Slashdot Mirror

The ambient air temperature at launch was 36 degrees Fahrenheit measured at ground level approximately 1,000 feet from the 51-L mission launch pad 39B. This temperature was 15 degrees colder than that of any previous launch. (emphasis added)

One rumor was that plans had been made to have a live communication hookup with the 51-L crew during the State of the Union Message. Commission investigators interviewed all of the persons who would have been involved in a hookup if one had been planned, and all stated unequivocally that there was no such plan. Furthermore, to give the crew time to become oriented, NASA does not schedule a communication for at least 48 hours after the launch and no such communication was scheduled in the case of flight 51-L.

The ambient air temperature at launch was 36 degrees Fahrenheit measured at ground level approximately 1,000 feet from the 51-L mission launch pad 39B. This temperature was 15 degrees colder than that of any previous launch. (emphasis added)

One rumor was that plans had been made to have a live communication hookup with the 51-L crew during the State of the Union Message. Commission investigators interviewed all of the persons who would have been involved in a hookup if one had been planned, and all stated unequivocally that there was no such plan. Furthermore, to give the crew time to become oriented, NASA does not schedule a communication for at least 48 hours after the launch and no such communication was scheduled in the case of flight 51-L.

... implying that they should have been able to see it coming. It's easy to talk like that afterwards but obviously they did not know or it wouldn't have happened.

Thankfully we have the knowledge and insight of others than you, oh clueless twit. People like Dr. Richard Feynman, who contributed his fine analytical skills to the investigative commission. You should read the Rogers Commission report. It's very lucid. The prose is not turgid nor impenetrably technical.

It is absolutely incontrovertible that the engineers saw the specific danger. They were overruled by managers who had built a wall of denial. Everyone who paid any casual attention whatsoever to the investigation knows this.

Doesn't prove anything but when scientists start getting publically political it is suspicious.

The Titan seals had a single O-ring that was manually seated on assembly. The O-ring did not depend on the ignition transient pressure wave to seat it.

As, you say, the clevis faced down on the Titan, discouraging entry of moisture into the joint - in the SRBs the clevis faced upwards.

The Titan joint was simple and reliable, the SRB field joint was anything but.

The article was written by someone who hadn't bothered to read the Rogers Commission Report - http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/ docs/rogers-commission/table-of-contents.html

Pathetic.

One: As to your resigning, cheers. It's one thing to bitch about a problem, it's quite another to put one's job on the line (or in your case, take it off line). There appear to be many /.ers who casually say how the engineers in question should have walked off the job, not allowed the launch, etc., when in fact, it is never quite so easy. I hope you have the good fortune to soon work for a firm that appreciates and respects your integrity, and I hope you sleep easier at night.

Two: As for the specs, the boosters were OUT of the original spec, which said that there should be NO burn-off of the O-rings, as they were supposedly completely sealed from the combustion chamber by a ring of putty. Unfortunately, for reasons unknown, the putty would develop holes which would allow hot gas to escape and start to erode away the O-rings, as revealed by post flight inspections. Did they track down the cause? Not really, but then they came up with a nice empirically derived curve of the O-ring burn depth that was fitted to the data points, and concluded since the average burn depth was 1/3 of the amount needed to cause O-ring failure, they had a safety factor of 3. I kid you not. Here is the link, on NASA's web site, of the appendix to the Rodgers report by Richard Feynman, who gives the most lucid explanation of what safety oriented engineering should be, and how NASA disregarded it.

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/ docs/rogers-commission/Appendix-F.txt

Decide for yourself whether it's an appropriate lecture for a climate scientist to give: here

Obviously this wasn't a big enough motivation and it should be a wake up call for anyone who trusts that a contractor or engineer will tell you that there is something wrong with a product on their own.

