How Russia's Martian moon probe got stuck orbiting Earth

Launched Tuesday, Russia's Phobos-Grunt spacecraft was meant to explore the Martian moon Phobos. But, in what could mark the fourth Mars probe failure in a row, Phobos-Grunt now threatens to become another piece of space junk uselessly orbiting Earth.?

A robotic Russian spacecraft that launched on a mission to the Mars moon Phobos Tuesday (Nov. 8) is apparently stuck in Earth orbit, but hope for the probe is not lost yet, according to news reports.

Skip to next paragraph

The?Phobos-Grunt spacecraft launched?at 3:16 p.m. EST (2016 GMT) Tuesday and was supposed to be on its way to Phobos by now. The probe separated from its Zenit rocket properly, but its own thrusters then failed to fire in order to send the spacecraft streaking toward Mars, Russian officials said.

"It has been a tough night for us because we could not detect the spacecraft [after the separation]," Russian space agency chief Vladimir Popovkin said, Russian news agency?RIA Novosti reported. "Now we know its coordinates and we found out that the [probe's] engine failed to start."

Popovkin added that engineers aren't yet sure why Phobos-Grunt's engine didn't ignite, according to RIA Novosti. It's possible the onboard computers didn't send the proper command, he said.

Whatever the cause, the malfunction dealt a serious blow to the?$163 million Phobos-Grunt mission, which aims to grab bits of Phobos' surface and send them back to Earth by 2014. But there may still be hope for the spacecraft, Russia's first attempt at an interplanetary mission since 1996.

"We will attempt to reboot the program," RIA Novosti reported Popovkin as saying. "The spacecraft is currently on a support orbit, the fuel tanks have not been jettisoned, and the fuel has not been spent."

Engineers have about three days to figure out and fix the problem, Popovkin added. After that time, Phobos-Grunt's batteries will run out, and the spacecraft will likely turn into just another piece of space debris. [Photos: Russia's Phobos-Grunt Mission to Mars Moon]

Phobos-Grunt is also carrying China's first Mars probe, a small spacecraft called Yinghuo 1, that is supposed to separate from Phobos-Grunt and enter orbit around Mars.

If Phobos-Grunt cannot be salvaged, it would mark the fourth straight Mars failure for Russia.

The nation's Phobos 1 and Phobos 2 spacecraft, which launched in July 1988, suffered critical failures before their missions were complete. And the Mars 96 probe crashed into the Pacific Ocean shortly after liftoff in November 1996.

Russia is not alone in suffering setbacks with Mars missions. Historically, about half of all missions aimed at the Red Planet have failed, according to NASA records.

NASA also currently plans to launch a new U.S. mission to Mars this month. The $2.5 billion Mars Science Laboratory mission will send a car-size rover called Curiosity to explore the huge Gale crater on Mars.

Several spacecraft are actively studying Mars today. They include orbiting spacecraft operated by NASA and the European Space Agency, as well as NASA's Opportunity rover on the planet's surface.

You can follow SPACE.com senior writer Mike Wall on Twitter:?@michaeldwall. Follow SPACE.com for the latest in space science and exploration news on Twitter?@Spacedotcom?and on?Facebook.

Source: http://rss.csmonitor.com/~r/feeds/science/~3/VR-u-WRCoK4/How-Russia-s-Martian-moon-probe-got-stuck-orbiting-Earth

rick perry gaffe graham spanier graham spanier penn state board of trustees joe pa joe pa brett ratner

Motorola?s Droid XYBoard 8.2 Spotted Wearing Verizon?s Logo

While I think Motorola's marketing team really dropped the ball with the name, the 8.2-inch XYBoard has just become a little more official today. The team at PocketNow were able to get their hands on an image of the smaller XYBoard clad in Verizon's heraldry, along with what could be the device's new logo.

Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Techcrunch/~3/aimKzCBBG3o/

walter isaacson zodiac killer battlefield 3 review battlefield 3 review real housewives of new jersey coraline coraline

Ian Fletcher: Why Free Trade Isn't Trade (Huffington post)

Share With Friends: | | Politics - Top Stories Stories, News Feeds and News via Feedzilla.

Source: http://news.feedzilla.com/en_us/stories/politics/top-stories/164130297?client_source=feed&format=rss

kelly ripa reno wildfire reno wildfire osu osu reno news syracuse

Richard (RJ) Eskow: Privatizing Liberty

As Mayor Bloomberg's forces swooped down on Occupy Wall Street, news reports described the "hundreds of police and private security guards" who had re-taken Zuccotti Park. Those private guards were used against public citizens who had been exercising their civil liberties in a public area.

