Slashdot Mirror

What's this? :P

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/n/130 0/2N241770915EFFAUGUP0675L0M1.JPG

Here's the best picture.

Seriously, this Mars rover business is really freakin' cool. It actually has me rooting for a robot, just because these things will not quit.

Here's the actual mission site that has more than just multimedia: http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html The mission status update page is particularly helpful: http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/status.html

Here's the actual mission site that has more than just multimedia: http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html The mission status update page is particularly helpful: http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/status.html

I used to think that there was just NO WAY that R2D2 could take the kind of crap he took and still survive... who'd of thought. Those robots are completely amazing to me. Designed for a 90 day mission, and here we are at over 13 times that number of days. The best part of the mission is all of the fantastic images they have sent. Check them out here

So the site didn't get too many details? Just go to the NASA page... Convienient NASA website

Research into making more efficient and quieter propellers was conducted from the mid-70s to the mid-80s, because of the greater fuel efficiency of propellor-driven aircraft in light of the Arab oil embargo. This research led to the development of the 'propfan', a turboprop engine with wider, swept-back propeller blades. The Advanced Turboprop Project at NASA's Lewis Research Center's developed engine and propeller designs that would spark a resurgence of the turboprop era, but socio-economic factors -- primarily driven by a reduction in fuel costs, reducing the perception of any need for immediate and radical fuel conservation -- kept the new designs from making more than a peripheral entry to the aviation market. Many modern turboprop aircraft use propellers incorporating advances developed by the ATP, and the research contributed to the development of the high-bypass turbofan jet engines used in most modern airliners, but there was no significant return to the use of turboprop aircraft in commercial aviation. Research has continued, with some engine designs becoming more exotic, as in this image or this one, but commercial applications of the research continue to use ducted fan designs, such as the newest UHB (ultra-high bypass) turbofan designs. The designs produced by this research, however, bear sufficient similarities to the screw design in the satellite photo that it is clear that the same overall design considerations apply, subject to the differences in density, viscosity, and compressibility of the driving medium in each design case.

Research into making more efficient and quieter propellers was conducted from the mid-70s to the mid-80s, because of the greater fuel efficiency of propellor-driven aircraft in light of the Arab oil embargo. This research led to the development of the 'propfan', a turboprop engine with wider, swept-back propeller blades. The Advanced Turboprop Project at NASA's Lewis Research Center's developed engine and propeller designs that would spark a resurgence of the turboprop era, but socio-economic factors -- primarily driven by a reduction in fuel costs, reducing the perception of any need for immediate and radical fuel conservation -- kept the new designs from making more than a peripheral entry to the aviation market. Many modern turboprop aircraft use propellers incorporating advances developed by the ATP, and the research contributed to the development of the high-bypass turbofan jet engines used in most modern airliners, but there was no significant return to the use of turboprop aircraft in commercial aviation. Research has continued, with some engine designs becoming more exotic, as in this image or this one, but commercial applications of the research continue to use ducted fan designs, such as the newest UHB (ultra-high bypass) turbofan designs. The designs produced by this research, however, bear sufficient similarities to the screw design in the satellite photo that it is clear that the same overall design considerations apply, subject to the differences in density, viscosity, and compressibility of the driving medium in each design case.

The Voyager uses three computers whose CPUs are RCA 1802. The 1802 was (and still is) made in a rad-hardened ceramic DIP.

You can build your own 1802 computer, thanks to a retro kit, which updates the 1976 Popular Electronics $99 COSMAC Elf project. We built one of these, and chose not to get the full kit, but instead spend months chasing down parts. I'd got for the full kit if I did it again.

Pic here (from a post above) about half way down the page: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/computer s/Ch6-2.html

A 16 bit computer with 128 registers and an 8k memory. Pretty good as in 1977 I was playing Star Trek (simple grid system)on an IBM at uni with 8k. The Voyager was cutting edge at the time.

