Slashdot Mirror

Cassini-Huygens is orbiting Saturn right now. New Horizons said hi to it last month when it passed Saturn orbit. It's now on its way towards Pluto. But then, it's still just following in the footsteps of its brother Voyager 2, which visited all four gas giants in our solar system and is now putting around in interstellar space.

So the answer to your question is no.

I don't, but there is a building clearly visible in this picture.

We have.

in 1995 by the Galileo a probe was dropped into Jupiter.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap951207.html

But if you think it will just sink in until it 'hits' then check your physics on large gas giants again.

Haha. I don't know about sending Bruce WIllis, but this does make me wonder why we have never (to my knowledge...) sent a probe INTO one of the gas giants.

Your geek credits have been officially revoked.

Galileo had a probe that was dropped into the atmosphere of Jupiter and it transmitted data for 58 minutes before it stopped. Hell, we even crashed the Galileo spacecraft into Jupiter to prevent contaminating Europa or Callisto with organisms from Earth.

This one's my fav: (Thanks for that link, BTW) http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/images/raw/raw-images-details.cfm?feiImageID=165899

Here are some pictures from the Cassini site itself, not slashdotted
http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/events/enceladus20080811/index.cfm

I see cliff dwellings in this picture.

Cassini-Huygens is an international collaboration between three space agencies. Seventeen nations contributed to building the spacecraft. The Cassini orbiter was built and managed by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The Huygens probe was built by the European Space Agency. The Italian Space agency provided Cassini's high-gain communication antenna. More than 250 scientists worldwide are studying the data streaming back from Saturn on a daily basis.

The images are also here: http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/images/index.cfm

http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/images/raw/raw-images-list1.html
This is the NASA page for the raw images from the flyby.

The Ciclops site seems to be unresponsive already. Nasa's coverage can be found here http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/events/enceladus20080811/index.cfm

The global warming as defined; feel free to pick your definition it seems the experts love to change it up a lot too;

It's defined as an increase in global average temperature, which is the same definition it's always had, although there are plenty of other effects other than that.

is not a hoax but a carefully planned wealth and power transfer.

In other words, it's a hoax.

Did you ever wonder why the interest in it spiked even with proof we haven't warmed in years but actually may have cooled?

We haven't cooled. The trend is current below average, but that's the point of averages: sometimes you're below, and sometimes you're above. The decade before this, we were above average.

If you want to present any other scientific reasons why anthropogenic global warming is wrong, feel free.

I know we can influence it but when I see the results that show one Pacific volcano was measurable beyond doubt

What are you talking about?

Yes, volcanos have a measurable, temporary effect on climate. This is well known and included in all climate models. What's your point?

yet its passed over like how all the planets warmed too.

That's got to be the worst argument against AGW ever. You pass over all the vast amounts of information we have about Earth's climate which support AGW, and try to conclude things from the sparse data regarding other poorly understood planetary climates.

It's not even true that "all the planets have warmed". Some have, and you hear about that from the skeptics, but you never hear about the rest. Wonder why? And then the whole thing falls apart when you look at causes. The only factor that all the planets have in common is the Sun, but the Sun fails to explain recent climate change both here and on other planets; it disagrees in magnitude, rate, and timing. Mars has experienced some short term warming, which when you get down to it is probably due to their dust storms, and definitely isn't due to the Sun. Jupiter is warming in some places and cooling in others, due to a change in its circulation pattern. Pluto warmed because it's summer there.

Go figure, the fact is that the whackjobs lost their credibility when they kept moving the line. They then fell back on total scare tactics, TWENTY YEARS TILL DOOM, EIGHTEEN YEARS, TWELVE, hell some even go as low as TEN YEARS AND WERE DOOMED!

I hate to break it to you, but the predictions of the first IPCC report are not that different from the predictions today. See here for one comparison to predictions made 20 years ago.

By the way, with an estimated population of 13.1 persons per square km under that satellite with a random reentry time, you'd get about 0.3 person inside that "hazard area". That's pretty small, but it's not zero and it doesn't look like the government's goal of less than 1/10,000. It's been said here already, but by the time it reaches Bush's desk it's boiled down to: 1) Could we make it worse? (NO) 2) Could we make it better? (MAYBE) Probabilities don't comfort victims or leaders.