That's not just wrong. It's un-American.

This incident holds an important lesson for anyone who loves our freedoms: When something public is made private, our liberties are privatized too. And privatized liberty isn't liberty at all.

Privatizing Liberty

Zuccotti Park. New Yorkers knew it as Liberty Plaza Park for nearly half a century. Like other sites in New York, the plaza was created through an agreement between the city and a private company, United States Steel, that wanted to erect a building that exceeded the city's height limits. So the city made them a deal: You can take up more than your share of the public skyline, but in return you have to give the city some open space at ground level.

This wasn't a gift. It was a fair exchange between two parties, a private corporation and the people of New York. The people gave up a chunk of their skyline and the owner agreed to provide an open - and, by agreement, fully public - space in return. New York City makes these deals fairly often. The plazas created by these agreements are called "privately owned public spaces," or "POPS," and the city has lots of them.

The Mayor may want to read that phrase again: It doesn't say "privately owned private spaces." Both the owner and the city are obligated to keep them for public use, in the public sphere, with all the laws and freedoms that apply to public space.

The park's current owner, Brookfield Properties, rebuilt the park with private donations after it was damaged in the 9/11 attacks. With Mayor Bloomberg's permission, they also overstepped tradition and the bounds of propriety by renaming the park - not for the thousands of innocent people who died that day, but for their own chairman.

The symbolism is perfect:They replaced a treasured word for freedom with the name of a rich guy who'd done nothing to create the park. With the Mayor's blessing, they literally privatized the word "liberty."

Like I said, perfect. Tragic, but perfect.

Private Dicks

Brookfield overstepped its bounds when its CEO sent the mayor a letter saying that the Occupation "violates the law, violates the rules of the Park, deprives the community of its rights of quiet enjoyment to the Park, and creates health and public safety issues." Those aren't decisions a private company, even an owner, should make about a public space. They are judgments an elected official makes on behalf of a free citizenry.

This week Bloomberg and Brookfield have used the park's semi-private status as an excuse to invade a public space with a private security force. Whoever these guys were - besides rude and uncivil - they served as a kind of Blackwater militia, but targeting New Yorkers instead of Iraqis. (At least Brookfield says it fired the guard who called a citizen a "faggot.")

When it comes to privatization, it seems the Mayor has boundary issues. He has repeatedly used the park's private ownership status to claim, that the public has fewer rights there than it does in other public spaces. That's false. But then, that's the problem with "public/private partnerships." The "public" partner always gets rolled the public one.

But then, that's how these people are. Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile. The lesson of Zuccotti Park is: Never give them an inch.

Thin Blue Line, Thick Green Wallets

News reports made noted the presence of two different groups, New York City police officers and private security guards, but in some ways that's become a distinction without a difference. The NYPD is frequently rented by the same Wall Street banks that broke the law, crashed the economy and got away with it. As Pam Martens reported in Counterpunch, Rudy Giuliani created an operation called the "Paid Detail" unit that turns New York's Finest into a "rent-a-cop" service for anyone with the money to pay for it.

And who has more money in New York than the banks? As Martens reports, companies like Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, and the New York Stock Exchange have rented the Thin Blue Line with the cash from their Thick Green Wallets. Even after the Stock Exchange was found to have illegally taken over public streets and walkways and "created a public nuisance," nobody was fined or arrested.

But then, it must be hard for a cop to arrest anybody that he sometimes has to address as "boss." Maybe that's one of the reasons why a retired Philadelphia police officer, Capt. Ray Lewis, was willing to be handcuffed and arrested by fellow officers during the protest. Capt. Lewis called their rationale for arresting him a 'farce' and promised to return.

New York isn't the only city that rents out its police force. But as the home of Wall Street and the financial capital of the nation, it bears moral and civic responsibilities that Mayors Guiliani and Bloomberg have disrespected and violated. The city's police deserve better.

Checkbook Democracy

But then, why would Michael Bloomberg be expected to understand that privatization is undemocratic? He "privatized" the electoral process, one of our most sacred democratic institutions, by buying himself the mayoralty. And he spent unprecedented levels of campaign cash from his personal billions to do it. Then, when he didn't like the term limits that the people of New York had decreed for their mayor - well, he "privatized" that too.

