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.

(BBC)   Ecuador fears its satellite has been hit by space debris or attacked by someone making a Bond film. In other news: Ecuador has a space agency   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 43
    More: Interesting, Ecuador Pegasus, Ecuador, Soviet space program, space agencies, orbiting the Earth  
•       •       •

1173 clicks; posted to Geek » on 23 May 2013 at 11:45 AM (47 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



43 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-05-23 11:18:38 AM
I want to go to Ecuador some day...just to flush a toilet. If I can find one.
 
2013-05-23 11:52:10 AM
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-23 11:59:55 AM
I love how they say they are not sure if its damaged. things are moving very very fast up there, its damaged.
 
2013-05-23 12:05:32 PM
Good news - the Bolivian navy will help them repair the satellite.
 
2013-05-23 12:18:48 PM
I'm surprised they can afford it (I'm assuming they're getting a lot of money from NASA, ESA, and the like) but it makes total sense.  It's easier to launch satellites closer to the equator, especially if you're trying to get something into geosynchronous orbit.
 
2013-05-23 12:22:40 PM

TommyJReed: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 488x368]


Doh, beat me to it...
 
2013-05-23 12:28:20 PM

Arkanaut: I'm surprised they can afford it (I'm assuming they're getting a lot of money from NASA, ESA, and the like) but it makes total sense.  It's easier to launch satellites closer to the equator, especially if you're trying to get something into geosynchronous orbit.


We didn't launch the satellite by ourselves... the Chinese launch it for us...

Honestly, the whole thing is a damn joke. Apparently, the satellite was a kit that NASA provide to college projects or something like that.

But that's what we get for trust on Chavez pals...
 
2013-05-23 12:28:33 PM

jehovahs witness protection: I want to go to Ecuador some day...just to flush a toilet. If I can find one.


I work for a company that gets is toilets made in Ecquador.  The plant used to be our sister company.

/kicks, I am getting some
 
2013-05-23 12:51:22 PM

Arkanaut: I'm surprised they can afford it (I'm assuming they're getting a lot of money from NASA, ESA, and the like) but it makes total sense.  It's easier to launch satellites closer to the equator, especially if you're trying to get something into geosynchronous orbit.


You see it a lot in science fiction.  In one novel the centers of Earth's space program were Ecuador, Kilimanjaro, and Indonesia.
 
2013-05-23 12:56:31 PM
With the miniscule amount of money we spend on NASA maybe we shouldn't mock other countries' space programs.
 
2013-05-23 01:02:08 PM

Arkanaut: I'm surprised they can afford it (I'm assuming they're getting a lot of money from NASA, ESA, and the like) but it makes total sense.  It's easier to launch satellites closer to the equator, especially if you're trying to get something into geosynchronous orbit.



Its not your typical satellite, its just a cube satellite which uses off the shelf components and is very very small.

This one weighs only1.2kg (2.6lb).

Most of the cost with these things is still the launch. Still, its affordable for a small nation like Ecuador.

Meanwhile the US puts up cube satellites for US universities to play around with.
 
2013-05-23 01:04:34 PM
Must be a pretty old one. Plymouth hasn't sold the Satellite for decades.
 
2013-05-23 01:08:44 PM
Pegasus down in the line of duty?

:(

i.imgur.com
 
2013-05-23 01:09:13 PM

The Why Not Guy: With the miniscule amount of money we spend on NASA maybe we shouldn't mock other countries' space programs.


We still spend more money than anyone else.

USA: 17.7 billion or so for 2013
Russia: 5.6 billion or so 2013
China: 1.3 billion or so for 2013
 
2013-05-23 01:10:41 PM

bbfreak: The Why Not Guy: With the miniscule amount of money we spend on NASA maybe we shouldn't mock other countries' space programs.

We still spend more money than anyone else.

USA: 17.7 billion or so for 2013
Russia: 5.6 billion or so 2013
China: 1.3 billion or so for 2013


Doh, forgot ESA:  5.51 billion
 
2013-05-23 01:21:28 PM

bbfreak: We still spend more money than anyone else.


I don't care. As a percentage of our spending, compared to blowing up people in Iraq, for example, the pittance we give NASA is shameful.
 
2013-05-23 01:22:13 PM
Is it powered by a donkey on a hamster wheel?
 
2013-05-23 01:26:22 PM
Great, now what will I tune to when I want to hear the Ecuadorian national anthem?
 
2013-05-23 01:40:12 PM

The Why Not Guy: bbfreak: We still spend more money than anyone else.

I don't care. As a percentage of our spending, compared to blowing up people in Iraq, for example, the pittance we give NASA is shameful.



I don't disagree, but the only reason we spent 4 percent of our budget briefly during the Apollo program was due to the cold war. It was a military necessity at the time. To show that we were superior in every way.

