Slashdot Mirror

That first pic is a testimony to the amazing powers of technology. Anybody else see the naked ebay guy in the reflection off the helmet?

By random chance, I happened to see that there's another photo that shows it goes to the video camera they used to film the EVAs:

as11-37-5480.jpg

It's a "corner reflector" - put three mirrors, mutually perpendicular, two on the wall and one on the floor in the corner of a room. Any light shone one one will also reflect off the other two and go straight back the direction it came. The ones put on the Moon by the Apollo astronauts are, IIRC, are a (grossly approximate) one-foot-square array of one-inch corner reflectors.

Google finds some relevant links:

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/MasterCatalog? sc=1971-008C&ex=9

http://www.physics.umd.edu/lecdem/services/demos/d emosl2/l2-44.htm

... and they were released two years ago. :-S

Compare this to this, for example. :-)

Thanks for the answers.

For those interested in learning more about the equipment used.

"The camera equipment carried on the Apollo-11 flight was comprehensive. In addition to the usual TV and small-film cameras on board, there was a special camera for near-distance stereoscopic shots of the moon. And, of course, there were also the cameras which, for this article, are the most important, viz., three Hasselblad 500ELs."

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/als j-hass.html/

Link here

I prefer to look at more majestic things on my monitor, like a visible demonstration of gravity bending space-time.

...and dont forget that a laser was bounced off the moon as well to measure the distance to the moon very accurately and test Einstein's theory of gravity... How did a laser bounce off the mirror placed on the moon if it the moon landing was hoaxed?

I've had pretty good success printing the hi-rez version of these at Ofoto as 8x10s. (Actually I did the B&Ws at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. They look excellent and it only costs a couple of bucks. And since it's all public domain, it's completely legal.

Way better than paying someone else for a print.

Technically, it does not just go into a dive straight down. It does a zero G pushover. This means that the KC-135 starts a high speed climb, as its airspeed starts to decrease, the pilots push forward on the yoke and drop the nose of the aircraft.

Because the aircraft is so big, it takes a while for the nose to go from nose up climb to a nose down decent (not straight down, but a steep angle...45 deg to be exact). During this "pushover", (aka parabolic maneuvers) the pilots monitor their G meter to maintain 0G. Then, the pilot pulls back on the stick and the crew feels approx 1.8G's...or, close to twice the normal force of gravity.

This process is repeated during each iteration. A great graph of this can be found on the KC135 homepage at: http://jsc-aircraft-ops.jsc.nasa.gov/kc135/traject ory.html

I'm just checking out the first ever 'Earthrise' sequence and they are beautiful.

Not to nitpick, but Apollo 8 was the first mission to circle the moon. So that crew witnessed the first ever 'Earthrise', not the Apollo 11 crew.

Here's a picture from the Apollo 8 Image Gallery.

...after losing goal after goal to the Soviets, despite having brought in German rocket designers while the Soviets really only had German production-line engineers and did their designs themselves?

The Soviet space program was really pretty darn impressive, given a country that was as backwards as Russia was at the turn of the century. Heck, their craft were not only quite functional, but even looked cool
.

Really, I don't think most Americans give the Soviets enough credit when it comes to space development. Especially given the inherent flaws in their economic system...

Then there's the feather-hammer-drop experiment

Here's the problem: the flag was planted on the side of the moon that faces the Earth, NOT the "light side of the moon". Your textbook is misleading. One side of the moon being lit by the sun is not a consequence of complex gravitational effects between the Earth and the Moon.
Read this, especially the last two paragraphs.

Quoting directly from the basic science textbook I used when I was 14.

Hmm, I guess you should send your textbook to NASA, because it seems that NASA doesn't know about this:

"People often refer to "the dark side of the moon", but there is no such thing. The sun shines on all sides of it in turn. However, there is a "far side of the moon" which is never seen from the earth. Over the eons, the gravitational forces of the earth have slowed down the moon's rotation about its axis until the rotational period exactly matches the revolution period about the earth."

http://zerog.jsc.nasa.gov/home.html - How it works

The phase "dark side of the Moon" usually refers to the side of the Moon that we cannot see from Earth. The Moon takes about 29 days to orbit the Earth. It takes almost the same amount of time to make one rotation on its axis. That is why we always see the same side of the Moon from Earth. This part of the Moon is not really the "dark side", however, it is more accurately the "far side". The side of the Moon we do not see from Earth gets just as much sunlight on it as the side we do see. In truth, the only dark side of the Moon is the side that is pointed away from the Sun at any given time.

