Slashdot Mirror

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.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/24jul_plasmabullets.htm

THEMIS launched in the first half of 2007. I remember because my plasma physics professor canceled class the day of the launch and invited us to the launch party...

The cause of the aurora borealis is something that has not been adequately explained up to now. It seems that magnetic reconnection phenomena in the tail are the trigger, but where exactly? That's what THEMIS was designed to figure out.

This is a very interesting result for plasma physicists and astrophysicists.

http://ds9.ssl.berkeley.edu/themis/flash.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/main/

Dr. Angelopoulos said, scientists will try to figure out exactly why the magnetic field lines snap.
While NASA is saying "Over-stretched magnetic fields snapped back, producing a powerful explosion. This process is called "magnetic reconnection" and it is thought to be common in stellar and planetary magnetic fields."
I'm hoping the good Doctor will come up with a theory that will put "magnetic reconnection" (to separate magnetic fields joining forces--like wind, water, fire and heart join to make captain planet) to bed.

TCP wouldn't, as it's Transport (Layer 4). What you talk about would be either Data Link or Physical. (I'm going to assume Physical, as it's dealing with aspects of modulation).

As for needing to compensate for it ... yes. And it's still a problem. (And testing sucks, too.)

I just thought the numbers looked a little low ... (only seconds to Voyager2?)

it'd actually be a bit of a pain, as you'd need the distances between each hop, and I don't have SPICE installed on this machine.

You can find the raw images from the Surface Stereo Imager here:
http://www1.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/images/raw/SSI/ssi_topgallery_collection_archive_1.html

This is the SSI itself:
http://www1.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/spacecraft/ssi.html

Personally, my preferred method of 3D viewing is the oldskool Stereoscope.

You can find the raw images from the Surface Stereo Imager here:
http://www1.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/images/raw/SSI/ssi_topgallery_collection_archive_1.html

This is the SSI itself:
http://www1.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/spacecraft/ssi.html

Personally, my preferred method of 3D viewing is the oldskool Stereoscope.

And if you read though the Apollo transcripts, there are some really bizarre comments that only make sense if you take them in the setting of discovering alien ruins or debris on the moon.

How convenient that you can simply state that as fact without any sources to back it up.

The transcripts are public domain material. Go ahead, give me page numbers.

Is there any way we can look through a telescope from Earth and see the flag on the moon?

Well, our esteemed Houston (Democrat) Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee suggested that the Mars Pathfinder could do that for us.

But I guess then they'd claim Pathfinder was fake.

It is on NASA's site, though. Searching Google for some text from the press release yielded this link.

Statement from nasa.gov

Strangely, though, the announcement referenced isn't on NASA's recent press releases page.

> I'll leave out the fact that temperatures globally have been flat for several years now

Wise move, since it's an incorrect statement.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

[TMB]

Not wise, really, when the NASA data *appears* to have been massaged to better fit the CO2 warming theory:

Painting by numbers: NASA's peculiar thermometer (What's the temperature, Kenneth?)

Don't get me wrong: I'm all in favour of drastic measures to slow down the rate at which the wealthier nations consume and pollute. But concentrating on CO2 seems unconvincing, and could even be dangerous (e.g. if it leads to crazy acts like dumping vast amounts of chemicals into the oceans, or accelerating the development of nuclear power).

The numbers you are viewing are the revised numbers.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

The only change having a detectable influence on analyzed temperature was the 7 August 2007 change to correct a discontinuity in 2000 at many stations in the United States. This flaw affected temperatures in 2000 and later years by ~0.15C averaged over the United States and ~0.003C on global average. Contrary to reports in the media, this minor flaw did not alter the years of record temperature, as shown by comparison here of results with the data flaw ('old analysis') and with the correction ('new analysis').

Here's the link for you.