(The numbers quoted above are accurate and come from a variety of sources, not all free.)

The submitter wrote:

Oberg goes on to quote 'There is a widespread notion that meteorites falling to Earth arrive red hot.' He is correct here. In fact, meteorites falling through the atmosphere typically explode, shattering into dozens or hundreds of pieces; something that occurs at the point when the dynamic pressure on the leading face exceeds the yield stress of the material. This occurs for meteoroids of all compositions, including nickle-iron meteorites that are far more robust than hydrazine tanks. If the atmospheric entry of meteorites is relevant, it hardly bolsters the case that a tank will enter intact (and if it's not relevent, why did Oberg bring it up?)

I'm not sure why the submitter seems to have only partially quoted Oberg here (apparently out of context), and ignored the point Oberg was trying to make. Although meteorites entering the atmosphere generate a fireball, there seems to be ample evidence that the objects themselves remain cold even upon impact.

I'll cite a few articles here:
From this NASA page titled "Hot Meteors and Cold Meteorites," under the section titled "Meteorites Don't Pop Corn," we have this salient paragraph:

Objects from space that enter Earth's atmosphere are -- like space itself -- very cold and they remain so even as they blaze a hot-looking trail toward the ground. "The outer layers are warmed by atmospheric friction, and little bits flake away as they descend," explains Yeomans. This is called ablation and it's a wonderful way to remove heat. (Some commercial heat shields use ablation to keep spacecraft cool when they re- enter Earth's atmosphere.) "Rocky asteroids are poor conductors of heat," Yeomans continued. "Their central regions remain cool even as the hot outer layers are ablated away."

A slightly less assertive article on Howstuffworks is a little more reserved in its claims:

Some commentators have claimed that meteorites, especially those of moderate size like scientists believe this one was, are cold when they hit the ground -- not hot. However, there's no conclusive proof about whether meteorites are hot or cold upon impact. Available evidence indicates that just after landing, meteorites are cold or only slightly warm [source: Cornell University Astronomy Department]. Meteorite impacts aren't known to cause major fires or to scorch large areas.

A more nuanced perspective is provided by this amateur astronomer who specializes in the study of meteors (specifically meteor spectroscopy). It's a short read, but a little too long to block quote here. Suffice it to say, there are numerous factors, including the composition and albedo (reflectivity) of the object, whether it was camping out in the Earth's shadow prior to impact (and for how long), the trajectory and velocity upon entering the atmosphere, etc.

Seems to me that the submitter is conflating two separate thoughts. Oberg brings up meteorites because they can and do impact the Earth while still cold, or only moderately warm. That's as far as the analogy goes -- he apparently wants to make the case that an object can remain cold enough that hydrazine fuel inside the container in question might not vaporize prior to impact. Whether we want to extend the analogy to the question of whether the container will shatter during re-entry is a question best asked of metallurgists or material scientists, and that I suspect depends entirely on the composition and manufacture of the fuel tank. (For that matter, whether a meteorite shatters upon re-entry would seem to be a function of the composition of the object, as well as the stresses it encounters -- and those stresses would be a function of speed and trajectory, as well as shape, would they not?)

The next sentence is the one that matters:

"The researchers also determined that some of the emissions from mobile phones occurred in frequencies employed by Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers, which are increasingly vital for safe landings."

If anything, since the calls regularly occur on flights despite the ban, I would take that to be evidence that there is no risk.

Only so if there weren't incidents or problems related to interference. NASA released a report of problems encountered by passengers electronic devices and many of them relate to interference. You can view that here

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence. Check NASA's airline database. A quick search for "PED" in text synopsis or narrative will bring up various stories where interference occurred and stopped occurring when the passenger turned off the device.

So there's plenty of evidence. The "problem" is that airline flight crews are interested in passenger safety, not in scientific research. If the navigation radios aren't working and they start working again when your cell phone is turned off, that's as far as it goes for them.

It may be dependent on the individual plane, the weather conditions, the device, what other devices are also being used both on the plane, the cell tower on the ground, the location of the device inside the plane, etc.

