Slashdot Mirror

According to a JPL timeline, it's closest approach to Phoebe will be at 2004-06-11t20:56z, and the playback of data starts at 2004-06-12t13:28z.

When I said West Coast, I meant just that - the coast. Please check this map to see how you rate with thunderstorms

Well said. I wish I had some mod points to give you. I used to work at an "FFRDC" (JPL) and can tell you from personal experience that most of the scientists and engineers work there primarily because of their interest in exploring space rather than anything else. IMHO what they need is less bureaucracy, and less politically motivated and more honest schedule and budget planning during the initial project planning phase. When I joined JPL the place was mostly ran by scientists and engineers, but by the time I left 26 years later it seemed to be mostly run by administrators with business degrees instead of science diplomas.

I still laugh about the time during the turn of the last century when a bureaucratic proclamation was decreed that all JPL computers shall pass year 2000 compliance tests and have compliance stickers affixed to them. At the time I was doing the programming for a pair of embedded rad-hard 8051 family microcontrollers that were part of the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM). Apparently no one told the division bean counter in charge of the Y2000 compliance program that the proclamation only applied to desktop computers and workstations. Since I was the sole programmer for the SIU flight computers (the 8051's), she sent me a sticker with instructions to run JPL's Y2000 compliance test software on them and to affix the compliance stickers to the computers. I got a great laugh out of this and so did the other people on the project - at first. I sent the bean counter pictures of the flight equipment in the clean room that contained the rack of JPL designed and built SRTM electronics (which included the 8051's in question), and explained that the microcontrollers did not run Windows (nor did they have any operating system at all other than what I had written!), and they did not even have a floppy disk drive in which to insert the Y2000 compliance testing software. Furthermore, the only "clock" they used was a real time clock interrupt whose software counter overflowed every 10 milliseconds, and that even if we did want to affix the compliance stickers to the flight computers, the stickers would have to be tested for outgassing, flammability, etc. It was great fun for awhile, even though it wasted a lot of my time.

I assumed that would be the end of it, and I ignored further entreaties and threats from the bean counter. Eventually my supervisor inquired about it because the issue wouldn't die, and unbelievably it ultimately escalated to two or three management levels above me, until finally someone in the program office (the people who designate money for projects) got involved and made the issue go away by getting a special waiver for us. The fact that such an idiotic issue should ever have arisen at all is totally astounding, especially since hundreds of man hours were probably wasted during the full course of events on this one issue. It boggles the mind.

The first link is a little scant on details...if you're really interested in lightning I'd recommend this.

"The commission also endorses NASA's plans to award large cash prizes to encourage technological innovation."

The inducement prize allows one-off profits.

Profit = Prize - Cost

1. Go to Moon/Mars
2. Win prize
3. Profit!

The ANSARI X PRIZE and Centennial Challenges are the first steps.

Robert Zubrin recently had the idea of 'a competition open to all the different NASA centers and national laboratories and companies to see who could develop the most efficient Mars plan'.

Buzz Armstrong?

I think you mean Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin

Buzz Armstrong?

I think you mean Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin

Cassini will approach Saturn from below the ring plane. The spacecraft will cross through the large gap between the F Ring and G Ring. At this time Cassini will be 158,500 kilometers (about 98,500 miles) from Saturn's center. This crossing will occur one hour and 52 minutes prior to the spacecraft's closest approach to Saturn.

Practicality is nice, really it is, however we need NASA to do the things that corporations will not. As an example let us consider LISA, it's main purpose is to detect gravitational waves. How many corporate investors do you think care about gravitational waves? Like it or not we need NASA.

it's at 13:56 PDT ERT ... where ERT means Earth Receive Time.

It's at 20:56 UTC ERT, the SCET (Spacecraft Event Time) was at 19:34 UTC.

See this link for an explination of the time conventions: http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/basics/bsf2-3.html

Actually UTC is damn awful time system because of leap seconds which cannot be predicted. All calculations must use ET (Ephemeris Time) which is almost always SCET. The 'REAL' flyby occured around 19:35 ET, the exact time to be determined from tracking after the flyby.

It took them this long to get it working?

I spent a semester and a half of hardly part-time work getting a similar project rolling with 5 other people. Granted, this PSA looks cooler and probably has better control, but we were undergrads and these are NASA post-docs with 8 hours per day to work on this.