The data that was determined to be faulty & was therefore corrected only concerned the US, which accounts for ~2% of the globe.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

The only change having a detectable influence on analyzed temperature was the 7 August 2007 change to correct a discontinuity in 2000 at many stations in the United States. This flaw affected temperatures in 2000 and later years by ~0.15C averaged over the United States and ~0.003C on global average. Contrary to reports in the media, this minor flaw did not alter the years of record temperature, as shown by comparison here of results with the data flaw ('old analysis') and with the correction ('new analysis').

Denial, juvenile insults & proud willful ignorance do not refute reality.

> I'll leave out the fact that temperatures globally have been flat for several years now

Wise move, since it's an incorrect statement.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

[TMB]

that graph doesn't mean much to me. give me data from thousands of years ago up until now. im pretty sure we even had an ice age or two without human interference :(

> I'll leave out the fact that temperatures globally have been flat for several years now

Wise move, since it's an incorrect statement.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

[TMB]

It has long been thought that earth's earliest years were dry, but recent research suggests that 4.3 billion years ago earth had liquid water.

Um...not quite. I see where you're going, and it doesn't work. If you just use basic dollars, or even dollars corrected for inflation, the really big cuts to NASA came under Nixon and Ford.

But it isn't that simple. You have to look at the cost and complexity of the projects being undertaken, and whether most of the activity was build/launch or planning.

For raw financial data, refer to the Office of Management and Budget (http://www.spacebusiness.com/businesscenter/Library/AboutSpace/GovtBudgets.htm) and the Office of the NASA CFO (http://ifmp.nasa.gov/codeb/budget2001/HTML/fy01_myb.htm). "Real Dollars" calculations are based on the "Gross Domestic Product DeflatorInflation Calculator" at http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/bu2/inflateGDP.html.

Individual project prep/launch info is available at Wikipedia. Check out the history and you'll see what I mean about Reagan.

The entire length of the video represents a day on Earth, and since the Earth is about quarter wrt the spacecraft, the video would have to represent about six more days before it would even be possible of the lunar shadow to appear on the Earth (btw, that's a solar eclipse, not lunar). They also have to be perfectly aligned, which would be difficult to judge from a cursory glance at the video. There was no eclipse during May when this video was taken, but there is going to be one on August 1.

Total Solar Eclipse

This is definitely my favorite JPL photo: http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/spirit/20050610a.html

http://www.nasa.gov/mov/260503main_red_green_blue2.mov
http://www.nasa.gov/mov/260502main_nir_green_blue2.mov

Why can't these tax-payer subsidized f*ckt*ards take five or ten minutes out of their busy days to encode their cr*p in a non-proprietary format?

Like, say, this thing that's been around for more than a decade now - what's it called?

Help me out here...

"MPEG", is it?

http://www.nasa.gov/mov/260503main_red_green_blue2.mov
http://www.nasa.gov/mov/260502main_nir_green_blue2.mov

Why can't these tax-payer subsidized f*ckt*ards take five or ten minutes out of their busy days to encode their cr*p in a non-proprietary format?

Like, say, this thing that's been around for more than a decade now - what's it called?

Help me out here...

"MPEG", is it?

Or as someone wrote to Frank Borman, commander of Apollo 8, "You saved 1968".

Um, you just described the Ares program.

Ares V - unmanned rocket with huge lift capability.

Ares I - manned rocket designed to be extremely safe and get a manned capsule to LEO, period.

Plans for a moon shot involve using Ares V to launch the hardware, Ares I to launch the people, and a rendezvous in orbit before proceeding to the moon. Read all about it.

Annnnddd the thread comes full circle. You just confused Ares I and Ares V.

Ares I - Small, man rated rocket
Ares V - Heavy cargo rocket that is NOT man-rated

The profile for a moon launch requires two separate launches. The first is an Ares V launch to place the necessary equipment (e.g. Altair Lander) and boosters (Earth Departure Stage) into orbit. The Ares I rocket would then launch the Orion capsule carrying the crew. The capsule would dock with the cargo launched by the Ares V, then use the Earth Departure Stage to make a Trans-Lunar Injection burn.

As a result, the figures for the Ares V TLI burn are a bit misleading. The Ares V will be unlikely to send cargo directly to the moon. At least at first. Such capability might be used later on in support of a base or colony.