There is little incentive to spend more on space exploration. Especially as as a nation we seem to be stuck in a recession mindset. Then there is the fact that for all intents and purposes our government is effectively broken. You have the Democrats, who do just enough to not be as bad as the Republicans collectively and then there are the Republican's. Well, enough said.

The Democrats have no reason to be more competent than they need to be to beat the Republicans. The citizens of the United States are generally apathetic and don't' give a shiat about Space Exploration. Indeed, it took a Canadian to make space cool again and it wasn't necessarily because our astronauts aren't awesome it was because our astronauts are probably wary of Congress wondering why NASA is wasting money making music videos on ISS. Especially as NASA's education and outreach budget has been cut because of this stupid sequester that signifies so much of what is wrong with our government.

So how is the government suppose to get its shiat together enough to spend more on NASA without the public going ape shiat, despite thinking NASA already gets a gazilingbillion anyway or that its already a waste of money. Eh?

I'd like to see that day, but NASA is spinning directionless and funded just enough to supply pork.
 
2013-05-23 01:46:04 PM
www.startrek.com

We must recover it before the Romulans discover Ecuador was developing cloaking technology.
 
2013-05-23 01:49:24 PM
content8.flixster.com

Space debris.  Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket!
 
2013-05-23 01:52:54 PM

bbfreak: There is little incentive to spend more on space exploration.


I couldn't disagree more. Space exploration is money well spent. In fact, I should say it's money well invested. And yes, right now any spending is a tough sell, but NASA has a few aces up its sleeve. Even the cynics here on Fark gasp in wonder in the Hubble threads or the Mars explorer threads. It wouldn't take much to ignite popular opinion in favor of increased funding for NASA.

The one silver lining is that NASA has learned to do amazing things with not a whole lot of money. But the world's only remaining superpower should be leading the way in space exploration (and by that I don't necessarily mean manned exploration). And we shouldn't have to hitchhike with the Russians to get to the space station.
 
2013-05-23 01:53:56 PM
I hope that insurance covers un-insured and under insured space vehicles. I doubt the Soviets are carrying liability on their satellites now.
 
2013-05-23 01:54:37 PM

The Why Not Guy: bbfreak: There is little incentive to spend more on space exploration.

I couldn't disagree more. Space exploration is money well spent. In fact, I should say it's money well invested. And yes, right now any spending is a tough sell, but NASA has a few aces up its sleeve. Even the cynics here on Fark gasp in wonder in the Hubble threads or the Mars explorer threads. It wouldn't take much to ignite popular opinion in favor of increased funding for NASA.

The one silver lining is that NASA has learned to do amazing things with not a whole lot of money. But the world's only remaining superpower should be leading the way in space exploration (and by that I don't necessarily mean manned exploration). And we shouldn't have to hitchhike with the Russians to get to the space station.


The miniaturization of electronics and Tang made it all worth it.
 
2013-05-23 01:57:20 PM

jehovahs witness protection: I want to go to Ecuador some day...just to flush a toilet. If I can find one.


They have them pretty much everywhere in cities and villages. They also have cell phones, televisions, automobiles and 3d movie theaters, just like most modern countries. You can even download books on your Kindle from Amazon.com while in the Amazon (though obviously not really deep in the Amazon). You'd probably like it simply because gasoline is dirt cheap compared to the US.

Arkanaut: I'm surprised they can afford it


Ecuador isn't a wealthy country but it does get a good bit of money from oil. Much like the US, there's lots of arguing over what government income should be spent on and many think it's all spent on pork, corruption, etc. as is the case with the public in just about every country on earth. They certainly can afford a few satellites if they want them so it's really a question of national priorities. Which probably should be left to the Ecuadorians since it's their country and as witnessed by the number of people here who think Ecuador is part of Mexico or is in the stone age, people from the United States are quite ignorant of Ecuador in general.
 
2013-05-23 02:04:45 PM

The Why Not Guy: But the world's only remaining superpower should be leading the way in space exploration (and by that I don't necessarily mean manned exploration). And we shouldn't have to hitchhike with the Russians to get to the space station.


The issue of manned vs unmanned is what NASA and the country needs to work out. It might make sense to simply split the two since unmanned is so much cheaper and produces better results but manned is what gets people who think Star Trek is a documentary inspired. The two parts have such vastly different requirements it's like when the Soviets smushed Slovakia and the Czech Republic together.

As far as hitching a ride, it's the International Space Space, not Space Station Freedom. The Russians are doing their part just like the Canadians, the Japanese, ESA, etc. do. Nationalistic pride shouldn't lead us to spend money that could be put to other uses. And we're getting close to private industry being able to provide that service anyway.
 
