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.

(TechnoBuffalo)   NASA decommissions the Galaxy Evolution Explorer, launched in 2003. It will fall to Earth in the next 65 years and burn up upon re-entry. Way to go, Obama   (technobuffalo.com) divider line 37
    More: Sad, NASA, Galaxy Evolution Explorer, spiral galaxy, burnup, spacecrafts, telescopes  
•       •       •

1820 clicks; posted to Geek » on 07 Jul 2013 at 5:23 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



37 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-07-07 02:52:48 PM
The article doesn't tell; was it decommissioned due to failing health, or budget?

Obama fans may like a lot he's done, but he has done more harm to the space program than any President in modern history.  It's shocking the degree to which he has gutted the space budget.
 
2013-07-07 03:12:58 PM
I heard that the sun will turn into a red giant and engulf the Earth. Thanks a lot, Obama.
 
2013-07-07 03:28:24 PM

remus: Obama fans may like a lot he's done, but he has done more harm to the space program than any President in modern history.


I try not to be too much of an apologist for Obama, but there is plenty of blame to go around for declining NASA budgets over the past 30 years.  Getting involved in war after war to feed a military-industrial complex probably also had something to do with it.  The shuttle didn't all of a sudden become obsolete technology, and the opportunity to research and find a replacement was there for 16 years between Clinton and Bush, and they ignored it because the people didn't make it a priority.
 
2013-07-07 04:13:42 PM

remus: The article doesn't tell; was it decommissioned due to failing health, or budget?

Obama fans may like a lot he's done, but he has done more harm to the space program than any President in modern history.  It's shocking the degree to which he has gutted the space budget.


Damn you Obamacare!
 
2013-07-07 05:29:23 PM
the telescope's original mission was anticipated to last [~2.5 years], but extended beyond 10 years

Damn Obama. Damn him.
 
2013-07-07 05:33:20 PM

remus: The article doesn't tell; was it decommissioned due to failing health, or budget?

Obama fans may like a lot he's done, but he has done more harm to the space program than any President in modern history.  It's shocking the degree to which he has gutted the space budget.


Really? Seems to me the decision of taking US manned LEO capacity out of the hands of the usual handful of cost-plus contractors and handing it off to newer, more agile companies have paid off handsomely.

Or did you have something else in mind?
 
2013-07-07 05:34:43 PM
You know, our second American satellite in orbit, Vangard 1, is still in orbit and will remain so for another couple hundred years. It would really be cool to get around to retrieving it and putting it in a museum....
 
2013-07-07 05:37:27 PM

remus: The article doesn't tell; was it decommissioned due to failing health, or budget?


'pedia: "NASA cut off financial support for operations of GALEX in early February 2011 as it was ranked lower than other projects which were seeking a limited supply of funding. The mission's life-cycle cost to NASA was $150.6 million."
 
2013-07-07 05:38:50 PM
It was used for a good 10 years, whereas it had been designed for a 29 month mission. I wouldn't call that sad, really.
 
2013-07-07 05:42:04 PM

remus: The article doesn't tell; was it decommissioned due to failing health, or budget?

Obama fans may like a lot he's done, but he has done more harm to the space program than any President in modern history.  It's shocking the degree to which he has gutted the space budget.


Nope. Sure you can say that Obama's NASA policy is pretty lack luster but blaming him for the current state of the US space program is wrong for many reasons. 1: Congress makes the budget, all Obama or any president can do is suggest what he'd like to see in the budget. Which is why Space Launch System, formerly the Ares V is still very much alive despite Obama's proposal it be cancelled along with the rest of Constellation. Which brings me to point 2: The problems with the space program is due to some 30 plus years of policy, and all the congresses/presidents in those 30 years. Shuttle was a way to spread the space pork all over, and SLS is a continuation of that way of doing things.