Spoken like a true non-engineer. It was at the urging of Nasa officials that the launch was approved to take place. Here's a quote from the Nasa website relating the facts that you have conveniently overlooked in your rush to condemn engineers and manufacturers:

However, in a closed meeting at the Kennedy Space Center on February 14, Commission members were "visibly disturbed" to learn that engineers from the firm that manufactured the SRM, Morton Thiokol Inc., had the night before recommended against launching Challenger in the cold temperatures predicted for the next morning; that their managers, at the apparent urging of NASA officials from the Marshall Space Flight Center, had overruled their recommendation; and that more senior NASA managers responsible for the launch commit decision were unaware of this contentious interaction. --bold added

There's nothing insightful about the parent post, except for the insight gained into the readiness of some to unfairly accuse an entire profession they know nothing about of what basically amounts to murder. I'd like to know what the parent poster's motivations are, other than to try to sound cool on slashdot.

Anybody ever heard of this club? I guess it's the space version of the "mile high club." I'm reading "Ask the Astronomer" and it was in there.

What for? To make sure that french-canadian astronaut Julie Payette does not go in Space.

This hot bitch screwed her way all the way up the Canadian Space Agency hierarchy, and the astronaut wives sur did not want their husbands to screw with that hot bitch in space.

So, Julie Payette was grounded by NASA management, and it took a personal phone call to Bill Clinton from canadian prime minister Jean Chrétin to restore her flight status: "she's a woman, she's french, so she has to go up, sacrament!". Of course, screwing in space was definitely something that Clinton would not feel uninterested about, so he made sure that the little slut could fly up there, where she undoubtely screwed with some ass-tro-nuts.

The source? The sister-in-law of another canadian astro-nut.

I'm sorry, but where do you get "PAWS" from Public Awareness of Science and Engineering? Shouldn't that be "PASE"? There should be more stringeant (sic) rules for making acronyms!

Strangely enough, the actual last word on the black-box recorder was "Uhoh". NASA has put together an excellent page documenting the accident.

Strangely enough, the actual last word on the black-box recorder was "Uhoh". NASA has put together an excellent page documenting the accident.

A lot of us in Florida watched it live with a Mark 1 Eyeball. It was routine to watch the TV coverage and wait for the main engines to fire then step outside to watch the launch. This is from the Orlando area about 50 miles from the coast so the view is pretty good.

I remember watching it go and then seeing it explode, at least that is what it looked like, and watching the boosters continue to climb and start to twist. I ran back inside and grabbed a camera to take a picture.

What amazed me is that instead of building a better system they continued to use the shuttle system. I had hoped that by now we would be using single stage to orbit vehicles with powered decent. One promising system was scrapped, believe it was the delta clipper. They had a 1/3 scaled down version actually flying. The last test flight they had a problem with the landing gear and it tipped over. The scaled down version did not go to orbit but had proven the take off and landing capabilities. Found this link to this vehicle. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/x-33/dc-xa.htm

It is a shame they did not continue the development of this system. It has several successful take offs and landings and could have been developed to the full scale system. But instead we are going to go back to the throw away rockets and capsule recovery systems used back in the 60's. Let's hope that one of the commercial space companies will do what NASA and the government have been unwilling to do, build a reliable and finacially feasible system for getting off the planet. Earth orbit is good for a start. From there we can jump to the Moon or other places in the system.

The transcript of the crew's last transmitted words.

From Nasa.gov: This is a transcript of the Challenger operational recorder voice tape. It reveals the comments of Commander Francis R.Scobee, Pilot Michael J. Smith, Mission Specialist 1 Ellison S. Onizuka, and Mission Specialist 2 Judith A. Resnik for the period of T-2:05 prior to launch through approximately T+73 seconds when loss of all data occurred.

I've read this twice today since it was on Fark about 8 hours ago and I have a problem with Mister Oberg's story.