Actually, they haven't been using 30bps all the way. The transmit rate has been reduced due to the decreasing signal power that is received at earth, but maybe also due to the reduced power output of the RTGs, but have been able to increase it from the planned rates due to upgrades to the receiving equipment.

At Saturn, they were transmitting at 115200 bps, at Jupiter 44800bps, 29900bps at Neptune and 21600bps at Uranus. There are multiple different transmit modes, with varying power requirements and different receiver requirements. The high rates given above were only possible by combining multiple antennas, so in cruise mode, they have to make do with much lower data rates. There's more documentation here, and, while I haven't found anything about the ground station computers that are used, here's an interesting article about the onboard computers of the voyager spacecraft.

Actually, they haven't been using 30bps all the way. The transmit rate has been reduced due to the decreasing signal power that is received at earth, but maybe also due to the reduced power output of the RTGs, but have been able to increase it from the planned rates due to upgrades to the receiving equipment.

At Saturn, they were transmitting at 115200 bps, at Jupiter 44800bps, 29900bps at Neptune and 21600bps at Uranus. There are multiple different transmit modes, with varying power requirements and different receiver requirements. The high rates given above were only possible by combining multiple antennas, so in cruise mode, they have to make do with much lower data rates. There's more documentation here, and, while I haven't found anything about the ground station computers that are used, here's an interesting article about the onboard computers of the voyager spacecraft.

Anyone know if the Voyagers rely on a heartbeat or something? If it's just a receiver I can't see why building a modern backup isn't worthwhile.

They do. First, take a look at

http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/weekly-reports /index.htm

Namely (of the latest one):

Voyager 1 command operations consisted of the uplink of a command loss timer reset on 08/04 [DOY 216/0135z] and CCSL A064 on 08/06 [DOY 218/0236z]. The spacecraft received all commands sent and the CCSL was verified.

Voyager 2 command operations consisted of the uplink of a TLMPRG and a command loss timer reset on 08/06 [DOY 218/1329z]. The spacecraft received all commands sent and the Telemetry Purge proceeded nominally per predicts.

So yeah, they are still uplinking stuff - mostly just command loss timer resets.

What happens if they don't send the timer reset? Well, see

http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/science/thirty.html

If the timer reaches zero, as a result of a command not being received by the spacecraft within the programmed six week duration, the command loss timer will have expired and the Command Loss (CMDLOS) routine will be activated which leads to the initiation of the BML.

The implementation of BML-7 (the seventh BML to be loaded on-board Voyager 2), in conjunction with the baseline sequence, provides this automated protection against loss of command capability. BML-7, with some differences in implementation for the two spacecraft, is loaded on-board both Voyager 1 and 2.

So yeah, if receiver on V-ger gets broken, or the transmitter down here on earth, the ship can continue to still send data down here in a completely autonomous fashion. However, a remote capability is probably a good idea to have if something interesting comes up.

(The link has more details what the "BML" entails).

Anyone know if the Voyagers rely on a heartbeat or something? If it's just a receiver I can't see why building a modern backup isn't worthwhile.

They do. First, take a look at

http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/weekly-reports /index.htm

Namely (of the latest one):

Voyager 1 command operations consisted of the uplink of a command loss timer reset on 08/04 [DOY 216/0135z] and CCSL A064 on 08/06 [DOY 218/0236z]. The spacecraft received all commands sent and the CCSL was verified.

Voyager 2 command operations consisted of the uplink of a TLMPRG and a command loss timer reset on 08/06 [DOY 218/1329z]. The spacecraft received all commands sent and the Telemetry Purge proceeded nominally per predicts.

So yeah, they are still uplinking stuff - mostly just command loss timer resets.

What happens if they don't send the timer reset? Well, see

http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/science/thirty.html

If the timer reaches zero, as a result of a command not being received by the spacecraft within the programmed six week duration, the command loss timer will have expired and the Command Loss (CMDLOS) routine will be activated which leads to the initiation of the BML.

The implementation of BML-7 (the seventh BML to be loaded on-board Voyager 2), in conjunction with the baseline sequence, provides this automated protection against loss of command capability. BML-7, with some differences in implementation for the two spacecraft, is loaded on-board both Voyager 1 and 2.