In an F-16 you can't have multiple pilots all pull shifts, but in an office you sure can. If having to concentrate on something for 13 hours is such a problem (and I have no doubt it is; I sure can't do it) it seems like sending in shrinks is the dumb way for the USAF to handle the problem. They don't need shrinks; they need relief crews.

I'm sure that's occurred to them, but shift handovers are a well known risk in occupational studies. Fields like medicine and nuclear power safety worry about them a lot. The battle space is complex, and when somebody who's been studying it for 8 hours walks out the door, that famiarization has to start all over and accidents are likely.

If you don't know that VASIMR is an electro-thermal rocket, ie. one that uses an electric power source to excite the plasma, that's okay,

Actually, I knew, but thought that the power conversion would be too inefficient when trying to produce the plasma electrically and would reduce the thrust to a level too low needed for large-scale missions. I was wrong and corrected myself -- something you conveniently ignored.

but in that case you should probably think twice before insulting anyone (yes, "your idea is stupid" is an unnecessary insult) who tries to correct you.

First, he wasn't trying to correct me, or at least I didn't take it that way. I took his remark as inflammatory because of his use of "good luck with that" with reference to using a nuclear reactor in space -- and that comment *was* stupid as there has been a huge amount of work on space-based reactors ( look into the history of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission and eg. projects Kiwi, Rover, and NERVA ) for the purposes of energy generation and propulsion in space. What was *stupid* on *my* part was mistaking his reference to "a heat exchanger and turbine" as a reference to a light water reactor, which I should have known to be absurd. It was just a misunderstanding, and your continual involvement in this with your cocky attitude of moral superiority and the need to treat me like a baby makes you everything but a Troll.

And as for "Please just stop", are you referring to my "stupid" remarks that you're obviously above, since everyone knows that you have the moral authority and anyone who dares contest what you say is either immature, stupid, or an *sshole? If that's the case then your replies to my post would seem to indicate a double standard : you are right, and I am wrong. On the other hand if you are telling me to stop because, obviously, I'm making a fool of myself by trying to defend my weak, small-minded idea that my character and intellect are being harassed because of my delusion of your misrepresentation of my remarks, then you've just proven yourself to be the cocky, condescending, self-appointed moral authority that you say you are not.

If you think that being corrected when you post something mistaken and insulting is "patronizing", imagine how it looks when you try to correct people who are trying to post something factual and polite.

Again, you misrepresent my statements, and you're continual reference to my remarks being "mistaken" and "insulting" and that they need to be "corrected" is what gives me the idea that you're getting some type of power trip out of this.

I was mistaken in the fact that I thought the OP was talking about a light-water reactor when he referred to heat-exchangers and turbines -- that was stupid on my part. But, as for you "correcting" me, obviously you neglected to read or conveniently forgot the comments I made in my previous posts such as 'I think I'm in error with producing a plasma by "pass[ing] it through the reactor core"' . I had conceded that idea of direct heating of the working fluid ( gas ) to produce a plasma was wrong and that using electricity was probably what the article was referring to.

And on the topic of you or the OP being "factual", that is highly questionable in the context of this discussion because you made that remark after I replied to "he may have instead been talking about an electric rocket" and now it appears that you are retroactively extending your *factual* statement about the plasma being produced electrically to my previous comment -- in essence, you are accusing me of lacking the ability to foretell the future. Furthermore, the OP had thrown out the possibility of conventional nuclear power and instead was referring to antimatter, so I don't see how you can draw the c

there simply is no third possibility.

I think there are other possibilities.

1. Why doesn't anyone want to talk about the known increase in solar radiation over the last 30 years? AFAIK, we don't have numbers going back any further, but it seems fairly obvious that if there is more solar radiation entering the earths atmosphere, the climate will change.

2. Maybe we won't run out of oil because it isn't really made from dead trees and dinosaurs. I've been meaning to find some numbers, but I have a hard time understanding the amount of decaying organic matter necessary to create the 80+ million barrels/day of oil pumped from the ground in 2005. I know were talking about geologic time scales here, so I'd be interested in seeing some numbers about how many trees and dinos that adds up to.