From Encyclopedia Astronautica - http://www.astronautix.com/flights/sts51l.htm
"At this point in its trajectory, while traveling at a Mach number of 1.92 at an altitude of 46,000 feet, the Challenger was totally enveloped in the explosive burn. The Challenger's reaction control system ruptured and a hypergolic burn of its propellants occurred as it exited the oxygen-hydrogen flames. The reddish brown colors of the hypergolic fuel burn are visible on the edge of the main fireball. The Orbiter, under severe aerodynamic loads, broke into several large sections which emerged from the fireball. Separate sections that can be identified on film include the main engine/tail section with the engines still burning, one wing of the Orbiter, and the forward fuselage trailing a mass of umbilical lines pulled loose from the payload bay.
The Explosion 73 seconds after liftoff claimed crew and vehicle. Cause of explosion was determined to be an O-ring failure in right SRB. Cold weather was a contributing factor. Launch Weight: 268,829 lbs. "

From the Commission's Report

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/ docs/rogers-commission/Chapter-3.txt

"At 73.124 seconds,. a circumferential white vapor pattern was observed blooming from the side of the External Tank bottom dome. This was the beginning of the structural failure of hydrogen tank that culminated in the entire aft dome dropping away. This released massive amounts of liquid hydrogen from the tank and created a sudden forward thrust of about 2.8 million pounds, pushing the hydrogen tank upward into the intertank structure. At about the same time, the rotating right Solid Rocket Booster impacted the intertank structure and the lower part of the liquid oxygen tank. These structures failed at 73.137 seconds as evidenced by the white vapors appearing in the intertank region.

Within milliseconds there was massive, almost explosive, burning of the hydrogen streaming from the failed tank bottom and liquid oxygen breach in the area of the intertank.

At this point in its trajectory, while traveling at a Mach number of 1.92 at an altitude of 46,000 feet, the Challenger was totally enveloped in the explosive burn. The Challenger's reaction control system ruptured and a hypergolic burn of its propellants occurred as it exited the oxygen-hydrogen flames. The reddish brown colors of the hypergolic fuel burn are visible on the edge of the main fireball. The Orbiter, under severe aerodynamic loads, broke into several large sections which emerged from the fireball. Separate sections that can be identified on film include the main engine/tail section with the engines still burning, one wing of the Orbiter, and the forward fuselage trailing a mass of umbilical lines pulled loose from the payload bay."

From Mister Oberg's story

"The shuttle did not explode in the common definition of that word. There was no shock wave, no detonation, no "bang" -- viewers on the ground just heard the roar of the engines stop as the shuttle's fuel tank tore apart, spilling liquid oxygen and hydrogen which formed a huge fireball at an altitude of 46,000 ft. (Some television documentaries later added the sound of an explosion to these images.) But both solid-fuel strap-on boosters climbed up out of the cloud, still firing and unharmed by any explosion. Challenger itself was torn apart as it was flung free of the other rocket components and turned broadside into the Mach 2 airstream. Individual propellant tanks were seen exploding -- but by then, the spacecraft was already in pieces."

The Shuttle at that time was made up of the Orbiter, a Fuel Tank and two Solid Rocket Boosters, there was an explosion, so I think Mister Oberg is wrong for saying it did not "explode in the common definition of that word". It blew up.

It should be noted that this past Thursday was NASA's Day of Remembrance. This is in honor of the astronauts who died in all three of America's space accidents -- Apollo I, Challenger, and Columbia -- which all occurred around the last week of January (January 27 - February 1). There's a commemorative page on NASA's site.

That said, I look forward to the day when a spacecraft accident is no more notable than an automobile or airplane accident. The best way to honor our lost astronauts is to make space travel more routine, allowing it to get safer and more accessible through experience.

It should be noted that this past Thursday was NASA's Day of Remembrance. This is in honor of the astronauts who died in all three of America's space accidents -- Apollo I, Challenger, and Columbia -- which all occurred around the last week of January (January 27 - February 1). There's a commemorative page on NASA's site.

That said, I look forward to the day when a spacecraft accident is no more notable than an automobile or airplane accident. The best way to honor our lost astronauts is to make space travel more routine, allowing it to get safer and more accessible through experience.

The Sun experiences cycles of activity that range from eight to 17 years, with 11 years being the average.

Short cycles are linked with periods of high-energy output, while long cycles are believed to be low energy.

We have just come out of a relatively average cycle indicating that the suns output has been no higher than usual

. Not only that but we're at the bottom of the trough right now - Solar flare intensity would have been higher in about 2002/02

It's not El nino/nina or the Sun itself. So what do you propose it is ? - Santa Clause

Sadly, by the time we get the type of convincing Scientific proof you need (when your ass starts the catch fire maybe!), it will be too late by then, and there will be almost nothing we can do about it.