Check, check, check, check it out.

And yes, I realize we had a wire sticking out. It was our position/attitude sensor. EM requirements for the plane-borne lab wouldn't allow yet another wireless transceiver.

It took them this long to get it working?

I spent a semester and a half of hardly part-time work getting a similar project rolling with 5 other people. Granted, this PSA looks cooler and probably has better control, but we were undergrads and these are NASA post-docs with 8 hours per day to work on this.

Check, check, check, check it out.

And yes, I realize we had a wire sticking out. It was our position/attitude sensor. EM requirements for the plane-borne lab wouldn't allow yet another wireless transceiver.

It took them this long to get it working?

I spent a semester and a half of hardly part-time work getting a similar project rolling with 5 other people. Granted, this PSA looks cooler and probably has better control, but we were undergrads and these are NASA post-docs with 8 hours per day to work on this.

Check, check, check, check it out.

And yes, I realize we had a wire sticking out. It was our position/attitude sensor. EM requirements for the plane-borne lab wouldn't allow yet another wireless transceiver.

It took them this long to get it working?

I spent a semester and a half of hardly part-time work getting a similar project rolling with 5 other people. Granted, this PSA looks cooler and probably has better control, but we were undergrads and these are NASA post-docs with 8 hours per day to work on this.

Check, check, check, check it out.

And yes, I realize we had a wire sticking out. It was our position/attitude sensor. EM requirements for the plane-borne lab wouldn't allow yet another wireless transceiver.

There's a paper from 2000 showing the "1 G testbed", which is another air-hockey-puck robot. It doesn't fly; it skates around on a flat surface. That's the "testbed."

According to the 2000 paper, the next step was supposed to be a 1.75x scale model of the 6 degree of freedom flyer, which was to be tested by flying it in the KC-135 aircraft used to train people to operate in zero G. We don't see that mentioned again.

As far as I can tell, the Wired article's reference to "a version of the Personal Satellite Assistant, or PSA, that's fully mobile, with a sensor suite that's nearly space-ready" refers to the 2D hockey-puck robot.

There's a paper from 2000 showing the "1 G testbed", which is another air-hockey-puck robot. It doesn't fly; it skates around on a flat surface. That's the "testbed."

According to the 2000 paper, the next step was supposed to be a 1.75x scale model of the 6 degree of freedom flyer, which was to be tested by flying it in the KC-135 aircraft used to train people to operate in zero G. We don't see that mentioned again.

As far as I can tell, the Wired article's reference to "a version of the Personal Satellite Assistant, or PSA, that's fully mobile, with a sensor suite that's nearly space-ready" refers to the 2D hockey-puck robot.

the grey goo scenario IS NOT POSSIBLE because it has not happened, and it did not happen because it could only ever happen in a small closed enviornment where an outside force could input VAST (of the order of E=mc2) amounts of energy, whicg CANNOT happen in the free universe, it is called Entropy.

You are neglecting to consider just how big the universe really is. The nearest galaxy is 2.2 million light-years away, and you're saying that something has never happened and can never happen because humans who have only been recording history and only that of earth (and a little tiny bit of information on other bodies in the solar system) for a few thousand years. Let's hear it for human arrogance!

I think that is very insulting. Do you really believe that it is more of a feat to adjust some color scales than it is to send a spacecraft to another planet at distances of 300 million miles or more, have it operate without any repairs for years at a atime, survive the heat & cold of space, the forces of re-entry, launch etc etc.?

Of course not. I wasn't talking about the missions. I was talking about the *images*. I think that the images that NASA hands out for public consumption, are much more marketing-driven than science-driven, and I feel that those beautiful golden or rosy abstracts are more aesthetically appealing as a result of careful choosing of colors and tweaking until the result looks pretty than because of the source of the data. I suspect that given an equivalent amount of time to poke at an image, an electron microscope user could make SEM output look equally appealing.

The images are generally false-color composites, true. But they are not "retouched". The difference is between one of choosing how to remap wavelengths your eye can't see into colors it can see, and flat-out changing images. JPL does the former, and not the latter.

No?

Granted, this picture is not a celestial one of neublae and stars and other goodies, where careful color selection does lots of good.