So yeah, if receiver on V-ger gets broken, or the transmitter down here on earth, the ship can continue to still send data down here in a completely autonomous fashion. However, a remote capability is probably a good idea to have if something interesting comes up.

(The link has more details what the "BML" entails).

The NASA-Site has some pictures of the probe during assembly.

I had the same comment. NASA did not "rebuff" Russia. Since they released the Global Exploration Strategy, NASA has been pretty clear they're interested in international cooperation on the moon.

However, what they don't want is an exploration plan where our program becomes largely dependent upon other nations ability to meet their original committments. As a result, they're not looking to cooperate specifically on the Constellation program. NASA wants to develop the Constellation, get some actual hardware on the moon, then invite cooperation from other nations to assist in utilizing the outpost to its fullest potential. This could include not only sending their astronauts, but also their own exploration hardware, laboratory equipment, experiments, and even life support as desired. It would leave open the option for them to use our rockets or develop their own.

This, admittedly, tend to minimize the role of international partners compared to the International Space Station. However, it also somewhat avoids the sort of problems the ISS had when the Shuttle was grounded and Russia had to step up flights to support it, or prior to that, when the other nations were struggling to get their hardware completed in time for already completed but dependent hardware to launch. In both cases, some nations goals were being held up while others got in gear.

Russia apparently is hoping not to sit on their heals for 20 years waiting for us to hand them a minor role in developing a lunar base, so they're developing plans of their own. However, I don't think they really have the resources to develop a complete lunar program, which is part of the motivation for the Global Exploration Strategy as it now stands. NASA can work on theirs. Russia can work on theirs. At any point they can still share resources if it's beneficial.

Well you oght to read more. Start with this. AVIATION SAFETY REPORTING SYSTEM Section 91.25 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 91.25) prohibits reports filed with NASA from being used for FAA enforcement purposes. This report will not be made available to the FAA for civil penalty or certificate actions for violations of the Federal Air Regulations. Your identity strip, stamped by NASA, is proof that you have submitted a report to the Aviation Safety Reporting System. We can only return the strip to you, however, if you have provided a mailing address. Equally important, we can often obtain additional useful information if our safety analysts can talk with you directly by telephone. For this reason, we have requested telephone numbers where we may reach you. and here is the form. http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/forms/PDF_Files/general.p df

...and while you're at Wikipedia, you might also cruise on over the List of Human Spaceflights.

Among the interesting things you may learn there and in the daughter links is that the space shuttle has flown almost four times as many missions as all other US manned programs combined. It's also 19 flights ahead of the Soyuz count (with the same number of fatal accidents, BTW), and a complete Soyuz TMA with crew could be carried in the cargo bay with room to spare and with a full complement of shuttle astronauts. You will probably also note that the Soviets were interested enough in the idea to further bankrupt themselves by building their own.

In the end anyone should recognize that the shuttle was a compromise and could never be perfect. It was shockingly complicated, yet it also had some capabilities that are unmatched by any other vehicle, like its ability to return large cargo to earth, a 2000 mile cross-range landing capability, and its functionality as a large work platform, which has been utilized in building the ISS, servicing the Hubble, and numerous other missions. Heck, it's even the only launch vehicle capable of getting more than three people into orbit, and it can get them there with over 20 tonnes of cargo without requiring a second launch and a rendezvous.

And it's beautiful to boot!

The criticism is extensive, but it is also controversial. However, the shuttle has had it's time and we got some good use out of it.

They're working on it.

We are in the process if digitizing almost every document ever produced (since the NACA days even). This is a lot more data than you would expect. You can find the publicly available documents at http://ntrs.nasa.gov./ The problem isn't the physical ability to scan documents, but rather the manpower required to verify the images scanned in are accurate and that various pieces of metadata are collected accurately (for example, Author name or Title, which can be found in 100's of places within a document). We are currently processing about 100 documents a day (depending on the number of pages).

