
Returning to the topic of the alleged "stupidity" of the government organization known as NASA, I do have to admit that I find it kinda odd that they've had a few failures on the simple problems of translating from English system to Metric.

It seems a waste of millions of dollars (if not more!) based on a few mistaken calculations... x.x

ToSeek
2005-Oct-28, 05:11 PM
Returning to the topic of the alleged "stupidity" of the government organization known as NASA, I do have to admit that I find it kinda odd that they've had a few failures on the simple problems of translating from English system to Metric.


Just one (http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msp98/news/mco991110.html) that I know of, when (IMHO) they tried to cut a few too many corners by trying to do an orbiter and a lander for the same cost as one or the other took by itself previously (and a lot less than what just one Mars rover cost).

SolusLupus
2005-Oct-28, 05:20 PM
Ahhhh. Well, one error isn't a problem. Live and learn.

Another case: Casey and Andy (a webcomic) talked about a (probe? lander?) which crashed in re-entry to Earth. NASA wanted to catch it on a hook flown by a helicoptor. Casey and Andy compared this tactic to the Coyote's tactics in trying to catch that pesky Roadrunner.

Though a friend of mine says that they've done this attempt before, and have succeeded, so...

Hamlet
2005-Oct-28, 05:49 PM
Ahhhh. Well, one error isn't a problem. Live and learn.

Another case: Casey and Andy (a webcomic) talked about a (probe? lander?) which crashed in re-entry to Earth. NASA wanted to catch it on a hook flown by a helicoptor. Casey and Andy compared this tactic to the Coyote's tactics in trying to catch that pesky Roadrunner.

Though a friend of mine says that they've done this attempt before, and have succeeded, so...

Your referring to the Genesis (http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/) mission. The crash was not caused by the mid-air capture, but by a failure in the installation of the accelerometers that were to trigger parachute deployment.

Genesis was to be the first probe to be captured in this way but the technique for doing it is decades old. The film canisters from the old Corona (http://www.nro.gov/corona/facts.html) spy satellites were captured in mid-air.

Here's (http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/mystery_monday_040830.html) a more general article on Genesis and Corona.

Another (http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~kclarke/Corona/Corona.html) Corona link.

SolusLupus
2005-Oct-31, 04:15 PM
Thanks, Hamlet!

Wow, NASA ain't as dumb as I thought. Whoda thunk it?

^_^

publiusr
2005-Nov-02, 09:20 PM
I think the title of this thread should be changed, out of respect to NASA.

ottawan
2005-Nov-02, 09:27 PM
IIRC some of the Discovery series of satellites were recovered by the helicopter snare maneuver back in the early 60's.

JonClarke
2005-Nov-03, 01:48 AM
The Discover/Corona capusles were air-snatched by fixed wing aircraft. These techniques was used through into the 80's and 90's to recover capsules from KH-11 satellites. Australians pioneered the use of helicopters in this role in the 60's, using them capture sounding rocket payloads as Woomera.

Jon