You have to rememeber that many of these missions are selected after competitions among various university and industry groups. This means that you have to sell a mission to the review boards; you can't do that if you under-promise. If you only claimed you could do 10% of what you think you could actually do, then some other group is going to propose a mission to do 20% of what is possible - and they will look much better on paper and so get chosen. And these proposals are not secret, so NASA can't turn around and tell the public that mission will do less than it proposed for.

You're right -- "10%" is hyperbole in my part. However, I would be quite surprised if any of CMU/Caltech/MIT had the ability to set mission parameters on, say, Opportunity. They might be able to make claims about what they can do that NASA then can set mission objectives based upon. Instead, we have a list of vague, easy-to-classify-as-successful mission objectives. There are no numbers, no "fully map a total of 10 square meters of surface, analyzing available rock surfaces within for iron". This is hardly par for the course for engineering -- and makes it much easier to declare success.

Do you consider NASA upper echelons, the people responsible for getting funding and ensuring that engineers continue to be paid, unbiased in mission choice? I will admit that I do not work at NASA -- it has been my experience that there is plenty of PR management in research (both in academia and corporate work), though.

The result is NASA tends to define success criteria close to what is reasonably expected based on some pretty detailed mission analysis work.

I still feel that the mission success criteria that I linked to above are pretty vague.

Another point to remember is that the mission probability of success is like a chain - no stronger than the weakest link. Which means that there are almost always a few events that have all the risk (launch, landing); once past those there isn't much that can kill a spacecraft, at least not until old age starts to set in.

So why aren't rover life expectancies longer?

And one thing about JPL - their stuff is built to last.

Hey, you won't hear anything from me taking issue with JPL engineering -- just pointing out the way PR is handled.

That's why the mission achievements are bimodal - either failure, or way longer life (and greater success) than expected.

I

I think that is very insulting. Do you really believe that it is more of a feat to adjust some color scales than it is to send a spacecraft to another planet at distances of 300 million miles or more, have it operate without any repairs for years at a atime, survive the heat & cold of space, the forces of re-entry, launch etc etc.?

Of course not. I wasn't talking about the missions. I was talking about the *images*. I think that the images that NASA hands out for public consumption, are much more marketing-driven than science-driven, and I feel that those beautiful golden or rosy abstracts are more aesthetically appealing as a result of careful choosing of colors and tweaking until the result looks pretty than because of the source of the data. I suspect that given an equivalent amount of time to poke at an image, an electron microscope user could make SEM output look equally appealing.

The images are generally false-color composites, true. But they are not "retouched". The difference is between one of choosing how to remap wavelengths your eye can't see into colors it can see, and flat-out changing images. JPL does the former, and not the latter.

No?

Granted, this picture is not a celestial one of neublae and stars and other goodies, where careful color selection does lots of good.

You have to rememeber that many of these missions are selected after competitions among various university and industry groups. This means that you have to sell a mission to the review boards; you can't do that if you under-promise. If you only claimed you could do 10% of what you think you could actually do, then some other group is going to propose a mission to do 20% of what is possible - and they will look much better on paper and so get chosen. And these proposals are not secret, so NASA can't turn around and tell the public that mission will do less than it proposed for.

You're right -- "10%" is hyperbole in my part. However, I would be quite surprised if any of CMU/Caltech/MIT had the ability to set mission parameters on, say, Opportunity. They might be able to make claims about what they can do that NASA then can set mission objectives based upon. Instead, we have a list of vague, easy-to-classify-as-successful mission objectives. There are no numbers, no "fully map a total of 10 square meters of surface, analyzing available rock surfaces within for iron". This is hardly par for the course for engineering -- and makes it much easier to declare success.

Do you consider NASA upper echelons, the people responsible for getting funding and ensuring that engineers continue to be paid, unbiased in mission choice? I will admit that I do not work at NASA -- it has been my experience that there is plenty of PR management in research (both in academia and corporate work), though.

The result is NASA tends to define success criteria close to what is reasonably expected based on some pretty detailed mission analysis work.

I still feel that the mission success criteria that I linked to above are pretty vague.

Another point to remember is that the mission probability of success is like a chain - no stronger than the weakest link. Which means that there are almost always a few events that have all the risk (launch, landing); once past those there isn't much that can kill a spacecraft, at least not until old age starts to set in.

So why aren't rover life expectancies longer?

And one thing about JPL - their stuff is built to last.