I'd also be interested to find out how trees and dinos ended up 10k+ feet below the surface of the earth. Some of these are 35k+ feet (7+miles) deep.

3. I doubt there were many trees or dinosaurs on Hyperion or Titan, 2 of Saturns moons. Yet, they have pools of hydrocarbons, hmmmm.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not interested in the world getting so polluted that we can't breathe or grow food. I'm just concerned that global warming is really another scam to take more of my money in the form of taxes to "save the earth". If I remember correctly, when I was a kid, the big fear was we were going into a new ice age. Now we have the same data providing proof for the exact opposite hypothesis. Now get off my lawn.

If you don't know that VASIMR is an electro-thermal rocket, ie. one that uses an electric power source to excite the plasma, that's okay, but in that case you should probably think twice before insulting anyone (yes, "your idea is stupid" is an unnecessary insult) who tries to correct you. If you think that being corrected when you post something mistaken and insulting is "patronizing", imagine how it looks when you try to correct people who are trying to post something factual and polite.

(Posting Anon as I helped on the project) The DOE has been using WorldWind Java for over a year to already do this and a lot more. But of course, that is not public use. This could easily have been done with any web based map or any virtual globe.

With this kind of speed, I would be concerned with a random piece of dust hitting the ship and possibly tearing a hole in it. I know that orbital debris is a real concern due to the speed at which the shuttle orbits the earth.

We can see from this website that orbital debris can be an issue:

http://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/photogallery/photogallery.html

What about other forms of space debris? If a ship is moving at such speed to be able to reach mars in 60 days, (that's 1440 hours) and the shortest distance between earth and mars is on average 36,000,000 miles, that would equate to around 25000 miles an hour.

36000000 / 1440 = 25000 --- (unless my math is that off)

So at the slowest, the ship is going to be in real danger from things like space dust and even small meteors we may not know the trajectory of.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's awesome they are working on new engines, I just wonder at how they are going to protect the travelers.

Good luck with that. Not only a nuclear reactor, but a heat exchanger, a turbine, and a generator.

Uhhhhh? Have you ever heard of nuclear thermal rockets? NASA's NERVA program? You know a nuclear reactor can heat substances other than just water. I don't know if you were trying to be funny because "a turbine, and a generator" is just stupid.

That's a lot of complexity for a space mission.

And what space mission is not complicated? There's this thing called "technology" that improves exponentially with time and better technology allows greater complexity.

There are more direct ways to generate electricity with nuclear reactions, but none are really practical for this sort of power output, that I'm aware of. I'm thinking a more straightforward application of nuclear power would work better. Something like this.

I had thought of Antimatter, but we're talking about a near term mission that uses proven and tested technology. ( for its energy source ) Maybe in 50 years we'll be using antimatter for all our energy storage needs, but that implies we'll have large supplies of Anti-Hydrogen ice. Can you tell me where I can buy some today? ( By the way, I'm not a skeptic when it comes to Antimatter based energy storage and propulsion. The problem now is that current particle accelerators are designed to study particle physics, not to produce antimatter. In fact, Robert Forward showed that if we were to build accelerators specifically designed to produce antimatter,( perhaps a special linear wake-field accelerator ) we could potentially produce at least 1 milligram per year at a cost of only around a 10 million dollars. If one where to use many accelerators in parallel that where able to produce higher energies, that amount might be up in the gram-kilogram range.)

jdb2

Good luck with that. Not only a nuclear reactor, but a heat exchanger, a turbine, and a generator. That's a lot of complexity for a space mission. There are more direct ways to generate electricity with nuclear reactions, but none are really practical for this sort of power output, that I'm aware of. I'm thinking a more straightforward application of nuclear power would work better. Something like this.

I don't think Deep Space one had an RTG. It's not mentioned in the wikipedia article, and I can't find it on NASA's site about DS1 either

We can guess that it is similar to the DS-1 Ion drive which propels Xenon ions at 30 km/sec.

Yes you got me, difficult to read any sci-fi book after the great stories by Arthur Clarke. But yes the idea isn't only pure sci-fi, cracks on Europa's icy surface has been spotted regularly. There is a nice picture on apod's website : http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap020602.html

Well, according to the Twitter page there never was a briefing on the JPL Phoenix program. I myself do not know whether there ever was a White House meeting at all (never read a good source on that one) but I do know JPL runs some other interesting programs, like NEO , which might be worth briefing about :-p.