I know! I was looking at this the other day: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap990623.html

And that just screams "Portable antenna"

There's no way to grab neutrinos man. The reason there's no interference in neutrino transmission, is because nothing can block it/pick it up.

GLAST , is a new gamma-ray mission which will launch early next year and will have the capability to measure TGFs up to much higher energies -- so we will get to really understand the acceleration mechanism. Both instruments on GLAST are designed to observe the celestial sky, but they have such large fields of view that they can also simultaneously make observations of the Earth for at least some of the time.

The March eclipse was over by moonrise here, but I will be in good shape for the August one. Except that totality is around 0300 local time. :-(

It's quite the show watching Earth's shadow creep across the moon, with the colour contrast betwen the greyish-white moon and Earth's copper-coloured shadow. And, unlike a solar eclipse, you can take your time. The last couple of lunar eclipses here have been relatively bright. The one I saw from Toronto in 2000 was dark, with the moon replaced by this dark, burned-out ash thing in the sky. Quite the sight!

I've only seen one total solar eclipse (29 March 2006, from Turkey). Unlike lunar eclipses, something deep inside us freaks out when the sun goes out during the day. It rattled us, and we knew what was happening; it must have scared the crap out of our ancestors.

...laura

The March eclipse was over by moonrise here, but I will be in good shape for the August one. Except that totality is around 0300 local time. :-(

It's quite the show watching Earth's shadow creep across the moon, with the colour contrast betwen the greyish-white moon and Earth's copper-coloured shadow. And, unlike a solar eclipse, you can take your time. The last couple of lunar eclipses here have been relatively bright. The one I saw from Toronto in 2000 was dark, with the moon replaced by this dark, burned-out ash thing in the sky. Quite the sight!

I've only seen one total solar eclipse (29 March 2006, from Turkey). Unlike lunar eclipses, something deep inside us freaks out when the sun goes out during the day. It rattled us, and we knew what was happening; it must have scared the crap out of our ancestors.

...laura

There is better coverage of this eclipse and others at NASA's eclipse page.

There is better coverage of this eclipse and others at NASA's eclipse page.

I think you guys are missing the point. The void correlates with a cold spot within the CMB. The CMB is not supposed to have artifacts. It's supposed to be unrelated to the items between us and it. When you find a relation, that would tend to suggest that the CMB may have a more local source -- which actually threatens the primary proof for the Big Bang in the first place.

What most people on Slashdot do not realize is that the evidence for EU Theory spans multiple disciplines while simultaneously maintaining internal consistency across completely unrelated fields. It's going to take decades for people to realize and accept this. We are at the very beginning of a transition point.

That said, the impending close-up's of Enceladus could really turn some heads. Enceladus has a cometary tail of sorts, which is enigmatic to NASA because the only mechanism they know of lifting that material up into the atmosphere is ice geysers resulting from tidal heating. The problem is that the tidal heating appears to only be restricted to the southern hemisphere. So, I believe that Cassini is capturing images right about now of this mysterious uplift of material. NASA will quite certainly find that the material is being uplifted along the Tiger Stripe rilles that criss-cross that planet, as a result of electrical machining. The explanation is here:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0603 13moonjets.htm

What's pretty silly, actually, is that if you watch NASA's video of Enceladus' jet, and focus on the shadow line during the animation, you will very clearly observe the jets remain stationary as the planetary features rotate ...

http://www.nasa.gov/mov/139185main_PIA07762_full_m ovie.mov

It should be very obvious if we're seeing more electrical plasma activity in our solar system because the arc points should be very hot point sources -- unlike any of NASA's preferred theories. My guess is that they will have to advocate the existence of wandering hot ice geysers! People are paying so little attention these days that, to be honest, I suspect they could get away with it.

But what's also really silly about this whole thing is their response to the observation that Enceladus' poles are warmer than its equator. This is not all that unusual within EU Theory, and they've seen it before on other planets and moons where the plasmas are electrically active. There's a lot of strong evidence that something similar used to even be true for Earth -- explaining why we see things like croc bones and ancient coral reefs at nearly all latituides of the Earth for past ages of the Earth. After a while, one would think they would stop being surprised by these sorts of things.