2013-05-23 02:53:57 PM
Don't tell Equador, but it was the Cylons that took out the Pegasus.
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-05-23 03:37:21 PM
I recall reading a book called 'Mercury" by Ben Bova that centred around a space elevator built in Ecuador... Only terrorists used nano-machines to sever it at its centre point up in space and the entire bottom half smashes the shiat out of Central America killing millions.

the book was good till the last fifth. Then it seemed like the author was like 'fark i didnt intend to be writing this story for so long my editors want this shiat done' and he tied it off. Atleast thats how i felt. I like Bova well enough, he seems good at keeping science in the science fiction. Then again some of his stories are a bit derivative.

But yeah -- central America was a huge space base in his 'future'
 
2013-05-23 04:04:42 PM

mikefinch: the book was good till the last fifth. Then it seemed like the author was like 'fark i didnt intend to be writing this story for so long my editors want this shiat done' and he tied it off.


That would be interesting, considering he knows the editor business very well to. Was Asimov's editor. Also, his Mars books are better. Bova is a good writer, but his stuff is kinda depressing honestly. Christian fundamentalist run the future and global warming has killed everyone else.
 
2013-05-23 04:40:07 PM

EngineerAU: As far as hitching a ride, it's the International Space Space, not Space Station Freedom. The Russians are doing their part just like the Canadians, the Japanese, ESA, etc. do. Nationalistic pride shouldn't lead us to spend money that could be put to other uses. And we're getting close to private industry being able to provide that service anyway.


I agree with you on that, and yes, I was being flip. However, even if the reasons we carpool make a lot of sense - and they do - I don't care for the fact that it's currently our only option.
 
2013-05-23 06:54:29 PM
Who you jivin' with that cosmic debris?
 
2013-05-23 07:19:20 PM

Richard C Stanford: Is it powered by a donkey on a hamster wheel?


No, Not a donkey the power comes from their National bird, the Guinea pig.
 
2013-05-23 08:51:30 PM

EngineerAU: jehovahs witness protection: I want to go to Ecuador some day...just to flush a toilet. If I can find one.

They have them pretty much everywhere in cities and villages. They also have cell phones, televisions, automobiles and 3d movie theaters, just like most modern countries. You can even download books on your Kindle from Amazon.com while in the Amazon (though obviously not really deep in the Amazon). You'd probably like it simply because gasoline is dirt cheap compared to the US.

Arkanaut: I'm surprised they can afford it

Ecuador isn't a wealthy country but it does get a good bit of money from oil. Much like the US, there's lots of arguing over what government income should be spent on and many think it's all spent on pork, corruption, etc. as is the case with the public in just about every country on earth. They certainly can afford a few satellites if they want them so it's really a question of national priorities. Which probably should be left to the Ecuadorians since it's their country and as witnessed by the number of people here who think Ecuador is part of Mexico or is in the stone age, people from the United States are quite ignorant of Ecuador in general.




It must be awesome not being one of the poors in Ecuador.

/Ecuador
 
2013-05-23 09:41:26 PM

The Why Not Guy: bbfreak: We still spend more money than anyone else.

I don't care. As a percentage of our spending, compared to blowing up people in Iraq, for example, the pittance we give NASA is shameful.


Yes, especially since US business spends more than that in one year bribing politicians.
 
2013-05-23 10:20:33 PM

Suckmaster Burstingfoam: The Why Not Guy: bbfreak: We still spend more money than anyone else.

I don't care. As a percentage of our spending, compared to blowing up people in Iraq, for example, the pittance we give NASA is shameful.

Yes, especially since US business spends more than that in one year bribing politicians.




How much do we spend on booze?
 
2013-05-23 10:42:16 PM

StoPPeRmobile: Suckmaster Burstingfoam: The Why Not Guy: bbfreak: We still spend more money than anyone else.

I don't care. As a percentage of our spending, compared to blowing up people in Iraq, for example, the pittance we give NASA is shameful.

Yes, especially since US business spends more than that in one year bribing politicians.

How much do we spend on booze?


US consumers spend about 90 billion a year on booze, and about 50 billion on pets. If every citizen paid taxes the shared cost would be about 58 dollars per person. Though since only about 120 billion or so people pay taxes, that's about 144 dollars per tax payer. Give or take. Increasing NASA's budget to 1 percent of the total budget or about 37 billion for 2013 would mean every taxpayer pays about 303 dollars a year.

For that though, we could land on Mars and who knows what else. 303 dollars a year. I spend more than that on my mobile phone bill, and do I get awesome for all that money? No, I get shiatty service and data caps.
 
2013-05-23 10:47:52 PM
When I think cutting edge technology, I think of playing a cheesy national anthem in space.

Fools and their money.
 
2013-05-23 11:17:49 PM
Well, the Soviets were building an anti-satellite satellite. Someone should check what Putin has been up to lately.
 