Space X, Boeing, and Sierra Nevada are doing things a bit differently. Which means less pork, which is why congress if really unhappy with the move towards using private spaceflight to get to low earth orbit. As for the unmanned aspect of things, that really is worrying. Sure we have MSL, Juno, and New Horizon on the way to destinations with Webb under construction but what comes after them? So far there has been little as far as I've seen in how we are going to lead in space science after 2020. If we want to continue to lead, we have to plan all that now and unless I'm mistaken there aren't any MSL or Cassini's planned in the future. Which would be a shame.
 
2013-07-07 05:56:02 PM
GALEX

www.themarysue.comfarm7.staticflickr.com
 
2013-07-07 05:56:44 PM
Also, I guess its more like 40 plus years not 30 plus years. Anyway you get the idea. NASA is like 0.48 percent of the total budget, a very small amount. If we're going to continue to lead in science and exploration we need to make plans to do so now. We haven't been, and its not only Obama's fault for a lack luster space policy, or the congresses of now and then, but the average American not giving a crap about science/exploration despite such leading to many advances that we love as consumers.
 
2013-07-07 06:22:56 PM

bbfreak: remus: The article doesn't tell; was it decommissioned due to failing health, or budget?

Obama fans may like a lot he's done, but he has done more harm to the space program than any President in modern history.  It's shocking the degree to which he has gutted the space budget.

Nope. Sure you can say that Obama's NASA policy is pretty lack luster but blaming him for the current state of the US space program is wrong for many reasons. 1: Congress makes the budget, all Obama or any president can do is suggest what he'd like to see in the budget. Which is why Space Launch System, formerly the Ares V is still very much alive despite Obama's proposal it be cancelled along with the rest of Constellation. Which brings me to point 2: The problems with the space program is due to some 30 plus years of policy, and all the congresses/presidents in those 30 years. Shuttle was a way to spread the space pork all over, and SLS is a continuation of that way of doing things.

Space X, Boeing, and Sierra Nevada are doing things a bit differently. Which means less pork, which is why congress if really unhappy with the move towards using private spaceflight to get to low earth orbit. As for the unmanned aspect of things, that really is worrying. Sure we have MSL, Juno, and New Horizon on the way to destinations with Webb under construction but what comes after them? So far there has been little as far as I've seen in how we are going to lead in space science after 2020. If we want to continue to lead, we have to plan all that now and unless I'm mistaken there aren't any MSL or Cassini's planned in the future. Which would be a shame.


True, but when Kennedy said lets go to the moon, if farking happened.  A President that puts the space program as a high priority puts the focus on it and encourages the investment by Congress.  Obama, instead, said to scrap the shuttle along with him consistently placing low priority on space.  I know he has to afford his big social programs, but he's scrapping our future to pay for it.
 
2013-07-07 06:43:16 PM

remus: bbfreak: remus: The article doesn't tell; was it decommissioned due to failing health, or budget?

Obama fans may like a lot he's done, but he has done more harm to the space program than any President in modern history.  It's shocking the degree to which he has gutted the space budget.

Nope. Sure you can say that Obama's NASA policy is pretty lack luster but blaming him for the current state of the US space program is wrong for many reasons. 1: Congress makes the budget, all Obama or any president can do is suggest what he'd like to see in the budget. Which is why Space Launch System, formerly the Ares V is still very much alive despite Obama's proposal it be cancelled along with the rest of Constellation. Which brings me to point 2: The problems with the space program is due to some 30 plus years of policy, and all the congresses/presidents in those 30 years. Shuttle was a way to spread the space pork all over, and SLS is a continuation of that way of doing things.

Space X, Boeing, and Sierra Nevada are doing things a bit differently. Which means less pork, which is why congress if really unhappy with the move towards using private spaceflight to get to low earth orbit. As for the unmanned aspect of things, that really is worrying. Sure we have MSL, Juno, and New Horizon on the way to destinations with Webb under construction but what comes after them? So far there has been little as far as I've seen in how we are going to lead in space science after 2020. If we want to continue to lead, we have to plan all that now and unless I'm mistaken there aren't any MSL or Cassini's planned in the future. Which would be a shame.

