io9 
Enter your username and password.
San Francisco, 3:47 AM
Mon Nov 23
10 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors: tips@io9.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz | Email
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders | Email
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner | Email
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis | Email
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan | Email
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier | Email
Ed Grabianowski | Email
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan | Email
Lauren Davis | Email
Chris Hsiang | Email
Lynn Peril | Email
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins | Email
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox | Email
Interns:
Tim Barribeau | Email
Julia Carusillo | Email
Alex Eichler | Email
Cyriaque Lamar | Email
Caitlin Petrakovitz | Email
Mary Ratliff | Email
Josh Snyder | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/14/09
-Kle.
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
@Mecharine: I thought that you were comparing him to the astronaut Jeff Tracy, but I didn't think that Sir Richard had that many sons, or a friend named Lady Penelope.
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
02/26/09
So when a satellite threatens to produce mountains of hard data, climate scientists know that data will put their politically driven grant powered programs on the shelf. Thus, the satellite to provide hard scientific data must be sacrificed so that fuzzy science can continue to profit.
02/27/09
02/25/09
this goverment is very stupid
02/25/09
If the lowest bidder is the lowest quality, and the highest bidder is "wasteful pork barrel spending" and the "procurement process gone amok," then who the hell do you buy from? Do you think that any procurement person at any organization, large or small, isn't willing to trade dollars for quality?
Hell - when I order technology for the company I work for, some vendors may come in cheap, but if I know my equipment is going to look like it dropped out of the back of a truck, I'll pay more to get it safe, on time, and in good working order. The government is no different. Thankfully I don't have to answer to self-righteous armchair quarterbacks who think that because I could have saved some money I'm terrible at what I do, or because I went with the cheapest vendor that I don't care about quality.
02/26/09
Still this company should be investigated. If there is a pattern of failure, there may be something wrong in their engineering and the government should move to another supplier.
02/26/09
02/25/09
Add to that the fact that thanks to OSC the science-minded taxpayer is out $278 million bucks, I would hope that NASA would at least see some of that back from the company to reinvest in the next generation CO2 monitor. The one on the drawing board is supposed to use laser-based spectrometers to do the same thing this one was, only more accurately.
It pains me that in a lot of the reporting on this story NASA seems to take the hit for this, when they had nothing to do with the launch of the vehicle. Orbital Sciences built the damned Taurus, and this is the vehicle's 2nd failed launch - and they've only used it 8 times. I don't blame the Air Force-who manned and coordinated the launch from Vandenberg--they do this all the time.
The failure of the clamshell bolts to actually blow when the signal was sent to them is entirely a vehicle failure, meaning OSC is solely responsible for it. If anything, NASA and the science community was one of the losers here, not the blunderers.
02/25/09
02/25/09
Before you shit all over NASA, try to make sure there's an actual reason for you to do so.
02/25/09
It seems like the Association was pretty in on this whole plan.
02/25/09
Also, NASA and their engineers worked on the SATELLITE. Not the launch vehicle. Two different things. Again, ridiculous at worst, tenuous at best.
If you're looking for fault, look at OSC. Leave NASA's name out of the mud. They have enough of their own problems to address without taking the blame for something that's not their fault.
02/25/09
Also, and maybe I'm missing some satire here, but "association?" You know the two As in NASA are for "Aeronautics" and "Administration" respectively, right? There's no "association" in NASA....
02/25/09
02/25/09
02/26/09
02/26/09
That being said, I think you're reaching for a way to a: back up your original point without admitting you might possibly be incorrect, and b: a way to make this NASA's fault when it's clearly not.
As with any project, there's collaboration between different groups and teams. Claiming that NASA "should have been" responsible for the launch vehicle is a strawman to distract from the fact that they - under Sean O'Keefe's "faster, cheaper, better" program, has largely contracted out their launch vehicle design, development, and manufacturing program to aerospace companies that specialize in this kind of thing.
And that strikes to the core of my point: it's the company they worked with that should be held responsible, and like I mentioned, NASA is already investigating them to see if this is a systematic problem. I think NASA is taking its responsibility seriously here - I just hope they're as hard on OSC as I would be. They're exercising their oversight role, which is what they should do.
In the meantime though, claiming that NASA "should have been" is like claiming that the USAF "should have built their own fighter jets" instead of contracting out to Lockheed or Northrop.
I'm not disputing that NASA shares responsibility for the loss of their own satellite, but when you're on a team and one person performs poorly, you don't let that person off in favor of beating up the team lead - you make sure they're both (and the whole team) is held responsible.
02/25/09
They have to do that after vowing never to look at the GOATSE satellite ever again.
02/25/09
02/25/09
02/25/09
02/25/09
02/25/09
02/25/09
02/25/09
Nope, just a half baked launch in support of a half baked theory. I just hope they insured the damn thing, seeing how that was our tax money plunging to it's fiery death.
02/25/09
01/21/09
01/21/09
*runs to puke*