Genesis probe crashes

Another NASA project crashes and burns!

Another 250 million up in smoke!

So, what else is new at NASA!

Double-A

In message , Double-A
writes
Another NASA project crashes and burns!

Another 250 million up in smoke!

So, what else is new at NASA!

Double-A

It's a high-risk business, and always has been. Your Cassini probe is
doing very well, and I just hope our hitch-hiker doesn't follow the
example of Beagle and Genesis.
Best of luck, Stardust.
--
What have they got to hide? Release the ESA Beagle 2 report.
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

not nice, not fair, and unpatriotic

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 12:01:41 -0700, Double-A wrote:

Another NASA project crashes and burns!

Another 250 million up in smoke!

So, what else is new at NASA!

Double-A


Hey could you do better?

So what do you suggest we do? Stop sending probes up?

There are going to be failures, sometimes it's the best way to learn.

Tom Randy wrote in message . ..
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 12:01:41 -0700, Double-A wrote:

Another NASA project crashes and burns!

Another 250 million up in smoke!

So, what else is new at NASA!

Double-A


Hey could you do better?

So what do you suggest we do? Stop sending probes up?

There are going to be failures, sometimes it's the best way to learn.


Well for one thing, they could have done some practice runs on this
new recovery method on less valuable satellites before going live on
such a critical project.

Double-A

In message , Double-A
writes
Tom Randy wrote in message
...
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 12:01:41 -0700, Double-A wrote:

Another NASA project crashes and burns!

Another 250 million up in smoke!

So, what else is new at NASA!

Double-A


Hey could you do better?

So what do you suggest we do? Stop sending probes up?

There are going to be failures, sometimes it's the best way to learn.


Well for one thing, they could have done some practice runs on this
new recovery method on less valuable satellites before going live on
such a critical project.

Double-A

Why don't you send your CV to NASA and JPL? You're such an expert on
space technology that they will hire you on the spot.
There's nothing new about returning capsules to Earth - and other
planets. It's been done with spy satellites since the early 1960s, on
Mars in the 1970s, and on Jupiter in the 1990s.
They did practice the helicopter recovery technique. I'm no expert, but
I can tell you that a lot of the mission budget will have gone on
simulations and tests of the re-entry, probably involving flying the
capsule on a balloon and dropping it. That's how Viking, Huygens (good
luck), and Galileo were tested.
Sometimes things fail. Except second-guessing Usenet posters with silly
nicknames, it would seem.

"Double-A" wrote in message
m...
Tom Randy wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 12:01:41 -0700, Double-A wrote:

Another NASA project crashes and burns!

Another 250 million up in smoke!

So, what else is new at NASA!

Double-A


Hey could you do better?

So what do you suggest we do? Stop sending probes up?

There are going to be failures, sometimes it's the best way to learn.


Well for one thing, they could have done some practice runs on this
new recovery method on less valuable satellites before going live on
such a critical project.

Double-A
1: It was not the 'recovery method', that failed, but the parachutes,
which are a 'normal' technology.
2: This type of recovery has been used before on military systems,
including higher velocity versions at greater altitude, and has a good
track record.

Best Wishes

"Roger Hamlett" wrote in message ...
"Double-A" wrote in message
m...
Tom Randy wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 12:01:41 -0700, Double-A wrote:

Another NASA project crashes and burns!

Another 250 million up in smoke!

So, what else is new at NASA!

Double-A


Hey could you do better?

So what do you suggest we do? Stop sending probes up?

There are going to be failures, sometimes it's the best way to learn.


Well for one thing, they could have done some practice runs on this
new recovery method on less valuable satellites before going live on
such a critical project.

Double-A
1: It was not the 'recovery method', that failed, but the parachutes,
which are a 'normal' technology.


Word is now that it may have been the batteries that failed. They
should have used the Copper Top!


2: This type of recovery has been used before on military systems,
including higher velocity versions at greater altitude, and has a good
track record.

Best Wishes


Then why didn't they use the experienced military pilots instead of
those Hollywood stuntmen?

Double-A

In message , Double-A
writes

2: This type of recovery has been used before on military systems,
including higher velocity versions at greater altitude, and has a good
track record.

Best Wishes


Then why didn't they use the experienced military pilots instead of
those Hollywood stuntmen?

Sorry, double Z , but that's enough. It's kill file time.
The Discovery capsules were recovered in the early 1960s. You probably
weren't even born then. The pilots who know this stuff are dead or
retired. And yet again, THAT WASN'T THE PROBLEM.
Plonk.

"Double-A" wrote in message
m...
Tom Randy wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 12:01:41 -0700, Double-A wrote:

Another NASA project crashes and burns!

Another 250 million up in smoke!

So, what else is new at NASA!

Double-A


Hey could you do better?

So what do you suggest we do? Stop sending probes up?

There are going to be failures, sometimes it's the best way to learn.


Well for one thing, they could have done some practice runs on this
new recovery method on less valuable satellites before going live on
such a critical project.


I'm prepared to be shot down over this. But in the past, weren't film
canisters dropped by spy satellites in the '60s captured this way? I can
remember seeing a docco on it sometime ago. Or was it a "proposal"?