I hope you like wearing sun block!!

so using a single data point to "prove" that "global-warmers are idiots" for using a single data point implies you are what exactly? Thank you. Yeah, perhaps I shouldn't have given any thought of my concern, perhaps then I wouldn't have been called an idiot? I suppose point to the fact that 2005 Was the Hottest Year on Record (a report by NASA) makes me what...a retard? Ah, I love how everybody on the internet is smarter than the original poster! Thanks for your support.

and here are mine..
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImage s/images.php3?img_id=10856
http://www.nichols.edu/departments/glacier/glacier _retreat.htm
an interesting dilemma indeed. All we can conclude is that there is a change afoot.

B.

Don't miss slides 31 and 32.

The IPCC Report is not really a scientific study, it's a meta study, a study of studies.

The problem with this approach is it tends towards argumentum ad populum which basically means if enough people believe in something it must be true which is not at all how science works.

Wein's displacement law gives Earth's radation peak in the infrared region at about 10 micrometers. H20 makes up 2% (50 times more than CO2) of the amosphere and has a much higher reflectivity in the 10 micromenter region.

As water vapor, H2O has a positive feedback causing further "warming" but when it forms clouds it has a negative "cooling" affect. So there's a least one model than suggests CO2 will cool the Earth. Also, more clouds means more rain which means more plants which means less CO2. So it's quite possible for the Earth to self regulate itself.

I'm not saying CO2 isn't a problem but what the IPCC has done is to take the worse possible senario out of a whole bunch of other options.

Don't forget, CO2 makes up only 0.04% of the atmosphere and over 90% of CO2 came from natural, non anthropogenic sources.

There's also some evidence that about 30% of the 8 gigatons of annual CO2 can be accounted for by forest fires

Let's not even get into volcanic activity.

This is a really neat demonstration of the power of microlensing for planet finding. Though it's not the first, nor even the second, planet to be found this way (see for example http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0505451 and http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0505451), it really does show how microlensing can find small planets pretty far away from their host stars. It'll be a very good technique for determining the frequency of planets as small as the Earth. As for finding life on the microlensing discovered planets (using the future Terrestrial Planet Finder mission [http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/TPF/tpf_index.cfm ] for example to search for biosignatures in their spectra), it'll be very difficult. The majority of these planets are going to be very far away from us (where there is the highest probability of finding a lens) and, by selection, they're going to have a second bright star very close by on the sky that will be difficult to coronagraph out. The microlensing planets are really all going to be one-shot deals where you have no hope of following them up in the foreseeable future. I think planets found by transits (the upcoming Kepler mission [http://kepler.nasa.gov/]) or by astrometry (the upcoming Space Interferometry Mission [http://sim.jpl.nasa.gov/]) will be much better bets for searching for life.

This is a really neat demonstration of the power of microlensing for planet finding. Though it's not the first, nor even the second, planet to be found this way (see for example http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0505451 and http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0505451), it really does show how microlensing can find small planets pretty far away from their host stars. It'll be a very good technique for determining the frequency of planets as small as the Earth. As for finding life on the microlensing discovered planets (using the future Terrestrial Planet Finder mission [http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/TPF/tpf_index.cfm ] for example to search for biosignatures in their spectra), it'll be very difficult. The majority of these planets are going to be very far away from us (where there is the highest probability of finding a lens) and, by selection, they're going to have a second bright star very close by on the sky that will be difficult to coronagraph out. The microlensing planets are really all going to be one-shot deals where you have no hope of following them up in the foreseeable future. I think planets found by transits (the upcoming Kepler mission [http://kepler.nasa.gov/]) or by astrometry (the upcoming Space Interferometry Mission [http://sim.jpl.nasa.gov/]) will be much better bets for searching for life.