More information on the Constellation Project can be found at the usual sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Constellation
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/main/index.html

FYI, I found updated numbers for the six engine Ares V on NASA's site here:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/ares/aresV/index.html

The correct LEO figure is stated here:

The versatile, heavy-lifting Ares V is a two-stage, vertically stacked launch vehicle. It can carry nearly 414,000 pounds (188 metric tons) to low-Earth orbit. When working together with the Ares I crew launch vehicle to launch payloads into Earth orbit, Ares V can send nearly 157,000 pounds (71 metric tons) to the moon.

Damn it, I *JUST YESTERDAY* posted to correct this fallacy. When will the Internet learn?

The blueprints for everything, down to the last nut and bolt, are on file at MSFC. Source.

Further, rebuilding a Saturn from them won't work. You can't get the parts made any more, nor would you want to. You can't duplicate IBM's work and make another Instrument Unit--two tons of 1960s-vintage analog computers and gyroscopes, including equipment designed to determine the rocket's launch azimuth based on star sightings, not GPS like we'd use today. Then there's all the other analog and early digital equipment that's integral to the design. Remember, it's not just a giant fuel tank and some engines--it's a launch vehicle. It's got a flight manual, and it's designed to be used in conjunction with an Apollo command and service module pair flying it.

Re-design the rocket to use new technology? By the time you've de-Apollo'd Saturn, you've made a whole new launch vehicle. Which is exactly what Ares is.

The Saturn V is an awesome piece of technology, yes. An awesome piece of 1960s technology. Rebuilding it today would not work, period, no matter how cool it might be.

The NASA press release, http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008-133

The company that made the scoop and rasp, some very good pictures.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008-133

The NASA press release, http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008-133

The company that made the scoop and rasp, some very good pictures.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008-133

There are some more good photos of the pre- and post-launch rover up at www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/images/new-latest-images-collection_archive_1.html. I especially like this one - I'd thought the rover was quite a bit smaller than that!

There are some more good photos of the pre- and post-launch rover up at www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/images/new-latest-images-collection_archive_1.html. I especially like this one - I'd thought the rover was quite a bit smaller than that!

What did it ever do to you?

Besides, it's accomplished a lot:

In mathematics

Inherent mathematical properties

Twenty-six is a composite number, its proper divisors being 1, 2, and 13. 26 is the only number between a square number and a cube number, the numbers being 25 (5 squared) and 27 (3 cubed). This was first proved by Pierre de Fermat.

It is the 7th distinct biprime (2.13) and the 5th with 2 as its lowest non-unitary prime factor. The aliquot sum of 26 is 16 with an aliquot sequence of 8 members; (26,16,15,9,4,3,1,0), leading to 0 through the prime 3 the 6th composite number so to do and so the sixth member of the 3-aliquot tree.

There is no solution to the equation Ï(x) = 26, making 26 a nontotient. Nor is there a solution to x - Ï(x) = 26, making 26 a noncototient.

In the classification of finite simple groups there are 26 sporadic groups.

Properties of its positional representation in certain radixes

Twenty-six is a repdigit in base three (222) and in base twelve (22).

In base ten, 26 is the smallest number that is not a palindrome to have a square which is (26^2=676).

Twenty-six is the number of five-digit prime quadruplets, the first of which is {13001, 13003, 13007, 13009}[1].

In science

• The atomic number of iron
• The number of spacetime dimensions in bosonic string theory.

Astronomy

• Messier object M26, a magnitude 9.5 open cluster in the constellation Scutum

• The New General Catalogue object NGC 26, a spiral galaxy in the constellation Pegasus

• The Saros number of the solar eclipse series which began on -2022 March 29 and ended on -724 May 17. The duration of Saros series 26 was 1298.1 years, and it contained 73 solar eclipses.

• The Saros number of the lunar eclipse series which began on -1937 August 28 and ended on -386 March 17

What did it ever do to you?