But this isn't really about Michael Bloomberg. Despite his reputation for healthy self-regard, even the billionaire mayor is only a symptom of a much larger problem. Rich people have been buying elections for so long that it's become the newest form of self-indulgence, conveying even more status than a Citation jet or a private island. Public office is the newest must-have item for the excessively vain and excessive well-to-do, a kind of vanity press for the self-published authors of their own meritless political careers. Bloomberg is merely the today's most conspicuous, extravagant, and fiscally irresponsible member of an increasingly ordinary club.

You don't have to be a billionaire to run for office these days, of course. But if you're not you'll spend most of your time begging them for money. No wonder the 1% call all the shots in government. They own it.

I've always thought it would be a good idea if elected officials wore the insignia of the corporations that sponsor them, the way race car drivers do.

Sold American

Republicans want to privatize Social Security and Medicare. The Bush and Obama Administrations have privatized law enforcement on Wall Street by asking banks to police themselves. And during the devastating San Diego fires, residents learned that AIG had created a private fire department that saved the homes of its clients while other nearby houses burned.

Privatized police. Privatized fire departments. Privatized prisons. Privatized armies of Halliburton and Blackwater soldiers. When for-profit companies perform government functions, they'll do it in a way that makes them money. That's not hard to understand, but our "leaders" keep doing it anyway.

Why? Because they've privatized their consciences, too.

?

?

?

Follow Richard (RJ) Eskow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjeskow

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/privatizing-liberty_b_1100606.html

act alabama football 21 jump street 19 kids and counting 2011 election results 11/11/11 11 11 11

A GOP debt plan would hit some popular tax breaks (AP)

WASHINGTON ? Millions of taxpayers who take advantage of deductions for mortgage interest, charitable donations and state and local taxes would be targeted for potential tax hikes under a GOP plan to raise taxes by $290 billion over the next decade to help reduce the nation's deficit.

Some workers could also see their employer-provided health benefits taxed for the first time, though aides cautioned that the proposal is still fluid.

The plan by Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., who serves on the 12-member debt supercommittee, would raise revenue by limiting the tax breaks enjoyed by people who itemize their deductions, in exchange for lower overall tax rates for families at every income level. Taxpayers who already take the standard deduction instead of itemizing ? about two-thirds of filers ? could see tax cuts. The one-third of taxpayers who itemize their deductions might find themselves paying more.

The top income tax rate would fall from 35 percent to 28 percent, and the bottom rate would drop from 10 percent to 8 percent. The rates between would be reduced as well.

About 50 million households itemized their deductions in 2009, according to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation. About 35 million households claimed the mortgage interest deduction, and 36 million deducted charitable donations. Nearly 41 million claimed deductions for paying state and local taxes.

A GOP congressional aide said the plan is designed to raise taxes on households in the top two tax brackets. That would affect individuals making more than $174,400 and married couples making more than $212,300.

Some Republicans say the plan offers a potential breakthrough in deficit-reduction talks that have stalled over GOP opposition to tax hikes and Democrats' objection to cuts in benefit programs without significant revenue increases.

But Republicans are becoming increasingly divided over the issue of raising taxes. A growing number of Republicans in Congress say they would support a tax reform package that increases revenues, if it is coupled with significant spending cuts, enough to reduce the deficit by about $4 trillion over the next decade.

The so-called "go big" strategy has been endorsed by a bipartisan group of about 150 lawmakers from the House and Senate. A rival group of 72 House Republicans sent a letter to the supercommittee Thursday, urging members to oppose any tax increases.

"We must recognize that increasing the tax burden on American businesses and citizens, especially during a fragile recovery, is irresponsible and dangerous to the health of the United States," said the letter, circulated by Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C.

Democrats, meanwhile, have panned Toomey's plan, saying the rate reductions would cut taxes for the wealthy so much that taxes on the middle class would have to be raised. They also argue that Toomey's plan would generate less revenue than advertised.

They note that Toomey's plan assumes that tax cuts enacted under former President George W. Bush, and extended through 2012 under President Barack Obama, would continue. Toomey's plan would then cut the tax rates even more.

Republicans say Toomey's tax overhaul plan would increase tax revenue by $250 billion over the next decade. An additional $40 billion would be raised by using a new measure of inflation to adjust the tax brackets each year. Annual adjustments to the tax brackets would be smaller, resulting in more people jumping into higher tax brackets as their incomes rise.

The supercommittee has a Wednesday deadline to come up with a plan to reduce government borrowing by at least $1.2 trillion over the next decade. If the panel fails, $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts to domestic and military programs would take effect in 2013.