This is a really neat demonstration of the power of microlensing for planet finding. Though it's not the first, nor even the second, planet to be found this way (see for example http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0505451 and http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0505451), it really does show how microlensing can find small planets pretty far away from their host stars. It'll be a very good technique for determining the frequency of planets as small as the Earth. As for finding life on the microlensing discovered planets (using the future Terrestrial Planet Finder mission [http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/TPF/tpf_index.cfm ] for example to search for biosignatures in their spectra), it'll be very difficult. The majority of these planets are going to be very far away from us (where there is the highest probability of finding a lens) and, by selection, they're going to have a second bright star very close by on the sky that will be difficult to coronagraph out. The microlensing planets are really all going to be one-shot deals where you have no hope of following them up in the foreseeable future. I think planets found by transits (the upcoming Kepler mission [http://kepler.nasa.gov/]) or by astrometry (the upcoming Space Interferometry Mission [http://sim.jpl.nasa.gov/]) will be much better bets for searching for life.

alas, poor pixar! i knew him, horatio.

So... how long before the forces of ennui at Disney get to Steve and John, driving them out like Roy? How long before Pixar films are littered with the dumb, ultra-hip Disney characters populate the films?

The mass of the Moon is ~7,349,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms.

To cart away even one millionth of one percent of the moon would require staggering amounts of energy. By the time we're dealing with that kind of energy, if we ever can (which I have my doubts about, at least in any way that would be useful for this task), I think we will be able to deal with the consequences.

Are you worried about whether if we do too much mining, we'll run out of crust on the Earth? Worrying about the Moon's mass is even sillier, since while there may be less moon, you're talking about actually removing the mass, something Earth mines don't have to do.

You'd also be talking about cosmic levels of heat here, because said "staggering amounts of energy" can't just disappear. Assuming you're talking about moving bits of the Moon to Earth (and not just flinging it uselessly into space) since the Earth is lower in a gravity well, all the mass will pick up the difference in gravitational potential between the Earth and the Moon, 100% in heat (since it won't move on the surface of the Earth, at least not for long). If you moved any cosmically significant amount of the Moon to the Earth, you'd make the surface of the Earth incandescent. (The exact temperature would vary depending on how much mass you're talking, but if you want to have some fun, take the gravitational potential difference of 1% of the mass of the moon, compute how much energy that is, then see how much heat that would add. It's a Big Number.) Until such time as Mankind is so powerful as to be able to revoke the laws of conservation of energy, at which point you can't predict effects anyhow, no significant amount of the Moon is going to get to Earth, at least not with a biosphere on Earth left to care.

I didn't realise the relationship between the 'strength' of a force, and the distance over which it can act.

Does this mean that there is an absolute maximum distance that a virtual particle can travel?

I always assumed that, say, the strong nuclear force did exist past its short range, it just wasn't strong enough to hold the protons in a nucleus together, or even to be easily detectible.

I'm not an expert in particle physics either, but here's what I know:

Is not one of the big problems with "gravitons" that gravity appears to act more or less instantaneously at great distances? And isn't that a little troubling from the "Action at a Distance is Big No-No" point of view?

No, according to the theories gravitons would travel at the speed of light. In fact, bear in mind that the exchange of virtual particles is what prevents "action at a distance", if you like. Instead of gravity (or magnetism) having an effect "just because", the theory explains that it is because virtual particles are flying back and forth between the two objects in question. In the case of gravity, it is virtual gravitons, and in the case of magnetism, it is virtual photons. Both travel at the speed of light, which explains why force effects (like gravity and magnetic fields) are not instantaneous: they propagate at the speed of light (this has been measured and is not in dispute).

Pioneer 10 is pretty damned far out there at this point.

Apparently Pioneer 10 is 89 AU from the sun. 90 Astronomical Units is 12 light-hours. Still, your point is well-taken... gravity operates over distances of millions and even billions of light-years... so how can these "virtual gravitons" cover such distances? After all, supposedly virtual particles exist only for a short time!