Photons of the CMB gain a small amount of energy when they pass through normal regions of space with matter, the researchers explained. But when the CMB passes through a void, the photons lose energy, making the CMB from that part of the sky appear cooler.

The Universe is filled with conglomerations of galaxies called clusters that are millions of light years across, consisting of hundreds or thousands of galaxies held together by gravity. Mostly clusters have atmospheres of very hot gas that we can see because of the X-rays they emit. Sunyaev and Zeldovich realized that something interesting happens when a CMBR photon passes through such a cluster. There is a good chance that it will collide with one of the electrons in the hot atmosphere. In the process, some photons would gain energy while others would lose energy. At microwave radio frequencies, they predicted, the intensity of the CMBR would appear to be depleted in the direction of the cluster because the photons would be "scattered" to other frequencies outside the microwave frequency band. This process is called the Sunyaev-Zeldovich Effect.

[...]

Typically, the deficit in the CMBR is only 0.05% of the cosmic microwave background intensity. Detecting these small perturbations requires lots of observing time and painstaking data reduction.

"Or you could just Download http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/Worldwind" - not if you're not a Windows user...

Or you could just Download http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/Worldwind which has all that built in and is (IMO) a bit better for some types of things (I particularly like the USGS maps, which are pretty darn spiffy when tracking certain kinds of data like where an oil line is buried on your property.)

Not complaining about Google earth BTW - I use it for other stuff.

Pug

Except that a preliminary Mars mission profile says that one possible mission is a short stay, 30 to 90 days. Now, you might ask why you'd go all that way and not stay longer, but realize that we'll be landing on a world we've never been to (not counting robotic probes) and while we are confident we understand the environment, we don't know how much conditions on Mars will differ from simulations. It will important for the first mission to be long enough to justify the expense while at the same time short enough that the astronauts can return and impart what they've learned to the colleagues, to allow for better mission planning, simulation, and training.

The same thing occured with the Moon landings. Neil and Buzz were only on the surface a little over two hours, for the reason that the information they needed to gather in that time was more important than exploration of the Moon's surface and they wanted to ensure that there were sufficient resources available in case of trouble. The first landing on the Moon was a test to ensure that the training and procedures would allow a crew to get down and back up successfully. Mars will be a bigger risk, so landing and then leaving immediately would be expensive and counter-productive, but NASA managers won't want to stay any longer than necessary to minimize the potential risks.

I remember seeing a 3D Java app from some NASA (or some NASA-related website) where you could view, in simulated real-time, the position of all the known satellites that are currently orbiting the Earth. It included the ISS, and Mir before it was brought down. I wonder if Google has any plan to incorporate that kind of thing into their application. It would be pretty cool if I could zoom into my house, and see (real-time if possible) what satellites were passing over my house just by zooming out enough.

Here is a link to the NASA site you are talking about.

Even Google does this, it would only be civilian satellites. I doubt the US government would be happy if Al Queda or whomever could log on to Google Earth and see when there are no spy satellites overhead.

I wonder if any satellite enthusiasts have "reverse engineered" where these satellites are. The fact is that these things are in the sky for all to see with a telescope at least in theory. How much can you really camouflage a satellite? Even if they make use of stealth technology, I would think they'd still be optically visible. With the cost it takes to build one and put it up in the sky, they are built for long-term use, which generally means great big solar panels, which are hard to hide.

Food for thought anyway...

I once read that the strength of this incredibly weak signal was not the problem. After doing a search, I discovered that it is indeed the decaying (pun intended) power supply and not the communication signal that will become the problem when it comes to communicating with those probes in decades/centuries to come:

"* Barring any serious spacecraft subsystem failures, the Voyagers may survive until the early twenty-first century (~ 2020), when diminishing power and hydrazine levels will prevent further operation. Were it not for these dwindling consumables and the possibility of losing lock on the faint Sun, our tracking antennas could continue to "talk" with the Voyagers for another century or two!"

http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/didyouknow.htm l

Speaking of Voyager, anyone who hasn't heard it should check out Blind Willie Johnson's recording of "Dark was the Night", which was one of the sound recordings put on board the Voyager.