True, but when Kennedy said lets go to the moon, if farking happened.  A President that puts the space program as a high priority puts the focus on it and encourages the investment by Congress.  Obama, instead, said to scrap the shuttle along with him consistently placing low priority on space.  I know he has to afford his big social programs, bu ...


Oh, another moon fetishist.  Hi, moon fetishist!
 
2013-07-07 06:53:58 PM

remus: bbfreak: remus: The article doesn't tell; was it decommissioned due to failing health, or budget?

Obama fans may like a lot he's done, but he has done more harm to the space program than any President in modern history.  It's shocking the degree to which he has gutted the space budget.

Nope. Sure you can say that Obama's NASA policy is pretty lack luster but blaming him for the current state of the US space program is wrong for many reasons. 1: Congress makes the budget, all Obama or any president can do is suggest what he'd like to see in the budget. Which is why Space Launch System, formerly the Ares V is still very much alive despite Obama's proposal it be cancelled along with the rest of Constellation. Which brings me to point 2: The problems with the space program is due to some 30 plus years of policy, and all the congresses/presidents in those 30 years. Shuttle was a way to spread the space pork all over, and SLS is a continuation of that way of doing things.

Space X, Boeing, and Sierra Nevada are doing things a bit differently. Which means less pork, which is why congress if really unhappy with the move towards using private spaceflight to get to low earth orbit. As for the unmanned aspect of things, that really is worrying. Sure we have MSL, Juno, and New Horizon on the way to destinations with Webb under construction but what comes after them? So far there has been little as far as I've seen in how we are going to lead in space science after 2020. If we want to continue to lead, we have to plan all that now and unless I'm mistaken there aren't any MSL or Cassini's planned in the future. Which would be a shame.

True, but when Kennedy said lets go to the moon, if farking happened.  A President that puts the space program as a high priority puts the focus on it and encourages the investment by Congress.  Obama, instead, said to scrap the shuttle along with him consistently placing low priority on space.  I know he has to afford his big social programs, bu ...


Yes, but going to the moon was about the cold war and showing up the Russian's. Then the cold war ended, and the Soviet Union collapsed. Then it became harder to sell the future as American's became pretty comfortable with NASA going into space, and life in general. I agree he could do more to sell the future of spaceflight, but so could the NASA administrator and congressional leaders in congress. Plus this is the first time since the fall of the Soviet Union we've had to come up with a new vision for NASA.

ISS started out as a way to one up the Russian's since they had Mir, and then became a way to strengthen ties with Russia that eventually lead to ESA, JAXA, CSA, and others joining in. Then Bush suggested the Constellation program, which was doomed from the start due to a lack of funding even though it was a pork project pretty much. IE: SLS, Ares I.
 
2013-07-07 07:01:37 PM

LordOfThePings: GALEX

[www.themarysue.com image 256x350][farm7.staticflickr.com image 256x350]


EXSPERMINATE!  EXSPERMINATE!
 
2013-07-07 07:34:25 PM
Samsung just floods the market with those Galaxy products.
 
2013-07-07 07:37:14 PM

bbfreak: Also, I guess its more like 40 plus years not 30 plus years. Anyway you get the idea. NASA is like 0.48 percent of the total budget, a very small amount. If we're going to continue to lead in science and exploration we need to make plans to do so now. We haven't been, and its not only Obama's fault for a lack luster space policy, or the congresses of now and then, but the average American not giving a crap about science/exploration despite such leading to many advances that we love as consumers.


It's pretty much the fault of all the Presidents and congress since the shuttle first went explody. Increase NASA spending, you're a spendocrat who doesn't get that MURCA IS BROKE. Cut spending, you're an America hater who doesn't understand that the Russians launching people into space leads to unspecified doom-shame.

Add the fact that science is complicated and esoteric and doesn't always return results in 6 seconds.
 