My apologies to the hard-core particle physicists for this simplistic explanation, but here goes: When you look at the Heisenberg Indeterminacy Principle, you find that there is a relation between space and momentum. We all know the famous "the more accurately you localize a particle, the more spread out its velocity is"... it turns out that this implies a similar relation for energy and time. What it means is that high-energy particles can "pop into existence" for very short periods of time... but low-energy particles could exist for longer times. This is what allows virtual particles to do their thing. Very strong forces (nuclear forces and electromagnetic) involve high-energy virtual particles, which can only travel short distances before "disappearing"... that's why those forces operate over short distances.

But gravity is very very weak (by comparison). So that means that a virtual graviton can pop into existence, and travel for a long distance and time (millions of years) before disappearing. That's what, in fact, causes gravity to operate over such vast distances. So in fact the distance-scales and force intensities are intrinsicaly related in quantum treatments. So "a short time" means something different for EM-forces and gravity-forces.

I hope this (simplistic) explanation is somewhat useful to someone.

So if we can't even clean up some small space junk hundreds of kilometers from Earth, what makes people think they have even a remote chance of diverting an asteroid?

No doubt the problems are different, but discouraging none the less.

http://impact.arc.nasa.gov/
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0726/p01s04-stss.htm l

Clementine indicated that there may be water ice on the moon; however, this was not confirmed by the later impact of Lunar Prospector, so further investigation will be needed. Mars Express indicated that there is very probably water on Mars - in the polar icecaps, and in subsurface permafrost.

Before constructing a manned infrastructure that relies on these supplies, we'd need to confirm their availability by dedicated robot probe, but there's certainly good reason to think that the water is there.

On Side A of the collector, the particles are from the comet. On Side B of the collector, the particles are from the cruise phase so that would be interstellar particles. However, none of this was "space junk".

So I was correct 2 out of 3 times.

See the Press Kit on the Stardust mission

What steps has NASA taken to isolate the collected sample before analysis?
 

Don't worry, NASA's Planetary Protection Officer is on guard, protecting

"all of the planets, all of the time".

Scientific Amercian ran a story several years ago about this. One of the pet theories at the time was that periodic extinctions (which haven't been proven periodic) were caused by objects like comets getting kicked out of the Oort every now and then which could in turn be explained by just such a neighbor star. Nasa has a (very short) page here: Imagine the Universe

Thanks for your replies. Here's another link, same description as the above article, but instead of 99.8% air it states 99.8% empty space - I interpreted the "air" too literally (of course, most of an atom is empty space but anyway).

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stardust/spacecr aft/aerogel-index.html

Awhile back I worked with a researcher who was looking at something similar - Metallic Foams. Cool stuff.

I can't believe I didn't get on either of the name list microchips on this probe. Poot!

I can't believe I didn't get on either of the name list microchips on this probe. Poot!

I can't believe I didn't get on either of the name list microchips on this probe. Poot!

looky here-- it's been done.
http://vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov/er/seh/feather.html

Stardust was an superb mission considering the nice samples and clear images of Wild2 (almost an afterthought). The related mission Genesis has been out of the news after its hard landing, but apparently many of the samples are in good shape, too.

Stardust was an superb mission considering the nice samples and clear images of Wild2 (almost an afterthought). The related mission Genesis has been out of the news after its hard landing, but apparently many of the samples are in good shape, too.

With the success of Stardust, Spirit, Opportunity, and other missions, NASA and JPL are clearly demonstrating that robots are aptly suited for productive space research. Rather than invest in the huge infrastructure required to support our frailty, we should accept that humans are not equipped for interplanetary travel and actively pursue new and imaginative unmanned missions.

BTW, Great job Stardust team. Congratulations! I can't wait to get my invite to help out!

With the success of Stardust, Spirit, Opportunity, and other missions, NASA and JPL are clearly demonstrating that robots are aptly suited for productive space research. Rather than invest in the huge infrastructure required to support our frailty, we should accept that humans are not equipped for interplanetary travel and actively pursue new and imaginative unmanned missions.

BTW, Great job Stardust team. Congratulations! I can't wait to get my invite to help out!