In my estimation, it is one of the least heard and best treasures of American music.

Imagine that a song composed a man, blinded by his own mother and completely racially unaccepted at the time, hurtles through space at tens of thousands of miles per hour. We might not have respected him while he was alive, but just maybe this is a fitting tribute.

However, their longevity is a testament to 70's electronics. If these were made with components of today, they probably would of failed decades ago.

It's not millions of miles per gallons. Launching costs quite a bit of fuel:

"Voyager's fuel efficiency (in terms of mpg) is quite impressive. Even though most of the launch vehicle's 700 ton weight is due to rocket fuel, Voyager 2's great travel distance of 7.1 billion km (4.4 billion mi) from launch to Neptune results in a fuel economy of about 13,000 km per liter (30,000 mi per gallon). As Voyager 2 streaks by Neptune and coasts out of the solar system, this economy will get better and better!"

From the page I also mentioned in an earlier reply to this news item:
http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/didyouknow.htm l :)

The Voyagers belong somewhere in the top of the list with the most amazing machines ever developed by humans.

Every time I see the "Interesting Facts about the Voyager Mission" page [1] and "Fast Facts" page [2] at NASA's JPL, I am just amazed that this was achieved with technology from the early '70s!

I often find myself wishing that I was born earlier and that I was part of the team of man and women who pushed so many of our frontiers so much further then ever before.

*raises glass*

To the Voyagers! [3]

[1] http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/didyouknow.htm l
[2] http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/fastfacts.html
[3] Voyager 1 will celebrate it's 30th anniversary on september 5th, so let's celebrate both achievements ;)

The Voyagers belong somewhere in the top of the list with the most amazing machines ever developed by humans.

Every time I see the "Interesting Facts about the Voyager Mission" page [1] and "Fast Facts" page [2] at NASA's JPL, I am just amazed that this was achieved with technology from the early '70s!

I often find myself wishing that I was born earlier and that I was part of the team of man and women who pushed so many of our frontiers so much further then ever before.

*raises glass*

To the Voyagers! [3]

[1] http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/didyouknow.htm l
[2] http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/fastfacts.html
[3] Voyager 1 will celebrate it's 30th anniversary on september 5th, so let's celebrate both achievements ;)

It is unlikely that a rescue would have been possible. It would've required extreme fast-tracking of one of the other shuttles

SCENE 1-A. Setting: RUSSIAN GARAGE OFFICE.

SOUND FX: Telephone RINGING, then PHONE HANDSET CLATTERING while being PICKED UP.

GRUFF RUSSIAN VOICE: (into phone) Privyet!

VOICE-OVER, HOT-SOUNDING RUSSIAN FEMALE: Shh, eet's America calling!

GRUFF RUSSIAN VOICE: Zis ees Russki space tahksi sorvice.

SOUND FX: Incomprehensible BUZZING that is MALE VOICE on other end of line, a nasaly American counterpoint to GRUFF RUSSIAN VOICE.

GRUFF RUSSIAN VOICE: Do we go ISS? Da.

SOUND FX: Northeastern-accented American MALE VOICE BUZZING

GRUFF RUSSIAN VOICE: Heavy lift? You want Soyuz. For Soyuz need one week notice and deposit.

SOUND FX: BUZZING with tones of general agreement

GRUFF RUSSIAN VOICE: Okee, 10% to start, will be ready Tuesday - spaseebah. Uvidimsia!"

VOICE-OVER, HOT-SOUNDING RUSSIAN FEMALE: Need sputnik trooked eento orrbeet? Want toor of inner asteroid belt? Stranded in space? Energia!

Scientists get grant money by analyzing data and publishing the results, not spending the effort to make the raw data publicly available.