2013-07-07 07:55:56 PM

BSABSVR: Add the fact that science is complicated and esoteric and doesn't always return results in 6 seconds.


But if we kept spending at the level we did in the 60s, we'd all be living on the moon and taking weekend trips to a spa in the core of Jupiter while giving Kirk advice on how to deal with those green skin hotties. Won't somebody think of the green skin hotties!?!?

Curiosity on the other hand is pretty neat. Hope we do a lot more projects like it instead of trying to make 'The Waters of Mars' happen.
 
2013-07-07 08:01:26 PM
The Galaxy Evolution Explorer is the one with the OLED screen and Windows Phone 8, right?
 
2013-07-07 08:22:44 PM

ArcadianRefugee: remus: The article doesn't tell; was it decommissioned due to failing health, or budget?

'pedia: "NASA cut off financial support for operations of GALEX in early February 2011 as it was ranked lower than other projects which were seeking a limited supply of funding. The mission's life-cycle cost to NASA was $150.6 million."


Meanwhile, at the factories where Abrams tanks and F-35 fighter jets are being made at a pace far beyond what the Pentagon needs or even wants....
 
2013-07-07 09:14:50 PM

remus: Obama, instead, said to scrap the shuttle...


Ehm - no, he really didn't. That decision was made by the previous administration and it was the right decision, incidentally - the Shuttle was a ridiculously expensive way to get to LEO. Obama's admininstration listened to the Augustine commission and stopped the worst pork-laden parts of Constellation - that too, was the right decision.

As it looks, we're on track to have manned LEO capacity in 2016 - same time Constellation might have flown - for a fraction of the price.
 
2013-07-07 10:44:35 PM
remus [TotalFark]
True, but when Kennedy said lets go to the moon, if farking happened.
Because america was wetting it's pants over Sputnik (sp). Not because of his speaking ability.

A President that puts the space program as a high priority puts the focus on it and encourages the investment by Congress. Obama, instead, said to scrap the shuttle..
No. Bush decom'ed the Shuttle. Please don't make me defend zero.
Bush however did have a push for returning to the moon, landing on Mars, and a manned lifter to replace the Shuttle. Obama killed all three.

along with him consistently placing low priority on space. I know he has to afford his big social programs, but he's scrapping our future to pay for it.

democrats hate science per Neil D Tyson

Thanks to zero, the moon is out of our reach, mars is no longer a goal and we have no plans for a man rated lifter. But hey NASA has new goals*

* he only disagrees with obama's new NASA mission because he's racist [ / sarcasm ]
 
2013-07-07 10:48:04 PM
Erik_Emune

As it looks, we're on track to have manned LEO capacity in 2016

Are you referring to SpaceX?

If so
1) I'll take that bet.
2) BFD. That's akin to replacing a MAC truck with a Ford Ranger.
 
2013-07-07 10:58:52 PM
They had a shuttle replacement in mind; Venture Star from Lockheed's Skunkworks. It won a 3-way contractor competition to replace the shuttle, and they had ten years to do it.

  But at the time of the contract, the new-technology carbon-fiber-composite cryogenic Hydrogen tanks for this Venture Star design were failing to hold together in testing. It was a problem that could have been solved, and actually WAS solved, ...but too late.  With the NASA development funding running out and no reboot funds came, ( because everyone in the country was ostensibly too busy fighting about where Clinton was putting his -ick),  Lockheed had put millions of their own money into Venture Star but finally had to pull the plug because investors have no vision beyond the next quarterly distribution.


Meanwhile assholes in Congress kept slashing NASA funding or trying to re-direct it's funds to pork projects in their districts.  With 90 percent or so of NASA's money tied up in shuttle ops and the station, something had to give. With Soyuz available to serve the station  until planned new American rockets were ready, the shuttle program was the biggest money-suck, so by killing it, there was more money to fund the little guys like space-X and the others, and keep some planetary science going.  There's a case made by some that Bush deliberately proposed the Constellation Moon-Mars project, without funding it, not just as a half- assed campaign promise, but as a way to cripple NASA's space science ops, the purpose being to stop all the evidence they were gathering on global warming.  Cheney himself  at that time, ordered a NASA satellite designed to gather more climate data, "put on ice"  and it still hasn't been flown; a complete satellite ready to go, sitting in a nitrogen-filled cocoon. So, I'm thinking that conspiracy theory might actually have legs.