Besides, it's accomplished a lot:

In mathematics

Inherent mathematical properties

Twenty-six is a composite number, its proper divisors being 1, 2, and 13. 26 is the only number between a square number and a cube number, the numbers being 25 (5 squared) and 27 (3 cubed). This was first proved by Pierre de Fermat.

It is the 7th distinct biprime (2.13) and the 5th with 2 as its lowest non-unitary prime factor. The aliquot sum of 26 is 16 with an aliquot sequence of 8 members; (26,16,15,9,4,3,1,0), leading to 0 through the prime 3 the 6th composite number so to do and so the sixth member of the 3-aliquot tree.

There is no solution to the equation Ï(x) = 26, making 26 a nontotient. Nor is there a solution to x - Ï(x) = 26, making 26 a noncototient.

In the classification of finite simple groups there are 26 sporadic groups.

Properties of its positional representation in certain radixes

Twenty-six is a repdigit in base three (222) and in base twelve (22).

In base ten, 26 is the smallest number that is not a palindrome to have a square which is (26^2=676).

Twenty-six is the number of five-digit prime quadruplets, the first of which is {13001, 13003, 13007, 13009}[1].

In science

• The atomic number of iron
• The number of spacetime dimensions in bosonic string theory.

Astronomy

• Messier object M26, a magnitude 9.5 open cluster in the constellation Scutum

• The New General Catalogue object NGC 26, a spiral galaxy in the constellation Pegasus

• The Saros number of the solar eclipse series which began on -2022 March 29 and ended on -724 May 17. The duration of Saros series 26 was 1298.1 years, and it contained 73 solar eclipses.

• The Saros number of the lunar eclipse series which began on -1937 August 28 and ended on -386 March 17

You going to find a "mom and pop engineering company" to duplicate IBM's work and make another Instrument Unit to fly it? Manufacture two tons of 1960s-vintage analog computers and gyroscopes? Rebuild equipment designed to determine the rocket's launch azimuth based on star sightings, not GPS like we'd use today? What about all the other analog and early digital equipment that's integral to the design? It's not just a giant fuel tank and some engines--it's a launch vehicle. It's got a flight manual, and it's designed to be used in conjunction with an Apollo command and service module pair flying it.

Re-design the rocket to use new technology? By the time you've de-Apollo'd Saturn, you've made a whole new launch vehicle. Which is exactly what Ares is.

The Saturn V is an awesome piece of technology, yes. An awesome piece of 1960s technology. Rebuilding it today would not work, period, no matter how cool it might be.

IIRC the final columbia mission was a science mission whos purpose was mostly to conduct a series of microgravity experiments. Aside from tossing and repairing massive satellites on orbit I've always asumed microgravity experiments have always been the staple of shuttle missions.

Is there really no need for this sort of platform for microgravity experimentation the ISS provides? Are there not industries who very much still need access to space to perform microgravity experiments?

This line of thinking is very similiar to those spending billions constructing massive particle accelerators to work theoretical problems who have little direct bearing on reality.

Your average Joe doesn't see a direct correlation to a cost/benefit and confuse that with a default assumption of no benefit.

At *least* ISS is being used for *something*
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/science/experiments/Expedition.html

Very interesting...and I did Google it...and ii turns out that there are actually four inclinations that allow one to orbit the moon indefinitely: 27Â, 50Â, 76Â, and 86Â

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/06nov_loworbit.htm

Still though, it's an interesting point and a nice read...so thanks for the info.

Me? I am still going with the lack of radiation shielding as the nail in the coffin. That reason alone makes this guy's idea seem fairly poorly thought out.

You mean the one targetted for a test launch next March? (link)

The same Ares that has had key components tested? (link)

Yup, it's just in AutoCAD, or more likely Pro/E.

You mean the one targetted for a test launch next March? (link)

The same Ares that has had key components tested? (link)

Yup, it's just in AutoCAD, or more likely Pro/E.