If you still don't believe any of the people who have told you the truth, look at this animation:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap991108.html

woops, that was sorta rude of me not to include a link to the site itself.

Astronomy Picture Of The Day Archives

you know i think the same thing at the Astronomy Picture of the Day Archives. some of their hi-res pictures (such as this one) would make GREAT wallpaper. but what am i supposed to do with a 1500x1000 image and still maintain the crispy hi-res-iness (woo i made a word!)?

Look carefully at this one. You'll see that such shadows can't exist on the Moon's surface. Sorry to burst your bubble guys, but all that money was spent by Nasa engineers on candy bars and weed.

Mike Bouma, open source hacker.

Hey people, how can 30 seconds of flakey microgravity compare with *WEEKS* of flakey microgravity on board the ISS? Science. Humph. Just more propaganda for elitist crap universities (versus the poor good ones). (ex Bristol UK grad in chemistry)

I would agree, except that many of the best RGSFOP teams are from small Universities. Actually, in my extensive experience with the program, the worst teams are from the "best" schools. Take a look at this years teams for more info:

http://microgravityuniversity.jsc.nasa.gov/activet eams.cfm

NASA already provides tons of photographs of previous experiments

http://zerog.jsc.nasa.gov/studentmain.html

"Most martian meteorites are 1.3 billion years old or less, much younger than typical igneous meteorites from asteroids which are 4.5 billion years old. They also have higher contents of volatiles than igneous meteorites. The conclusive evidence that the SNC meteorites originated on Mars comes from the measurement of gases trapped in one meteorite's interior. The trapped gases match those that Viking measured in the martian atmosphere."

http://www-curator.jsc.nasa.gov/curator/antmet/mar smets/Text.htm

This question has been asked before. The answer is here, on a NASA site.. The bottom line is that at the distance from Earth to the Moon, Hubble's maximum resolution is about 100 square meters - Too coarse to see any of the Apollo artifacts.

We just aren't getting the same type of benefits from NASA that we once did, it's stagnant and dull.
What crack are you smoking and can I have some?

We just aren't getting the same type of benefits from NASA that we once did, it's stagnant and dull.
What crack are you smoking and can I have some?

We just aren't getting the same type of benefits from NASA that we once did, it's stagnant and dull.
What crack are you smoking and can I have some?

We just aren't getting the same type of benefits from NASA that we once did, it's stagnant and dull.
What crack are you smoking and can I have some?

We just aren't getting the same type of benefits from NASA that we once did, it's stagnant and dull.
What crack are you smoking and can I have some?

We just aren't getting the same type of benefits from NASA that we once did, it's stagnant and dull.
What crack are you smoking and can I have some?

We just aren't getting the same type of benefits from NASA that we once did, it's stagnant and dull.
What crack are you smoking and can I have some?

How does this have anything to do with Apple ?. I thought this was Slashdot news from Apple.

C'mon, it's obvious: clear plastic and white paint.

3 dimensions imply '6 axes':
3 standard directional
3 standard rotational

ie in flight:
directional: thrust/reverse, sideslip, altitude
rotational: roll, pitch, yaw

Descent let you move around any and all of these axes at the same time.

so:
"semicircular strafe" : 2 axes (yaw while side slipping - at least. you can actually do a great strafe with 4 axes with lots of practice)
"while also ascending" : 1 axes (in order to keep this as a 'semicircular strafe' while doing the ascention, you need to add the previously mentioned 4th axis of pitch to keep facing the target)
"and accelerating towards the target" : 1 last axis

= 5

and of course get a joystick with a twistable handle (woo, sidewinder 3d pro) or somesuch and you can roll while you do all of the above for a nice 6 axes.

Descent rules!

