It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why did the solar probe crash?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a friend of mine thinks the probe crashed because it contained some sort of alien intelligence that humans weren't supposed to have. i'm skeptical of that to say the least. just wanted to know what everybody else thinks of this.



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 07:29 PM
link   
The parachute didn't open, but I guess after 3 years in deep space many things could have become faulty. Space is an extreme environment.



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 07:42 PM
link   
My funny thought of the day.........


Project Genisis collected dust from and area in space that we know nothing about. I wonder what kind of mico organisms we brought back and dispersed into our world. I know most will say its not possible for anything organic in nature to survive the extreme heat or the vacum of space, but we are just now finding out that there are indeed bacterium and other organisms that can survive heat, radiation and space itself. Even in the sci fi movies the first order of business is to quarentine until an object can be deemed safe. This practice seems very foolish.



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 08:17 PM
link   
It crashed because humans are mindless morons without attention to detail. I am going to assume the parachute mechanism was faulty and nothing more. From the articles I have read, there is nothing to suspect foul play. Glad I spent money (thru taxes) on that one. Hopefully, they can salvage the data.



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 08:20 PM
link   
just as enlil said, im inclined to belive what they said about it being a simple failure in the parachute.



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Its NASA, do they need reasons for when they screw up anymore?

Edit: you also dont use helicopters to retrieve something from the air by its parachute, you send a C-130 with the skyhook system to do it, its more efficiant and you dont have to hire hollywood stunt pilots either


[edit on 9/9/2004 by Paladin327]



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Why did it crash? Thats easy enough to answer...

BECAUSE NASA IS USELESS!



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Paladin327 said: "you also dont use helicopters to retrieve something from the air by its parachute, you send a C-130 with the skyhook system to do it, its more efficiant and you dont have to hire hollywood stunt pilots either."

Actually, a C-130 flies much faster and has a much wider turning radius; were it to miss on the first pass, the payolad might well impact before the Hercules could drop down and line up again. Also, it costs about as much per hour as four or five small helicopters. In other words, it is much less efficient (and cost-effective, too).

The military was out of the loop from the get-go; they simply couldn't guarantee the disposition of the aircraft and the support infrastructure six years in advance.



[edit on 9-9-2004 by Off_The_Street]



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 11:35 PM
link   
The whole plan sounds screwed up to me. Launch an expensive probe containing diamonds and gold with super sensitive wafers. Then plan on using an elaborate hollywood stunt type of event to get it to land safely. Too many things had to work right the first time for this one. This would have worked better if it had been retrieved in orbit via the space shuttle and landed with the shuttle. hmmm, I am remembering NASA's recent track record.



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a perfect example of when you let the bean-counters run NASA and not the engineers. Something needs to be done.


thanks,
drfunk



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Edit: you also dont use helicopters to retrieve something from the air by its parachute, you send a C-130 with the skyhook system to do it, its more efficiant and you dont have to hire hollywood stunt pilots either


Actually, I didn't read much about it, so I assumed they were doing this. Can't believe they didn't!!!! The skyhook system is a proven system though, used to use it for the old skyhook spy satellites... Morons...



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 09:11 AM
link   
Way to go, Drfunk.

I guess the US needs to decide what NASA is really for. If it's there as the main thrust of the space program then it needs to be properly funded before China overtakes it as the leading country in space exploration.

Or is NASA just the public "face of space", reduced to doing routine Mars probes with their financial hands tied behind their backs, while the best space stuff is done by the black military projects ?



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 09:43 AM
link   
It's not only NASA. Europe lost its Mars landing unit because they let it try to land on Mars without first transmitting to Earth in order to save money. What if the unit was off course? Now we don't know why they lost it just to save 5 $ on radio transmittion and possible course correction...

Oh well maybe they will learn in time...



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Personally, Id have had Barry Bonds stood waiting with a big glove on, after all his ahem "Vitamin" shots, im sure he could have coped with it.

Honestly, when I watched the plans for the recovery on the news some weeks ago, I turned to my mate and we both knew instantly this was going tits up. In Wales its what we call a Friday afternoon plan, i.e. after a few beers lunchtime, all the daft and stupid ideas seem to be brought up, and some make it into reality.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join