A test flight of Area 1-X is scheduled for April of 2009: http://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/LaunchSystems/flightTest.php/

NASA has evaluated the DIRECT proposal, and found it lacking compared to the Ares I/V vehicles:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/256922main_Direct_vs_%20Ares%20_FINAL_62508.pdf

Let's not forget NASA, how many of us will ever stand on the precipice of the Victoria Crater? http://colab.arc.nasa.gov/viccrater

I worked in the photo labs at Johnson Space Center (Nasa Houston) back in 1972 and was told that when Apollo 11 returned, Nasa had the Lunar Receiving Laboratory set up like a Fort Dietrich style germ warfare lab.

I've heard the same. Found this written by a Judy Allton from Lockheed regarding the return of moon rocks:

In 1965 a committee of the Space Science Board reviewed the need for a lunar sample receiving laboratory and recommended a laboratory of restricted scope. This committee also raised the question of quarantine for lunar samples until they proved to be biologically harmless.

"But as plans for managing the samples developed, NASA came under pressure from space biologists and the U.S. Public Health Service to protect earth against the introduction of alien microorganisms that might exist in lunar soil. What would have been a small laboratory designed to protect lunar samples against contamination grew into an elaborate, expensive quarantine facility that greatly complicated operations on the early lunar landing missions." (Compton, 1989).

It seems like paranoia, but despite the expense and pain it's a healthy one, in my opinion. There may come a time when such restraint really does save our asses. Being in my late 30's I wonder if it will be in my lifetime, however :-) Rest of it at:

http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/lnews/lnjul94/hist25.htm

-Aaron

I have touched Mars. Repeatedly.

Tucked away in a tiny corner of the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History in Washington, DC, ignored by most visitors, is a small display of a tiny rock.

You can touch this rock.

The description of the rock states that it is a meteorite from Mars that was collected in Antarctica.

In addition there's a NASA initiative called COSMIC that I remember subscribing to Back In The Day. According to the links I've found, it looks like COSMIC still has some legs.

There is a big difference between Europe and the US and their need for cars. There is no where in Western Europe that equates to the United States west of the Mississippi River. If you question that take a look at this image.

Maybe because it's freaking NASA?

What's that have anything to do with it?

NASA has an OSI approved license:

• NASA Open Source License

It could probably be easier to find NASA software, and I doubt this particular software would ever be released, but there's lots of NASA software that's been released:

• from Ames
• from Goddard
• from NAS
• ... and whatever stuff's out in the wild that's not being tracked.

There's issues because much of NASA stuff is done as part of grants, and so it's officially owned by the academic / research institution that won the grant ... as such, there might be other NASA funded code that's out there, that you don't know is NASA code... at least one program (AISRP) has started a place to collect software by grantees.

I've been to NASA workshops where there's plenty of code that's being written where people would LOVE to have their software find a broader audience. At the last one, we had an hour debate on if we were allowed to release code as GPL, as that'd place restrictions on the use of the code (that derivative copies have to be open), which should not be done as the software was developed w/ federal money and as such citizens should be free to do whatever they want with it. I think someone was assigned to talk to NASA's legal department and find out what we had to do to release our code.

Maybe because it's freaking NASA?

What's that have anything to do with it?

NASA has an OSI approved license:

• NASA Open Source License

It could probably be easier to find NASA software, and I doubt this particular software would ever be released, but there's lots of NASA software that's been released:

• from Ames
• from Goddard
• from NAS
• ... and whatever stuff's out in the wild that's not being tracked.

There's issues because much of NASA stuff is done as part of grants, and so it's officially owned by the academic / research institution that won the grant ... as such, there might be other NASA funded code that's out there, that you don't know is NASA code... at least one program (AISRP) has started a place to collect software by grantees.

I've been to NASA workshops where there's plenty of code that's being written where people would LOVE to have their software find a broader audience. At the last one, we had an hour debate on if we were allowed to release code as GPL, as that'd place restrictions on the use of the code (that derivative copies have to be open), which should not be done as the software was developed w/ federal money and as such citizens should be free to do whatever they want with it. I think someone was assigned to talk to NASA's legal department and find out what we had to do to release our code.