Some details of Toomey's plan remain in flux, in part because he is open to changes to help forge an agreement, said the GOP aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private negotiations. The aide confirmed that Toomey's plan is closely modeled after a proposal by three experts at the National Bureau of Economic Research, a private research organization perhaps best known for deciding when recessions begin and end.

The three experts are Martin Feldstein, a Harvard University professor who was President Ronald Regan's chief economic adviser; Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget; and Daniel Feenberg, a research associate at the bureau.

Under their plan, the tax benefits from itemizing deductions and excluding employer-provided health insurance from taxable income would be limited to 2 percent of taxpayer's adjusted gross income.

That means if a taxpayer has an adjusted gross income of $50,000, deductions and exemptions could reduce his or her tax bill by a maximum of $1,000.

Taxpayers who face limits on their tax breaks could opt to take the standard deduction instead. Currently, about one-third of tax filers itemize their deductions. The rest claim the standard deduction, which in 2011 is $5,800 for individuals and $11,600 for married couples filing jointly.

The plan envisions millions of additional taxpayers switching to the standard deduction, which would simplify their returns, MacGuineas said.

Policymakers across the political spectrum agree the federal tax code is too complicated, and most agree on a basic formula for simplifying it: Reduce tax breaks and use the additional revenue to lower the overall tax rates for everyone.

There is little agreement, however, on which tax breaks to target.

Toomey's plan attempts to sidestep debates over which tax breaks to target and instead proposes to limit taxpayers' overall ability to reduce their tax bills.

"This is a far more practical way to start to scale back the influence and costs of tax expenditures in the code by kind of glopping them together and capping them," MacGuineas said. "You're not picking the winners and losers."

Source: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/topstories/*http%3A//news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20111117/ap_on_go_co/us_debt_supercommittee_taxes

big east expansion big east expansion michigan football michigan football google buzz trace cyrus hilary duff pregnant

Republican Candidates on Abortion (ContributorNetwork)

Even though most Americans mention the economy as the most important problem facing the nation, abortion is still the most divisive topic. According to Gallup, the country is split almost 50-50 on the legality of abortion and this divide has remained virtually constant for more than 25 years.

It is a debate that is particularly intense because it deals with people's morals. Notice the principled desire to uphold justice in the severity of the opposing views: some view abortion as infanticide, murder. Others see it as a completely moral, personal choice for a woman.

The debate becomes even more complex when one takes into account the different nuances positions that exist. Given this context, it is essential to have a sense of where the candidates stand on abortion before voting. Here are some quotes and excerpts on abortion by each of the major Republican candidates:

Ron Paul

* Would define "life as beginning at conception by passing a 'Sanctity of Life Act.'"

* Would repeal Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his 'We the People Act.'"

* Paul has a pro-life ad that can be seen here.

Herman Cain

* "What it comes down to is not the government's role or anybody else's role to make that decision. Secondly, if you look at the statistical incidents, you're not talking about that big a number. So what I'm saying is it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make."

* "Yesterday in an interview with Piers Morgan on CNN, I was asked questions about abortion policy and the role of the president. I understood the thrust of the question to ask whether that I, as president, would simply 'order' people to not seek an abortion. My answer was focused on the role of the President. The President has no constitutional authority to order any such action by anyone. That was the point I was trying to convey. As to my political policy view on abortion, I am 100% pro-life. End of story."

Mitt Romney

* "I am pro-life and believe that abortion should be limited to only instances of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. I support the reversal of Roe v. Wade, because it is bad law and bad medicine. Roe was a misguided ruling that was a result of a small group of activist federal judges legislating from the bench. I support the Hyde Amendment, which broadly bars the use of federal funds for abortions. And as president, I will support efforts to prohibit federal funding for any organization like Planned Parenthood, which primarily performs abortions or offers abortion-related services.

* "I will advocate for and support a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion. And perhaps most importantly, I will only appoint judges who adhere to the Constitution and the laws as they are written, not as they want them to be written."

Newt Gingrich

* "I think that abortion should not be legal, and I think that how you would implement that I'm not sure."

* "People should select adoption rather than abortion and that choosing abortion is not acceptable."

* "I think that Planned Parenthood should be defunded, and I think it's a very significant issue to say to people, 'Should your tax money go to pay the leading abortion provider in America?'"

Source: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/gop/*http%3A//news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20111116/us_ac/10444107_republican_candidates_on_abortion

kawasaki disease joe frazier conrad murray conrad murray where do i vote wheel of fortune today show

House GOP leader Cantor says deficit deal likely (AP)

WASHINGTON ? Sidestepping controversy, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., declined to take sides Monday on a proposal for higher tax revenues backed by fellow Republicans on Congress' supercommittee, yet expressed confidence the panel would agree on a deficit-reduction plan of at least $1.2 trillion by a Nov. 23 deadline.