Overall, the problem as I see it is multifold: First,  as long as we are fighting multiple wars, there is no money or national will to make the necessary commitments.  Second: space takes more time to do than politicians have time for; A politician can only think as far as two years ahead to the next election cycle, and what makes them look good. A corollary to that is, they will not commit to projects that only come to fruition under some other guy's term of office: they want, no, NEED results before next november, or it's useless to them.  Thirdly, pols are about pork distribution. They don't care what's good for the program or the nation, but what's good for their state and the contractors in those states that fund their campaigns, This is why you see congressmen ordering the Army to keep building and buying more tanks, though the Army says they have a desert full of excess capacity parked outside right now. Same with aerospace contracts and the SLS. Fourth: the republicans made a  blood oath to oppose anything Obama wants or does. The more he comes out to support space, the more crap you'll hear about muslim outreach, global climate hoaxes, etc. and the more actively they will try to cut NASA funding. You have "Jesus-rode-a-dinosaur" , climate-denying holy roller theocrat types on the fark-ing Science and Tecnology sbcomittees right now!

Look at station development to show you what's wrong with  it all: Every two years, for about a decade, the design had to be torn up and reformatted as the budgets were changed and changed again by these a-holes with outside agendas. It went from all- American built, to a mix -and-match with American and Russian hardware, as a way to keep Russian scientists fed instead of leaving them to starve and sell WMD tech for bread. To meet the Russians halfway, we had to incline the station orbit and make it super-difficult to rendezvous with.  Then there was no money to fund the manning of the station at full strength for years. The ISS was built for many times more than the original cost, and everything on it is some kind of compromise.


It is a farking miracle that NASA does as much as it does NOW.  In a perfect world, I would just lock their funding at some agreed level and put it off-limits to changes for entire decades, so they can do long-term planning without some cockbag kicking the puzzle around the floor before all the pieces are put in. Again. And again.
 
2013-07-08 12:46:53 AM
RIP Galaxy Explorer.

www.toplessrobot.com
 
2013-07-08 01:19:25 AM

remus: The article doesn't tell; was it decommissioned due to failing health, or budget?

Obama fans may like a lot he's done, but he has done more harm to the space program than any President in modern history.  It's shocking the degree to which he has gutted the space budget.


did you miss the part about:
"the telescope's original mission was anticipated to last 29-months, but extended beyond 10 years. "
 
2013-07-08 01:20:12 AM

mark12A: You know, our second American satellite in orbit, Vangard 1, is still in orbit and will remain so for another couple hundred years. It would really be cool to get around to retrieving it and putting it in a museum....


sure
but only if the museum was in orbit or on the moon !
 
2013-07-08 02:07:11 AM

remus: The article doesn't tell; was it decommissioned due to failing health, or budget?

Obama fans may like a lot he's done, but he has done more harm to the space program than any President in modern history.  It's shocking the degree to which he has gutted the space budget.


It was a 29 month mission that ended up being extended to 10 years.
 
2013-07-08 05:35:33 AM

remus: Obama fans may like a lot he's done, but he has done more harm to the space program than any President in modern history.


No, three wars and an economic depression did more harm to the space program.
 
2013-07-08 06:07:00 AM

remus: The article doesn't tell; was it decommissioned due to failing health, or budget?

Obama fans may like a lot he's done, but he has done more harm to the space program than any President in modern history.  It's shocking the degree to which he has gutted the space budget.