3 dimensions imply '6 axes':
3 standard directional
3 standard rotational

ie in flight:
directional: thrust/reverse, sideslip, altitude
rotational: roll, pitch, yaw

Descent let you move around any and all of these axes at the same time.

so:
"semicircular strafe" : 2 axes (yaw while side slipping - at least. you can actually do a great strafe with 4 axes with lots of practice)
"while also ascending" : 1 axes (in order to keep this as a 'semicircular strafe' while doing the ascention, you need to add the previously mentioned 4th axis of pitch to keep facing the target)
"and accelerating towards the target" : 1 last axis

= 5

and of course get a joystick with a twistable handle (woo, sidewinder 3d pro) or somesuch and you can roll while you do all of the above for a nice 6 axes.

Descent rules!

3 dimensions imply '6 axes':
3 standard directional
3 standard rotational

ie in flight:
directional: thrust/reverse, sideslip, altitude
rotational: roll, pitch, yaw

Descent let you move around any and all of these axes at the same time.

so:
"semicircular strafe" : 2 axes (yaw while side slipping - at least. you can actually do a great strafe with 4 axes with lots of practice)
"while also ascending" : 1 axes (in order to keep this as a 'semicircular strafe' while doing the ascention, you need to add the previously mentioned 4th axis of pitch to keep facing the target)
"and accelerating towards the target" : 1 last axis

= 5

and of course get a joystick with a twistable handle (woo, sidewinder 3d pro) or somesuch and you can roll while you do all of the above for a nice 6 axes.

Descent rules!

Actually, Venus' atmosphere is overwhelmingly CO2 with no surface water and only 70 ppm H2O. Even the H2SO4 in the clouds doesn't add up to a whole lot. That's effectivly none compaired to Earth or even Mars with its polar caps.

Actually, Venus' atmosphere is overwhelmingly CO2 with no surface water and only 70 ppm H2O. That's effectivly none compaired to Earth or even Mars with its polar caps.

I believe that some of it is H20 and some of it is carbon dioxide. But my beliefs don't mean squat, so I offer this link instead.

Oxygen is also one of the most common elements produced by stars larger than our sun - and so oxygen is the most common element in the earth's crust (googling...) at 46.6% percent. It's at a local minimum of the binding energy per nucleon plot.

I scan the raw feeds from Mars regulary. I ran across the following image: Mars Photo. Now if that doesn't significantly improve the odds of life on Mars I don't know what does.

Shame them didn't actually find water today of all days - 20:17:43 20 July 69

Here's another word for you, digitalgiblet: Prometheus!

Most people don't know Challenger was supposed to be transporting a satellite powered by 46.7 pounds of plutonium in its very next trip after the one where it was destroyed. Had the disaster occurred on that next trip, a whole lot more people would have died of lung cancer and plutonium poisoning.

The Challenger disaster and Chernobyl, both the same year, were together enough to persuade Nasa to give up its dangerous desire for nuclear fission powered engines (then Project Ulysses). For a time at least...

As the Columbia disaster happened, Nasa was pushing for a new nuclear fission engine program: Project Prometheus. This time, Nasa doesn't seem to be stopping or even slowing down its plans, despite its current safety problems, or the newly available high-energy solar power, that is far, far safer.

Prometheus of old stole fire from heaven, and was punished for his crime by Zeus, who sent an eagle every day to rip out his liver. This new Prometheus steals fire from the heart of the atom to fly into the heavens. One stupid mistake (and human stupidity that is the topic of this thread always is the cause in nuclear accidents), and the radioactive ancestor (from the mesozoic) of the eagle will be there to attack your liver, or any other organ he can get, with cancer.

Assuming, of course, that the reactor doesn't do something spectacular: like falling intact, while heating up enough to get fission going. Don't look now, but Chernobyl just landed in your back yard!

Extra credit for the Slashdot geek who can slap a coolant system on that puppy before it causes a disaster, and hook it up to power his home. ;)

Shinoda: "Is Godzilla showing his hatred toward man-made energy?"
Godzilla: "Human! Impertinent! I rule the Atom!"
"Godzilla 2000 Millennium" (Japanese version)

You are talking about NASA's older plan; I am talking about Mars Direct. I am not arguing that costs have decreased; only that better mission plans exist. What has advanced is not the technology or the financial situation, but the plan.