The News Conference is on Tuesday, Aug. 5, at 2 p.m. EDT, but it's not on TV, it's streaming audio from Here...
http://www.nasa.gov/news/media/newsaudio/index.html

I suggest you to check NASA's program for tracking asteroids: NEAR-EARTH ASTEROID TRACKING (NEAT). http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/programs/neat.html

These aren't engineering documents - but they do give you some sense of the resources available through NASA:

NASA History Series

we have not known that there is ice on mars, only speculated that it is likely.

No, really, it's been known for years.

The moons of the gas giants are hardly giant balls of ice, though many do contain "ice", although that ice may not be water.

No.

Agreed. But, unfortunately, most people don't understand this.

How many times have you heard stories people getting all upset because the flight attendant told them to do something they didn't want to do.

Heck, start with the current ban on cell phones. Cell phones are supposed to be turned off. Yet people get indignant when they are told to turn off their cellphone. Heck, for some fun reading, check out this website run by NASA. Do a query for "cell phone" and check out the problems airlines have with passengers who currently refuse to follow the law.

At least the airlines have the law on their side at the moment. Imagine how bad it would be if they didn't...

Looks like it's the back shell and parachute that the lander ejected before the powered landing.

This is all the proof I need: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap050401.html

APOD said it, I believe it, and that settles it!

Just to reiterate a point that a few others have made: the presence of water ice at the surface of Mars has been understood since at least the 1970's for high latitudes. This goes for parts of the polar caps (also made up of CO2 ice), and the seasonal frosts that are known to coat the very study area visited by the Phoenix lander.

Here's a snippet from an abstract of an article from 1982 (Journal of Geophysical Research, 87:367-370): "A new reflectance spectrum of the Martian north polar cap is analyzed, and it shows water ice absorption features. This evidence confirms the result of the Viking IRTM and MAWD experiments, which indicate that the north residual polar cap of Mars is composed of water ice during the season observed." The Viking 2 lander directly saw seasonal frost in the late 70's, as the Phoenix lander will in the coming months: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/jplhistory/captions/vikinglander-t.php

The Phoenix results are new in that ice has been directly confirmed for shallow regolith ("soil") materials at the Phoenix site (as opposed to spectroscopically identified from orbit or from the Earth). This is a nice and important result, but is not a huge surprise (the site is known to be seasonally coated with water-ice frosts, and its sediments are distributed in a polygonal pattern that is analogous to what we see at high latitudes on Earth where freeze-thaw action dominates).

Phoenix is a great mission, but let's also give due credit to earlier workers.

On the other hand, Spirit and Opportunity *are* running around on Mars.

For very low values of "running".

The rover has a top speed on flat hard ground of 5 centimeters (2 inches) per second.

Which is approximately 0.1 miles per hour.

It's unfortunate that Joe Public is such an idiot. Yes, he doesn't benefit directly from space exploration, but he has many indirect benefits.

You have to be seriously ignorant to not see the benefit of the space program.

Ever used a cordless power tool? A smoke detector? Modern water filtration? Infrared thermometer? Edible toothpaste (this one is now used for baby toothpaste and we probably all used it as babies)? Composite forceps in the delivery room? Global communications?

Here is a kid friendly site that Joe Public might be able to comprehend
http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/at_home.html

NASA found water on Mars over three years ago.

On news today that the surface of saturn is literally covered in a sea of liquid ethane, a combined oil conglomerate of Exxon and Mobil Oil Corp. have announced that they are exploring "pipeline options" to tap into the limitless reserves.

"Screw the tree hugging liberals" said one un-identified spokesman. "If we can gain access to such a limitless source of fuel for automobiles, we won't have to waste a dime on alternatives. 60 year supply? How about 6000 year supply."

In other news, the price per barrel of oil has dropped $26.00 per barrel on chinese market trading. John Vaderslooth of Bears Sterns this morning said "I wouldn't be surpised to see us drop ack down into the $50-60.00 per barrel range by close today." It should be an exciting market day today.