Given that it was intended to be up there for a little more than 2 years and has been up there for 10, they probably just don't have enough monopropellant on board anymore to reorient it much more, and have just enough to initiate a reentry and get rid of what would be just another piece of uncontrollable space junk.  Unless it's simply been on a decaying orbit the whole time, in which case they've probably run out of fuel to keep speeding it up to keep it in orbit.
 
2013-07-08 07:34:05 AM
It's shocking the degree to which he has gutted the space budget.


CY       NASA budget in millions
2008    17,318 (GWB)
2009    17,782 (Obama)
2010    18,724 
2011    18,448
2012    17,770

That is just shocking.  My god.  What the hell is wrong with him??
 
2013-07-08 08:16:23 AM

Bacontastesgood: It's shocking the degree to which he has gutted the space budget.


CY       NASA budget in millions
2008    17,318 (GWB)
2009    17,782 (Obama)
2010    18,724 
2011    18,448
2012    17,770

That is just shocking.  My god.  What the hell is wrong with him??


Okay, I'm tired.  I almost thought you posted some ASM source and started debugging it.
 
2013-07-08 08:52:37 AM

namatad: remus: The article doesn't tell; was it decommissioned due to failing health, or budget?

Obama fans may like a lot he's done, but he has done more harm to the space program than any President in modern history.  It's shocking the degree to which he has gutted the space budget.

did you miss the part about:
"the telescope's original mission was anticipated to last 29-months, but extended beyond 10 years. "


It was probably obscured by his Gadsden flag notepad.
 
2013-07-08 09:32:05 AM
Hey at least it doesn't become space junk.....
 
2013-07-08 04:06:29 PM

remus: bbfreak: remus: The article doesn't tell; was it decommissioned due to failing health, or budget?

Obama fans may like a lot he's done, but he has done more harm to the space program than any President in modern history.  It's shocking the degree to which he has gutted the space budget.

Nope. Sure you can say that Obama's NASA policy is pretty lack luster but blaming him for the current state of the US space program is wrong for many reasons. 1: Congress makes the budget, all Obama or any president can do is suggest what he'd like to see in the budget. Which is why Space Launch System, formerly the Ares V is still very much alive despite Obama's proposal it be cancelled along with the rest of Constellation. Which brings me to point 2: The problems with the space program is due to some 30 plus years of policy, and all the congresses/presidents in those 30 years. Shuttle was a way to spread the space pork all over, and SLS is a continuation of that way of doing things.

Space X, Boeing, and Sierra Nevada are doing things a bit differently. Which means less pork, which is why congress if really unhappy with the move towards using private spaceflight to get to low earth orbit. As for the unmanned aspect of things, that really is worrying. Sure we have MSL, Juno, and New Horizon on the way to destinations with Webb under construction but what comes after them? So far there has been little as far as I've seen in how we are going to lead in space science after 2020. If we want to continue to lead, we have to plan all that now and unless I'm mistaken there aren't any MSL or Cassini's planned in the future. Which would be a shame.

True, but when Kennedy said lets go to the moon, if farking happened.  A President that puts the space program as a high priority puts the focus on it and encourages the investment by Congress.  Obama, instead, said to scrap the shuttle along with him consistently placing low priority on space.  I know he has to afford his big social programs, but he's scrapping our future to pay for it.


When Kennedy made that speech it was after a lot of other things had happened. Disney put Tomorrowland into his Parks. The Jetsons were on TV. There was a concerted effort to put the awe of a mythical future into Americans. And even with a concerted propaganda program coordinated with the entertainment companies the majority of Americans never supported the space program or the race to the moon.

Today if Obama called in the heads of movie and TV studios and asked them to push a message of a miraculous, optimistic future, would they do it? Or would they tell him "optimism doesn't sell" and run a story on a real life Wag the Dog?
 
2013-07-08 09:11:27 PM

Ishkur: No, three wars and an economic depression did more harm to the space program.


Don't forget the Teabaggers and their desire to destroy America because brown people.

Sorry to do that, but it is the bottom line in all these budget cuts that they keep pushing.
 
Displayed 37 of 37 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report