Hey, you won't hear anything from me taking issue with JPL engineering -- just pointing out the way PR is handled.

That's why the mission achievements are bimodal - either failure, or way longer life (and greater success) than expected.

I

The extreme elevation difference between the two hemispheres might have something to do with it as well....

Are any of the released packages neato super keen simulations of stuff?

Read the article. It has a list and descriptions of the packages they released so far.

Where exactly IS Nasa Ames?

Exactly? I can't remember. About? In California. In the Silicon Valley. In Sunnyvale. If you're on 237 eastbound, look left just before you hit 101 (pretty much near the overpass with the red warning lightpoles next to the golf course); look for the big blimp hangers. It's nestled in with Moffet Field and Lockheed-Martin, and across the street from Juniper.

What areas of technology do they focus on?

Lots and lots of stuff, and it changes. Anything that has to do with aeronautics or space, even indirectly. This includes weather, materials research, supercomputers, health, nanotechnology, AI, to cherry-pick just a few. Look at the AMES web page for more information.

Are they part of creating the generic space probe operating system software that the Mars Rovers were saying was such a good thing?

I'm not quite sure which bit you're referring to. The rover was primarily the JPL's baby, but AMES did a lot of the mission support software. One of the coolest things I think I saw in that software development was the C Global Surveyor system.

Can ordinary Schmo's like me contribute to any projects or are they so esoteric and strange it would be useless?

Some projects are quite advanced. Some are pretty much glorified xearth's. Again, read the article.

Are any of the released packages neato super keen simulations of stuff?

Read the article. It has a list and descriptions of the packages they released so far.

Where exactly IS Nasa Ames?

Exactly? I can't remember. About? In California. In the Silicon Valley. In Sunnyvale. If you're on 237 eastbound, look left just before you hit 101 (pretty much near the overpass with the red warning lightpoles next to the golf course); look for the big blimp hangers. It's nestled in with Moffet Field and Lockheed-Martin, and across the street from Juniper.

What areas of technology do they focus on?

Lots and lots of stuff, and it changes. Anything that has to do with aeronautics or space, even indirectly. This includes weather, materials research, supercomputers, health, nanotechnology, AI, to cherry-pick just a few. Look at the AMES web page for more information.

Are they part of creating the generic space probe operating system software that the Mars Rovers were saying was such a good thing?

I'm not quite sure which bit you're referring to. The rover was primarily the JPL's baby, but AMES did a lot of the mission support software. One of the coolest things I think I saw in that software development was the C Global Surveyor system.

Can ordinary Schmo's like me contribute to any projects or are they so esoteric and strange it would be useless?

Some projects are quite advanced. Some are pretty much glorified xearth's. Again, read the article.

Are any of the released packages neato super keen simulations of stuff?

Read the article. It has a list and descriptions of the packages they released so far.

Where exactly IS Nasa Ames?

Exactly? I can't remember. About? In California. In the Silicon Valley. In Sunnyvale. If you're on 237 eastbound, look left just before you hit 101 (pretty much near the overpass with the red warning lightpoles next to the golf course); look for the big blimp hangers. It's nestled in with Moffet Field and Lockheed-Martin, and across the street from Juniper.

What areas of technology do they focus on?

Lots and lots of stuff, and it changes. Anything that has to do with aeronautics or space, even indirectly. This includes weather, materials research, supercomputers, health, nanotechnology, AI, to cherry-pick just a few. Look at the AMES web page for more information.

Are they part of creating the generic space probe operating system software that the Mars Rovers were saying was such a good thing?

I'm not quite sure which bit you're referring to. The rover was primarily the JPL's baby, but AMES did a lot of the mission support software. One of the coolest things I think I saw in that software development was the C Global Surveyor system.

Can ordinary Schmo's like me contribute to any projects or are they so esoteric and strange it would be useless?

Some projects are quite advanced. Some are pretty much glorified xearth's. Again, read the article.

Are any of the released packages neato super keen simulations of stuff?

Read the article. It has a list and descriptions of the packages they released so far.

Where exactly IS Nasa Ames?

Exactly? I can't remember. About? In California. In the Silicon Valley. In Sunnyvale. If you're on 237 eastbound, look left just before you hit 101 (pretty much near the overpass with the red warning lightpoles next to the golf course); look for the big blimp hangers. It's nestled in with Moffet Field and Lockheed-Martin, and across the street from Juniper.

