If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Math works once again as NASA only misses the satellite impact zone by a mere... half the planet   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 95
    More: Amusing, NASA, Christmas Island, American Samoa, Gilligan, Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite, U.S. Air Force  
•       •       •

15084 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Sep 2011 at 12:03 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



95 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-09-28 11:07:29 AM
I knew I should have carried the 2
 
2011-09-28 11:22:38 AM
They forgot they weren't working in Metric.
 
2011-09-28 11:57:08 AM
Hey, they're not rocket scientists.
 
2011-09-28 12:05:20 PM
Should have hired Nic Cage.
 
2011-09-28 12:05:44 PM
Their estimate was only off by about 15 minutes. Think about how fast that sucker was moving if 15 minutes is the difference between Canada and the South Pacific.
 
2011-09-28 12:06:08 PM
The smartest mathematicians don't work for NASA - they work for banks structuring derivative products where they make big $ when stuff crashes.
 
2011-09-28 12:07:05 PM

R.A.Danny: I knew I should have carried the 2


It costs NASA $200m for each digit they carry.
 
2011-09-28 12:08:28 PM
You know, just when I think people can't get any stupider, I read the comments on a yahoo story.

Dear sweet crap, THE COMMENTS.
 
2011-09-28 12:08:35 PM
cache.ohinternet.com

LEAVE NASA ALONE!!!
 
2011-09-28 12:11:17 PM
I know a rocket scientist. He's working as a PC repair guy these days.
 
2011-09-28 12:12:06 PM
I don't think I can even count as high as the number of variables that would exist in that equation.
 
2011-09-28 12:12:13 PM
This is exactly the kind of anti-science attitude I expect to hear these days.
In truth, the reason why it landed in the South Pacific is because it supposed to land in Canada.
 
2011-09-28 12:12:54 PM
Half a planet is pretty small compared to the vastness of the infinite universe, Subby.
 
2011-09-28 12:12:57 PM
Orbital mechanics isn't easy you know. Especially for something that lacks any sort of controls. If it was under proper navigational control, Nasa could drop it on your doorstep with little issue.
 
2011-09-28 12:14:15 PM
did they use meters instead of feet again?

/or was it the other way around?
//Damn you Jimmy Carter
 
2011-09-28 12:15:02 PM

EnochEmery: In truth, the reason why it landed in the South Pacific is because it supposed to land in Canada.


I thought it was because Jesus swooped in and swatted it down like Dwight Howard would.
 
2011-09-28 12:16:13 PM
Impossible, the science was settled.
 
2011-09-28 12:16:13 PM
So, math....it doesn't work, biatches?!?!
 
2011-09-28 12:16:54 PM

NallTWD: You know, just when I think people can't get any stupider, I read the comments on a yahoo story.

Dear sweet crap, THE COMMENTS.


Lord no. You can feel your intellect being sucked out.
 
2011-09-28 12:17:44 PM
I never once heard anything about it coming down in Canada.
 
2011-09-28 12:19:18 PM
And they want me to believe in that evolution nonsense?
 
2011-09-28 12:19:43 PM
The math is fine, it's the nearly infinite amount of unknown variables that get you.
 
2011-09-28 12:19:43 PM
Since going along with the math failed us should we now go back to class warfare?
 
2011-09-28 12:20:18 PM

R.A.Danny: NallTWD: You know, just when I think people can't get any stupider, I read the comments on a yahoo story.

Dear sweet crap, THE COMMENTS.

Lord no. You can feel your intellect being sucked out.


Yeah, I've been in the presence of people who could be categorized as intellectual black holes, not a fun experience...
 
2011-09-28 12:21:25 PM
Math cannot help you when your problem is predicting the effects of a chaotic system of atmosphere on a gravitational system of multiple bodies.
 
2011-09-28 12:21:33 PM

R.A.Danny: NallTWD: You know, just when I think people can't get any stupider, I read the comments on a yahoo story.

Dear sweet crap, THE COMMENTS.

Lord no. You can feel your intellect being sucked out.


How about this one:

"Yeah, so scientists don't know where a satellite is going to fall, but they know how old the planet is. Sure."

MY RAGE IS TINGLING.
 
2011-09-28 12:24:24 PM
In related news: Amelia Erhardt found hoarding satellite debris, K.D. Lang in cave on remote Pacific island.
 
2011-09-28 12:25:11 PM
Amelia Earhart, too.

\damn
 
2011-09-28 12:25:52 PM

NallTWD: You know, just when I think people can't get any stupider, I read the comments on a yahoo story.

Dear sweet crap, THE COMMENTS.


At least they're not YouTube comments. Prolonged exposure to those is hazardous to one's sanity!
 
2011-09-28 12:26:52 PM

Minimally Hairy Beer-Powered Simian: So, math....it doesn't work, biatches?!?!


It does, but we're talking about a system of highly coupled nonlinear equations with stupid amounts of variables. Oh, the equations can change at any given moment, and some of the equations are based on best guess. Math is hard.
 
2011-09-28 12:27:43 PM

iron_city_ap: EnochEmery: In truth, the reason why it landed in the South Pacific is because it supposed to land in Canada.

I thought it was because Jesus swooped in and swatted it down like Dwight Howard would.


lobshots.files.wordpress.com

Sympathizes
 
2011-09-28 12:31:32 PM
We have more experience playing navy games than anyone, especially with all the fun we had with the USSR during the cold war. I wonder how much money we can make them blow without disturbing the peace in any way, shape, or form.
 
