And the team is seeing "compatibility issues" with the flight package. This means the October 11, 2022 mission last launch window is certain to come and go, without being "go flight" -- on all the re-testing.
And, since the effort is now approaching $1 billion in total costs, the clear NASA directive is to get this right, as no "patch or update" will be feasible, in real time, autonomous space-flight. So so it goes:
. . .As the mission team at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California began testing the system, a compatibility issue was discovered with the software’s testbed simulators. In May, NASA shifted the mission’s targeted launch date from Aug. 1 to no earlier than Sept. 20 to accommodate the work needed. The issue with the testbeds has been identified and corrected; however, there is not enough time to complete a full checkout of the software for a launch this year.
“Flying to a distant metal-rich asteroid, using Mars for a gravity assist on the way there, takes incredible precision. We must get it right. Hundreds of people have put remarkable effort into Psyche during this pandemic, and the work will continue as the complex flight software is thoroughly tested and assessed,” said JPL Director Laurie Leshin. “The decision to delay the launch wasn’t easy, but it is the right one.”
The mission’s 2022 launch period, which ran from Aug. 1 through Oct. 11, would have allowed the spacecraft to arrive at the asteroid Psyche in 2026. There are possible launch periods in both 2023 and 2024, but the relative orbital positions of Psyche and Earth mean the spacecraft would not arrive at the asteroid until 2029 and 2030, respectively. The exact dates of these potential launch periods are yet to be determined.
“Our amazing team has overcome almost all of the incredible challenges of building a spacecraft during COVID,” said Psyche Principal Investigator Lindy Elkins-Tanton of Arizona State University (ASU), who leads the mission. “We have conquered numerous hardware and software challenges, and we’ve been stopped in the end by this one last problem. We just need a little more time and will get this one licked too. The team is ready to move forward, and I’m so grateful for their excellence.”
Total life-cycle mission costs for Psyche, including the rocket, are $985 million. Of that, $717 million has been spent to date. The estimated costs involved to support each of the full range of available mission options are currently being calculated. . . .
We will see safe, legal abortion coverage enabled -- for all US women. . . as it will all be no more than one day's drive from any of the Luddite states, to the sane ones. Bodily autonomy is in fact a fundamental right embedded in the 14th Amendment. The states that know this decision is wrong. . . will protect women in the states that seek a return to Plessy v. Ferguson style thinking.
Over 70 per cent of Americans support the right to choose. [Why should under 30 per cent of us, even if genuinely held as a religious view. . . dictate what the other 70+ may do with their own bodies?]
Count on it. Smile. . . .
नमस्ते
4 comments:
To your closing comments on the Roe decision: https://www.yahoo.com/news/dozens-elected-prosecutors-refuse-prosecute-023858431.html
My concerns remain that those Ludditte states will probably prosecute any woman that crosses over to the compassionate state for such a procedure~~along the lines of the Texas law(?)
I absolutely hear you.
And the Alito-Thomas wing genuinely miscalculated the practical impact of this stupid, immoral and wrong on the law decision.
On the bright side, if Apple is willing to fly its employees out of Austin, to Illinois or Colorado, for abortion services. . . and pay up to $4,000 in after care (and Apple is!). . . there is no practical way for the Texas AG to bring these cases.
The first prosecution he attempts will eventually mean that Apple, and Merck (science hub), and yes -- even Tesla. . . will move the operations out of Texas.
Alito has made it very difficult for Gov. Abbott to get re-elected.
But in the shorter run, it is going to be very chaotic -- and it will (as ever) be the people without employer-insurance, without a car, and with limited means. . .
. . .who will suffer the most.
I weep for the babies forced to be born into households that cannot care for them.
Texas, Alabama, Oklahoma and Mississippi will see a generation of socially mal-adapted kids -- ultimately arriving in their private for pay prison systems.
But maybe that was Alito's goal, all along.
Disgusting.
[This morning, the Court held that a public high school Xian prayer, on a public football field at the end of the game, led by a coach. . . cannot be enjoined.
I wonder how. . . "included" the Jewish, Atheist and Muslim team members felt. . . especially if they declined to join in the praise of god they do not recognize (and in some cases, are forbidden by religious law, to praise a "false" god).
These MAGA Justices are going to see. . . a Court of 13, yet.]
Damnation.
But great contribution, as always, Anon.!
I should add that technically, the coach was praying alone on the field in the subsequent offense that got him fired. But for the whole prior season, he and the team had prayed on the field, at the 50 yard line -- pictures in the dissenting opinion.
Having the team join him is "evangelizing" for a particular religion -- on public school property, by a public employee, on work time, and an employee with clear "aura of authority" over vulnerable young students. [What any of us genuinely hold as spiritual- or other views, here are. . . supposed to be left out of public school teaching, except as a "history of philosophical thought" course.]
To use a phrase the MAGAts and Q-GOP throw around aimlessly, and irresponsibly (as to LGBTQ+ events/expressions). . . he was "grooming" those kids to be intolerant Xians, all along. Again -- exactly what Alito and Thomas are hoping for.
The Church of England in 1670 had nothing. . . on him.
The case is called Kennedy v. Bremerton School Dist..
U G L Y.
Sotomayor's dissent:
". . .Properly understood, this case is not about the limits on an individual’s ability to engage in private prayer at work. This case is about whether a school district is required to allow one of its employees to incorporate a public, communicative display of the employee’s personal religious beliefs into a school event, where that display is recognizable as part of a longstanding practice of the employee ministering religion to students as the public watched.
A school district is not required to permit such conduct; in fact, the Establishment Clause prohibits it from doing so. . . ."
True dat.
Post a Comment