A proposal for $300 billion in higher taxes has stirred grumbling within the ranks of congressional Republicans, for whom opposition to such measures has been political bedrock for more than two decades.

Two of the party's presidential hopefuls said Monday they wouldn't support any committee deficit-reduction plan that includes higher taxes.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, campaigning in Iowa, said he would "do everything in my power to defeat" any such proposal.

A spokesman for Rick Perry said the Texas governor "wants to look at details but if those details include a tax increase he's not going to be for it. He does not favor higher taxes," added David Miner.

Additionally, officials said that Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., who outlined the plan last week in a closed-door meeting of four Republicans and three Democrats, has encountered criticism from fellow conservatives despite strong credentials as an opponent of higher taxes. "There's been a little bit, but it's been pretty muted," his spokeswoman, Nachama Soloveichik, said of the response.

Cantor's spokeswoman turned aside several emailed requests for the majority leader's views on the proposal. She said he hadn't seen the plan, and she referred to his comments at a news conference earlier in the day when he told reporters, "I'm not going to be opining as to any reports, hypotheticals or anything connected with their work."

Despite that pledge, Cantor was bullish in predicting agreement before the deadline and adding that a fallback requirement to cut $1.2 trillion from domestic and defense programs wouldn't be triggered.

The committee has been at work for two months, hoping to succeed at a task that has defied the best efforts of high-ranking political leaders past and present.

Despite intense talks late last week, there has been little indication of progress as age-old political divisions have re-emerged.

The principal stumbling blocks revolve around taxes on the one hand, and the large federal programs of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security on the other.

Democrats are unwilling to agree to cuts in benefit programs unless Republicans will accept higher taxes, particularly on the highest-income individuals and families.

Republicans counter that out-of-control spending largely accounts for the government's enormous budget deficits, and they say raising taxes will only complicate efforts to help the economy recover from the worst recession in more than seven decades.

At the same time, each side is grappling with the possible political consequences of the committee's work, with an eye on the 2012 campaign for control of the White House and Congress.

Liberal Democrats are highly reluctant to agree to curbs on programs the party has long been identified with, and last week members on the supercommittee jettisoned an earlier proposal to slow the rise in cost-of-living benefits for Social Security recipients.

The same goes for conservatives, many of whom fear the possible political cost of changing their positions in order to pursue a less-than-certain bipartisan compromise on deficit reduction.

Many GOP office holders have signed a pledge circulated by Americans for Tax Reform not to vote for higher taxes. The organization is led by Grover Norquist, a conservative activist, although in comments to reporters Cantor suggested that influence by an outsider isn't the dominant concern.

"It's not about Grover Norquist. It's about commitments that people made to the electorate they represent, the people that sent them here. That's what it's about," he said.

Republicans on the committee hailed Toomey's proposal last week as a breakthrough and a concession that could open the way to a deal.

But Democrats were dismissive, saying it amounted to a tax cut in disguise for the wealthy ? the very taxpayers that they and Obama say should pay more. According to numerous officials, Toomey's proposal envisioned an additional $250 billion in revenue emerging from a sweeping revision of the tax code that would bring the top rate down from 35 percent to 28 percent while reducing or eliminating many commonly used itemized deductions.

In an interview on Sunday, Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, co-chairman of the supercommittee said that while Republicans believe that higher tax revenues will hurt the economy, "within the context of the bipartisan negotiation with Democrats, clearly they are a reality."

He said that whatever "damage would be done by $250 billion of new taxes we think would be offset by a system that would help create jobs. And as we're dealing with the debt crisis, we don't want to make the jobs crisis even worse. So that's what has been put on the table."

Jordan, R-Ohio, posted his dissent hours later in USA Today, although he refrained from criticizing any Republican directly.

"Balance doesn't mean `half-right, half-wrong,' he wrote, referring to Obama's calls for a deficit-cutting plan that includes higher taxes and spending cuts. "It means you don't fall over." Jordan is chairman of the Republican Study Committee, an organization of conservative GOP members of the House.

___

Associated Press writer Andrew Taylor in Washington and Thomas Beaumont in Iowa contributed to this story.

Source: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/topstories/*http%3A//news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20111115/ap_on_go_co/us_debt_supercommittee

snow white and the huntsman philip rivers chanukah chanukah 11 11 11 meaning miracle berry billy crystal