2011-09-28 12:32:09 PM

R.A.Danny: We have more experience playing navy games than anyone, especially with all the fun we had with the USSR during the cold war. I wonder how much money we can make them blow without disturbing the peace in any way, shape, or form.


Yeah, wrong thread douchbag....
 
2011-09-28 12:32:54 PM
being a engineer/scientist at a world renowned laboratory. I can tell you half the time there IS no way to get the answer for a question like this, and the best you can do is a guess.

in this example it's not a simple ballistic trajectory, it's a function of atmospheric drag. Now it's probably impossible to calculate where the atmosphere stops to the 1-10 feet of precision needed. Also it's a function of aerodynamics, but again it's probably impossible to figure out which way it will start tumbling and when.

stack up enough of these tolerances and all of the sudden your model becomes within 1,000 miles to within half the planet.

/give me an additional 10 million in funding and I can find the answer
 
2011-09-28 12:34:46 PM
One thing I haven't heard yet about this satellite crash. Were there any survivors?

/we have to go back!
 
2011-09-28 12:37:04 PM
NASA's official statement:

images.20x200.com
 
2011-09-28 12:41:42 PM
It's fun to read scientific news from reporters who never even walked through the science building in college.

NASA very very specifically avoided making specific estimations on when and where it would land because such calculations are really difficult to make with any accuracy. This pisses reporters off because they want their world wrapped up in a tidy, soundbitable, bow. But there were just too many variables:

1) spacecraft of an odd, ever changing shape (from stuff breaking off), tumbling unpredictably
2) atmospheric changes
3) solar weather

Satellite spotters desperately wanted to see this come in. Souvenir hunters desperately wanted to find a piece and the media desperately wanted this thing to fall on someones head. All were disappointed. Simple statistics had this falling in water or uninhabited land at worst.

www.rainbowresource.com
 
2011-09-28 12:42:37 PM

NallTWD: Dear sweet crap, THE COMMENTS.


I don't think I should be getting behind the wheel of a vehicle anytime soon...
 
2011-09-28 12:43:10 PM

MetaRinka: being a engineer/scientist at a world renowned laboratory. I can tell you half the time there IS no way to get the answer for a question like this, and the best you can do is a guess.

in this example it's not a simple ballistic trajectory, it's a function of atmospheric drag. Now it's probably impossible to calculate where the atmosphere stops to the 1-10 feet of precision needed. Also it's a function of aerodynamics, but again it's probably impossible to figure out which way it will start tumbling and when.

stack up enough of these tolerances and all of the sudden your model becomes within 1,000 miles to within half the planet.

/give me an additional 10 million in funding and I can find the answer


Skeptic!
They knew it was going to hit the planet!
 
2011-09-28 12:43:34 PM

crab66: I never once heard anything about it coming down in Canada.


Some wag in Alberta made a hoax claim. The Bad Astronomer was running estimate updates last Saturday evening.

I have no clue where this article writer got the idea that NASA claimed the point of impact was Canada, or made a solid prediction of such. Article is full of fail, comments are probably worse so not reading them.
 
2011-09-28 12:45:33 PM
Damn had my Ebay page set to go.
 
2011-09-28 12:46:50 PM
I was following the updates from our resident Bad Astronomer and I was never at any point under the impression that it might hit Canada. Did Yahoo fire their journalists along with their CEO?
 
2011-09-28 12:47:39 PM
Juust a little outside.
 
2011-09-28 12:55:42 PM
NallTWD: You know, just when I think people can't get any stupider, I read the comments on a yahoo story.
============================================

Yeah, if you want to keep your sanity. Don't.

They make youtube commenters seem like Einstein.
 
2011-09-28 12:56:22 PM

trickygringuito: I was following the updates from our resident Bad Astronomer and I was never at any point under the impression that it might hit Canada. Did Yahoo fire their journalists along with their CEO?


The Yahoo corp offices are 2.2 miles from NASA Ames. Is that too far to drive to ask someone with an IQ over room temp?
 
2011-09-28 12:56:32 PM
Atmospheric drag on a uncontrolled, tumbling object means that you get big error bars.

The guys at NASA are smart, but they aren't literal wizards who can peer into the future through their magic scrying satellites.
 
2011-09-28 12:59:57 PM

Big Man On Campus: Math cannot help you when your problem is predicting the effects of a chaotic system of atmosphere on a gravitational system of multiple bodies.


Really? Because there seems to be no problem claiming the Global Warming Climate Change models are accurate.
 
2011-09-28 01:00:56 PM
There can be no errors in Science. It is completely infallible. Just ask the Fark Atheists™, who have turned it into a fetish and a religion.*


*Hell, if Fark can turn a CNN article about ghosts into an anti-religion troll, then anything can be turned into a troll.
 
2011-09-28 01:01:01 PM

itsfullofstars: Simple statistics had this falling in water or uninhabited land at worst.


Considering that it came down in the ocean, but was headed towards Canada, the statistics were right on both counts.
 
2011-09-28 01:01:15 PM

EnochEmery: Skeptic!
They knew it was going to hit the planet!


Well, a planet anyways. Probably not a moon. Stars are right out. Maybe.
 
Displayed 50 of 95 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report