The reason I say your figures are out of date is that (unless I misunderstand) they come from the 90-day report of ca. 1989/90. Since then, NASA has itself considered Zubrin's Mars Direct plan and adopted based on it the "Mars Design Reference Mission," with costs about twice that of Mars Direct (so, 40 billion dollars). Reference here. I found the Design Reference Mission plan document itself in .gov but could not find the official estimates; the plan itself breaks down by percentage but not dollars.) So as you can see, costs of 400-500 billion dollars are way off.

And there is no need for a moon base before we go to Mars. This is part of the foundation of Mars Direct.

I encourage you to get ahold of the book A Case For Mars, which lays out the Mars Direct (though only at layman-level detail). Even NASA does not now believe Mars will take 400-500 billion dollars.

More references:

A design reference mission based on Zubrin's proposal, but considerably scaled up in personnel and equipment landed on Mars, was costed by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, who estimated the cost at around $50 billion for three missions. (emphasis added)

It was essentially a compromise between Mars Direct and the Ninety Day Report, and became known as the Reference Mission. A cost estimate even emerged from the Reference Mission design: $55 billion.

They then produced a cost estimate for what a Mars exploration program based upon this expanded Mars Direct would cost. Their result; $50 billion, with the estimate produced by the same costing group that assigned a $400 billion price tag to the traditional cumbersome approach to human Mars exploration embodied in NASA's 1989 "90 Day Report."

Mars Direct homepage

My rant Friday on the subject (I was hot about this issue at the time; still am, though I've cooled off somewhat)

"...please read this overview."

TRANSLATION:

...please support and increase Roland Piquepaille spam and advertising clickthrough rates.

If you really want more details and pictures about the Mars Underground Mole then you can

• read this SpaceDaily four-part article on Mars Drillers
• read the Mars Underground Mole PDF with diagrams, photos and tables
• look at a whole range of Mars-related projects from the 2003 Sixth International Conference on Mars
• read a Deutsche Welle interview with German Aerospace Center Chairman Sigmar Wittig - DLR developed the Mars Express mole that inspired the MUM project
• read a National Space Society two-part interview with Dr. Brian Glass, MUM co-investigator
• read about a MUM inspired student project or
• watch a NASA Mars Underground Mole Quicktime movie animation.

It's much better than supporting craven self-interested people who are just after advertising like Roland Piquepaille, blog spammer.

"...please read this overview."

TRANSLATION:

...please support and increase Roland Piquepaille spam and advertising clickthrough rates.

If you really want more details and pictures about the Mars Underground Mole then you can

• read this SpaceDaily four-part article on Mars Drillers
• read the Mars Underground Mole PDF with diagrams, photos and tables
• look at a whole range of Mars-related projects from the 2003 Sixth International Conference on Mars
• read a Deutsche Welle interview with German Aerospace Center Chairman Sigmar Wittig - DLR developed the Mars Express mole that inspired the MUM project
• read a National Space Society two-part interview with Dr. Brian Glass, MUM co-investigator
• read about a MUM inspired student project or
• watch a NASA Mars Underground Mole Quicktime movie animation.

It's much better than supporting craven self-interested people who are just after advertising like Roland Piquepaille, blog spammer.

Try this link: Riding the Highways of Light That was my first post on Slashdot, and I messed it up. The propulsion method gets the craft going so fast that by the time it leaves the atmosphere, it can coast the rest of the way. Thr article briefly mentions how it will land.

I am 33... and I can say the same.

No you can't

ACK. 23 years old and also waiting for the next manned space mission...

Did you read the mission logs for the Apollo missions?

They are *really* interesting. Just start reading, you'll read them to the end, I assure you :)

Even though they are just notes reconstructed from the radio traffic with some bits thrown in from other sources, they're addicting. And very thrilling (much more than all other travelogues, IMHO).

Yo can read them here:
Apollo 8 Flight Journal
and here
Apollo Lunar Surface Journal or
google: apollo journals.

I'd read them in this order, first the flight journal for an orbiter-only mission, then the apollo 11 surface journal :)