2013-05-24 12:02:01 AM

bbfreak: mikefinch: the book was good till the last fifth. Then it seemed like the author was like 'fark i didnt intend to be writing this story for so long my editors want this shiat done' and he tied it off.

That would be interesting, considering he knows the editor business very well to. Was Asimov's editor. Also, his Mars books are better. Bova is a good writer, but his stuff is kinda depressing honestly. Christian fundamentalist run the future and global warming has killed everyone else.


Yeah -- and his protagonists are often giant Pansies. I didnt know he was Asimov's editor -- I did notice they were similar in style though -- i just chalked it up to homage or something...

I assume this is the right place to ask and you are a good person to direct this to... I just finished reading Foundation and i liked it, is it worth it to read the other foundation novels? I read their blurb in the back of foundation and they sound like huge detraction from the original....  Good? not good? Suggested reading after? (i have allot of time to read this summer)

Asimov is so succinct -- i would love to be able to write like that.
 
2013-05-24 12:14:37 AM

mikefinch: bbfreak: mikefinch: the book was good till the last fifth. Then it seemed like the author was like 'fark i didnt intend to be writing this story for so long my editors want this shiat done' and he tied it off.

That would be interesting, considering he knows the editor business very well to. Was Asimov's editor. Also, his Mars books are better. Bova is a good writer, but his stuff is kinda depressing honestly. Christian fundamentalist run the future and global warming has killed everyone else.

Yeah -- and his protagonists are often giant Pansies. I didnt know he was Asimov's editor -- I did notice they were similar in style though -- i just chalked it up to homage or something...

I assume this is the right place to ask and you are a good person to direct this to... I just finished reading Foundation and i liked it, is it worth it to read the other foundation novels? I read their blurb in the back of foundation and they sound like huge detraction from the original....  Good? not good? Suggested reading after? (i have allot of time to read this summer)

Asimov is so succinct -- i would love to be able to write like that.


As far as the other foundation novels...meh. Worth reading, but forgetable IMO.

The core foundation book(s) and his other stuff are much better (love his short stories).
 
Esn
2013-05-24 07:52:55 AM

mikefinch: bbfreak: mikefinch: the book was good till the last fifth. Then it seemed like the author was like 'fark i didnt intend to be writing this story for so long my editors want this shiat done' and he tied it off.

That would be interesting, considering he knows the editor business very well to. Was Asimov's editor. Also, his Mars books are better. Bova is a good writer, but his stuff is kinda depressing honestly. Christian fundamentalist run the future and global warming has killed everyone else.

Yeah -- and his protagonists are often giant Pansies. I didnt know he was Asimov's editor -- I did notice they were similar in style though -- i just chalked it up to homage or something...

I assume this is the right place to ask and you are a good person to direct this to... I just finished reading Foundation and i liked it, is it worth it to read the other foundation novels? I read their blurb in the back of foundation and they sound like huge detraction from the original....  Good? not good? Suggested reading after? (i have allot of time to read this summer)

Asimov is so succinct -- i would love to be able to write like that.


Yes! In my opinion, the original Foundation trilogy is worth reading, although the final story of Second Foundation isn't as good (Asimov was tired of them by that point and only wrote it because he was forced to - the series was originally supposed to wrap up with the previous story).

Then I would definitely recommend reading the Robots novels, beginning with The Caves of Steel, then just continue chronologically 'till you get to the two Foundation prequels (they're the last books he wrote, and they're really quite good). The final two Foundation books (Foundation's Edge, Foundation and Earth) are still fun reads but just don't feel right to me. He obviously went off on a different tangent and they no longer quite jibe with the earlier concept.
 
2013-05-24 08:33:48 AM

mikefinch: bbfreak: mikefinch: the book was good till the last fifth. Then it seemed like the author was like 'fark i didnt intend to be writing this story for so long my editors want this shiat done' and he tied it off.

That would be interesting, considering he knows the editor business very well to. Was Asimov's editor. Also, his Mars books are better. Bova is a good writer, but his stuff is kinda depressing honestly. Christian fundamentalist run the future and global warming has killed everyone else.

Yeah -- and his protagonists are often giant Pansies. I didnt know he was Asimov's editor -- I did notice they were similar in style though -- i just chalked it up to homage or something...

I assume this is the right place to ask and you are a good person to direct this to... I just finished reading Foundation and i liked it, is it worth it to read the other foundation novels? I read their blurb in the back of foundation and they sound like huge detraction from the original....  Good? not good? Suggested reading after? (i have allot of time to read this summer)

Asimov is so succinct -- i would love to be able to write like that.


Foundation series pissed me off royally.

Got to the end and you find out it was STILL another god damned robot novel....
 
2013-05-24 11:31:06 AM
If they can't get a signal from it, how do they know it's still in orbit?
 
Displayed 43 of 43 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report