Back to you taco.

The summary refers to the plane as the X-38B, and the article refers to it as the X-37B multiple times. The plane is the X-37B according to NASA's PDF . I just want to know how the subby changed a 7 to an 8 with copy/paste.

The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal contains many references to the affect of gas pressure inside the descent engine bell. Below two metres altitude the engine was supposed to be shut down because the excess pressure close to the ground might cause the bell to deform.

50 years of aeronautics research on a steadily declining budget:

http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/technical_excellence.htm

Just $750 million in aerospace funding for FY2007; perhaps it is time to split the ``NA'' from the ``SA'' and give the aeronautics directorate the freedom to pursue its own budget and agenda outside the bondoogle that is the US space programme.

In other words, just turn the clock back those 50 years...

It was a nefarious excuse to put nuclear weapons in space.

Unfortunately, it looks like a hidden agenda is behind quite a bit of space policy.

Space solar power (now abandoned) was another attempt at getting weapons into space: collecting solar energy in space makes no economic sense, but it does make sense as an excuse to get a giant, city busting energy weapon into space.

Nuclear propulsion is another such attempt: it makes no sense for solar system exploration, but it does make sense as an excuse to get atom bombs into space.

Apollo 8 Earthrise Dec 1968
From Gooogle Images

And the first TV photo of Earth from TIROS 1 on 1 April 1960.
(April Fools Day- how apropos)

Here is a link to the act itself:

http://geo.arc.nasa.gov/sge/landsat/15USCch82.html

It looks like the purpose is to protect the commercial interests of private space companies. If all the sudden people are launching rockets and giving away the data for free, that hurts space commerce. The goal here, again, is commercial. They want to create a commercial space enterprise. So while that sector is growing Uncle Sam is going to protect it.

Because they have a policy of being "nondiscriminatory" they have to either charge everyone, or charge no one.

However, one could argue that if your goal is non-commercial this wouldn't apply to you.

This policy probably had good intentions, but is now very out of date.

This is because Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 and its implementing regulations require any person subject to the jurisdiction or control of the United States who operates or proposes to operate a private remote sensing space system that images the Earth, and/or establishes substantial connections with the United States regarding the operation of such a system to obtain a license from NOAA.

Blame this, the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992

Nasa imagery is public domain, as are all photographic works from the US government. See their statement. Wikipedia is very grateful for this.

I browsed quickly through the site and didn't see any video.

Two of my very favorite things to watch, and I could literally sit and watch them over and over for weeks are the Apollo 11 and 17 landing videos.

NASA has placed online full video libraries for both Apollo 11 and Apollo 17. *

The actual Apollo 11 landing is here (16 minutes).

The actual Apollo 17 landing is here (4 minutes).

The Apollo 17 video will send shivers up and down your spine I guarantee it.

* Most unfortunately, the videos are in Quicktime(tm) format. If you, like me, use Windows, go here to get Quicktime. If you have NoScript, disable it for that page because there is a script that autodetects your OS. Download the most basic player and uncheck all options because Apple tries to install all sorts of incredibly annoying nag- and crap-ware. Also make sure you do not select auto-update because thats another level of nagging to upgrade to a paid service. Finally, use Spybot to disable the Apple updater in your startup list.

I browsed quickly through the site and didn't see any video.

Two of my very favorite things to watch, and I could literally sit and watch them over and over for weeks are the Apollo 11 and 17 landing videos.

NASA has placed online full video libraries for both Apollo 11 and Apollo 17. *

The actual Apollo 11 landing is here (16 minutes).

The actual Apollo 17 landing is here (4 minutes).

The Apollo 17 video will send shivers up and down your spine I guarantee it.

* Most unfortunately, the videos are in Quicktime(tm) format. If you, like me, use Windows, go here to get Quicktime. If you have NoScript, disable it for that page because there is a script that autodetects your OS. Download the most basic player and uncheck all options because Apple tries to install all sorts of incredibly annoying nag- and crap-ware. Also make sure you do not select auto-update because thats another level of nagging to upgrade to a paid service. Finally, use Spybot to disable the Apple updater in your startup list.