The original catastrophic failure statistics were supposed to be between one in 10,000 and 1 in 100,000. This is how the program was sold - a fleet of 8 shuttles with a launch a week, with a very low risk of loss during the life of the program. Real life is another story - total failure odds worse than 1 in 100, and turn-around times that are ludicrous and costly (nearly half a billion - disposables would be cheaper).

NASA also originally projected (1976) up to 75 flights a year ... for 10 to 12 years. Here's what the program looked like back in 1980 - a financial disaster. Read about the problems with ice and the tiles, and all the other bugaboos. The Saturn 5 could have outdone the shuttle in every way - cost per mission, payload to LEO (5-1/2x as much). Heck, the Saturn V could put twice as much in orbit around the MOON than the shuttle can put into earth orbit.

Everyone in the space community admits that the shuttles were a waste of money, draining funding from all other areas.

I followed your links. If you note here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/sta tion_list.txt
Wickenburg is listed as a "rural" station (It's near Phoenix):

---ID---- Legend: R/S/U=rural/sm.town/urban A/B/C=dark/dim/bright cc=country-code brightness-index
722780090 WICKENBURG lat,lon (.1deg) 340 -1127 R3C cc=425 16

Here are some nice photos of the "rural" Wickenburg station:

http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_ite mId=1610

Does this look rural to you? See any problems? I will help you out. It's next to a building, blacktop, and HUGE air conditioners. This totally violates the guidelines for locating a station.

So here we have a bad (they think it's good?) "rural" station that is likely/possibly/who knows? used to adjust the Phoenix/Tucson temps.

Now, smart guy, follow your own link and _show_ me how this "rural" station was/wasn't used to correct the Phoenix and Tucson urban temps. You can't, because the detail on exactly what individual adjustments were made is not there. Go ahead, prove me wrong!

-SlashNut

P.S.
The mod system SUCKS here at Slashdot. The parent should NOT be a 5. Just pointing people at a dump of lots of INCOMPLETE data doesn't prove your point. Replies that point this out are modded 0 or 1.

Data from all sites (urban *and* rural) are adjusted so that their trends conform to the mean of the *rural* stations in the neighborhood (nominally within 500 km -- this may be extended if too few rural stations are found within 500 km). So rural sites whose long-term trends run lower then the mean trend will be adjusted upward; rural sites with trends exceeding the local mean will have their trends adjusted downward. There's absolutely no mystery or intrigue here; it's all very straightforward. I refer you to Hansen's paper (available at http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_et al.pdf). for the details.

Repost of my AC post:

Lots of data at NCDC.

Simple interactive Java climate model JCM5.

3D general circulation model EdGCM (based on NASA GISS Model II, state of the art in 1983 and what James Hansen himself used in his famous 1988 testimony to Congress).

For more modern and advanced models ... they're not so easy for laymen to run themselves, but ...

There are a variety of Earth System Models of Intermediate Complexity (EMICs) which are not fully 3D models but represent a lot of physics and don't require a supercomputer. One such is UVic; there are many more (here).

You can even get full blown state of the art GCMs which run on supercomputers, like NASA GISS Model E or NCAR CCSM, but expect to run them for most of a year to get any kind of result ...

I've hit my 30 comment limit so I have to post anonymously, but:

Lots of data at NCDC.

Simple interactive Java climate model JCM5.

3D general circulation model EdGCM (based on NASA GISS Model II, state of the art in 1983 and what James Hansen himself used in his famous 1988 testimony to Congress).

For more modern and advanced models ... they're not so easy for laymen to run themselves, but ...

There are a variety of Earth System Models of Intermediate Complexity (EMICs) which are not fully 3D models but represent a lot of physics and don't require a supercomputer. One such is UVic; there are many more (here).

You can even get full blown state of the art GCMs which run on supercomputers, like NASA GISS Model E or NCAR CCSM, but expect to run them for most of a year to get any kind of result ...

For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.

. . . . . — Richard P. Feynman, Appendix F - Personal observations on the reliability of the Shuttle