Why didn't they catch Genenis in mid-air like planned?

[Dave]

Because he's the best at catching the thing. It wasn't like his fault the battery used for the parachute pyros (I'm assuming it was the pyros) was duff

 

At least they can still use some of the material.

[Teotihuacan]

undefinedundefinedundefinedRedundancy did apparently save Genisis in the end. The thickness of the collector plates allowed some of captured particles to be retained within known parameters, that data then being capable of being reliably extrapolated to its original positions and/or patterns. Since these were sub atomic particles (ie. gamma rays), there was a redundancy factor of at least 10^6 in the design.

 

However, the difficulty in measurement and extrapolation is comparable to the amount of science retrieved from Columbia after it stopped flying, as to the science gained from previous successes. And, as pointed out, this robot crashed on Earth - we can determine what happened, as opposed to merely loosing a signal.

 

Another thing we seem to be loosing sight of, is that this was the first payload from outer space since the Moon exploration, over thirty years ago. And, it was launched before airbags proved successful in planetary landings.

 

The actual experiment itself was conducted in a neutral gravity zone and great pains (elaborate parachute snag) were taken to try to prevent an effect of gravitational inertia displacing those infinitesimal grains of dust or residual effects of the "wind".

 

One thing the results of this salvageable experiment may lead to is a better understanding of the dilema we have been discussing on many of these threads. Not just particle vs wave (ie. dust in the wind), or a "point in time" interface with the surface of the sun at 10^8 miles, but also missing clues to the origins of both gravity and the expansive force perhaps being modulated by high velocity sub-atomic particles with varying concentration patterns.

 

Undoubtedly, some of this will be obscured by contamination and extreme G-forces. But the particles collected could be quantified and, possibly, with enough cross section intact, their apparent paths or patterns traced. The view, however, maybe like the uncorrected Hubble. Not very spectacular.

 

But, again pointed out earlier, the knowledge gained and unanswered questions provide valuable focus on the next mission to collect solar dust or study gamma rays.

 

[Kedas]

No' date=' they say it wouldn't. But they always underestimate the strengths of things, like submarines. Some subs have gone hundreds of feet farther than their crush depth.

 

So they were just playing it safe. You don't spend a bunch of money on an exact replica to see if it breaks, you just have a weight tied to a parachute to test it. So how would they have known?[/quote']

Maybe but we aren't talking about 50% stronger than they thought but almost a factor 10 in speed (1000%).

The fact that is crached on it side was probably a good thing to reduce the G-forces on it.

[SolarFlare]

NASA has been on a decline in the past few years

 

people are not happy about this

 

http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=4570&st=15

[Kedas]

Did you know that the crashed Genesis story was a coverup for a crashed alien spacecraft?

Well, it's that or believing that NASA is starting to get very amateuristic

[5614]

i dont think that the 'crashed genesis' was a UFO i do think that NASA is going down a bit, they have produced little usefull and exciting stuff recently and have had two accidents.... genesis and [omg i cant remember the name of the space rocket which crashed on re-entry a few months/years ago]

[SolarFlare]

i dont think that the 'crashed genesis' was a UFO i do think that NASA is going down a bit, they have produced little usefull and exciting stuff recently and have had two accidents.... genesis and [omg i cant remember the name of the space rocket which crashed on re-entry a few months/years ago]

 

That was the disaster that killed a crew of seven

when space shuttle Columbia disintegrated

NASA, Congress, Bush ignored safety warnings ?

 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/02/01/sprj.colu.one.year.ap/

 

We've also had the Bush plan, saying that we will put people on Mars ,

but some are wondering if there is much truth behind this idea

some say it's a stunt

 

http://www.space-talk.com/ForumE/showthread.php3?threadid=2178

 

http://www.thespacesite.com/community/index.php?showtopic=818&st=15

 

 

NASA is also having trouble keeping some of it's current missions and designs going, thankfully it kept TRMM going

http://www.spacetoday.net/Summary/2497

 

Mars missions haven't done well for Europe or NASA with a dead Beagle, loss of Mars Climate Observer and Mars Polar Lander

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mpl_crash_000106.html

however the new Mars Rovers are doing very good

 

 

But there's more trouble coming, a concern on the price of oil, bad economics and the cost of War in Iraq is going to make congress cut NASA and Aerospace Science

 

QUOTE

 

US House of Representatives panel has voted to cut the money given to fund space, environment and science programmes for next year. Just $372m was provided out of the $910m Mr Bush wanted for initial preparations for manned missions to the Moon and Mars.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3912095.stm

 

 

 

well this looks a little ominous i guess it answers the question of whether or not it was a bad election stunt

 

 

[5614]

That was the disaster that killed a crew of seven

when space shuttle Columbia disintegrated

thats the one,

 

nice links, its just more proof that NASA is slowly going downhill, however i cannot see any of the other major space companies getting any further?

 

no space company has had any major breakthroughs in the past.... ages!

space exploration is slowly grinding to a halt... until the next scienctific/space breakthrough, possibly:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=5914