NASA used the newer type of AeroGel to capture the dust particles. For those who don't know, AeroGel is an ultra-low density solid. The NASA AeroGel is an Alumina gel comprised of 99.8% air. The type that NASA used was Nickel-alumina, and they laced it with gadolinium and terbium so that space particles would cause the impact sight to glow under the correct conditions. (Some great photos of the foggy stuft at: http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/photo/aerogel.html)

Apparently, NASA is considering allowing civilians to search for space particulates through the web, scowering over hundreds of thousands of enlarged photographs. Its expected that NASA will announce plans for the program soon.

Interesting links:
http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/webcam.html - NASA Webcam
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature= 1019 - Latest NASA News
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stardust/multime dia/jsc2006e00886.html - When The Capsule First Returned
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/stardust-multimedia.c fm - Podcasts and Videos

NASA used the newer type of AeroGel to capture the dust particles. For those who don't know, AeroGel is an ultra-low density solid. The NASA AeroGel is an Alumina gel comprised of 99.8% air. The type that NASA used was Nickel-alumina, and they laced it with gadolinium and terbium so that space particles would cause the impact sight to glow under the correct conditions. (Some great photos of the foggy stuft at: http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/photo/aerogel.html)

Apparently, NASA is considering allowing civilians to search for space particulates through the web, scowering over hundreds of thousands of enlarged photographs. Its expected that NASA will announce plans for the program soon.

Interesting links:
http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/webcam.html - NASA Webcam
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature= 1019 - Latest NASA News
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stardust/multime dia/jsc2006e00886.html - When The Capsule First Returned
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/stardust-multimedia.c fm - Podcasts and Videos

NASA used the newer type of AeroGel to capture the dust particles. For those who don't know, AeroGel is an ultra-low density solid. The NASA AeroGel is an Alumina gel comprised of 99.8% air. The type that NASA used was Nickel-alumina, and they laced it with gadolinium and terbium so that space particles would cause the impact sight to glow under the correct conditions. (Some great photos of the foggy stuft at: http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/photo/aerogel.html)

Apparently, NASA is considering allowing civilians to search for space particulates through the web, scowering over hundreds of thousands of enlarged photographs. Its expected that NASA will announce plans for the program soon.

Interesting links:
http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/webcam.html - NASA Webcam
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature= 1019 - Latest NASA News
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stardust/multime dia/jsc2006e00886.html - When The Capsule First Returned
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/stardust-multimedia.c fm - Podcasts and Videos

NASA used the newer type of AeroGel to capture the dust particles. For those who don't know, AeroGel is an ultra-low density solid. The NASA AeroGel is an Alumina gel comprised of 99.8% air. The type that NASA used was Nickel-alumina, and they laced it with gadolinium and terbium so that space particles would cause the impact sight to glow under the correct conditions. (Some great photos of the foggy stuft at: http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/photo/aerogel.html)

Apparently, NASA is considering allowing civilians to search for space particulates through the web, scowering over hundreds of thousands of enlarged photographs. Its expected that NASA will announce plans for the program soon.

Interesting links:
http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/webcam.html - NASA Webcam
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature= 1019 - Latest NASA News
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stardust/multime dia/jsc2006e00886.html - When The Capsule First Returned
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/stardust-multimedia.c fm - Podcasts and Videos

NASA used the newer type of AeroGel to capture the dust particles. For those who don't know, AeroGel is an ultra-low density solid. The NASA AeroGel is an Alumina gel comprised of 99.8% air. The type that NASA used was Nickel-alumina, and they laced it with gadolinium and terbium so that space particles would cause the impact sight to glow under the correct conditions. (Some great photos of the foggy stuft at: http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/photo/aerogel.html)

Apparently, NASA is considering allowing civilians to search for space particulates through the web, scowering over hundreds of thousands of enlarged photographs. Its expected that NASA will announce plans for the program soon.

Interesting links:
http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/webcam.html - NASA Webcam
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature= 1019 - Latest NASA News
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stardust/multime dia/jsc2006e00886.html - When The Capsule First Returned
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/stardust-multimedia.c fm - Podcasts and Videos

We could use aerogel.

Perhaps of more relevance, Apollo 15 actually filmed dropping a feather and a hammer on the moon. With no (OK, very, very little) atmosphere, they hit at the same time.