What areas of technology do they focus on?

Lots and lots of stuff, and it changes. Anything that has to do with aeronautics or space, even indirectly. This includes weather, materials research, supercomputers, health, nanotechnology, AI, to cherry-pick just a few. Look at the AMES web page for more information.

Are they part of creating the generic space probe operating system software that the Mars Rovers were saying was such a good thing?

I'm not quite sure which bit you're referring to. The rover was primarily the JPL's baby, but AMES did a lot of the mission support software. One of the coolest things I think I saw in that software development was the C Global Surveyor system.

Can ordinary Schmo's like me contribute to any projects or are they so esoteric and strange it would be useless?

Some projects are quite advanced. Some are pretty much glorified xearth's. Again, read the article.

Are any of the released packages neato super keen simulations of stuff?

Read the article. It has a list and descriptions of the packages they released so far.

Where exactly IS Nasa Ames?

Exactly? I can't remember. About? In California. In the Silicon Valley. In Sunnyvale. If you're on 237 eastbound, look left just before you hit 101 (pretty much near the overpass with the red warning lightpoles next to the golf course); look for the big blimp hangers. It's nestled in with Moffet Field and Lockheed-Martin, and across the street from Juniper.

What areas of technology do they focus on?

Lots and lots of stuff, and it changes. Anything that has to do with aeronautics or space, even indirectly. This includes weather, materials research, supercomputers, health, nanotechnology, AI, to cherry-pick just a few. Look at the AMES web page for more information.

Are they part of creating the generic space probe operating system software that the Mars Rovers were saying was such a good thing?

I'm not quite sure which bit you're referring to. The rover was primarily the JPL's baby, but AMES did a lot of the mission support software. One of the coolest things I think I saw in that software development was the C Global Surveyor system.

Can ordinary Schmo's like me contribute to any projects or are they so esoteric and strange it would be useless?

Some projects are quite advanced. Some are pretty much glorified xearth's. Again, read the article.

Are any of the released packages neato super keen simulations of stuff?

Read the article. It has a list and descriptions of the packages they released so far.

Where exactly IS Nasa Ames?

Exactly? I can't remember. About? In California. In the Silicon Valley. In Sunnyvale. If you're on 237 eastbound, look left just before you hit 101 (pretty much near the overpass with the red warning lightpoles next to the golf course); look for the big blimp hangers. It's nestled in with Moffet Field and Lockheed-Martin, and across the street from Juniper.

What areas of technology do they focus on?

Lots and lots of stuff, and it changes. Anything that has to do with aeronautics or space, even indirectly. This includes weather, materials research, supercomputers, health, nanotechnology, AI, to cherry-pick just a few. Look at the AMES web page for more information.

Are they part of creating the generic space probe operating system software that the Mars Rovers were saying was such a good thing?

I'm not quite sure which bit you're referring to. The rover was primarily the JPL's baby, but AMES did a lot of the mission support software. One of the coolest things I think I saw in that software development was the C Global Surveyor system.

Can ordinary Schmo's like me contribute to any projects or are they so esoteric and strange it would be useless?

Some projects are quite advanced. Some are pretty much glorified xearth's. Again, read the article.

your typical PC heat pipe thing uses air where this one is using fluid.

What? Heat pipes use fluid that evaporates and condenses. If you don't believe me would you believe NASA? Here's one from Coolermaster just to show it's not limited to G5s and satelites.

How in the hell would one that doesn't use fluid work?

There are some other good soundclips on the Sounds of Jupiter site as well; e.g., Jupiter's lightning and the "bow shock."

They asked him what type of car it was, he said it was a kit car. "How much did the kit cost?" they asked. "Oh, about 450 million dollars." replied the caller.

Yes, an engineer from JPL was calling to get some tongue-in-cheek advice on what to do to keep the rovers safe over the martian winter.

That was John Wright, one of the rover drivers (scroll to bottom). I had suggested another joke for them to use:

CAR TALK: How old is your car?

JOHN: Less than a year old.

CAR TALK: And how many miles on it?

JOHN: About three hundred million.

Unfortunately, they didn't use it.

They asked him what type of car it was, he said it was a kit car. "How much did the kit cost?" they asked. "Oh, about 450 million dollars." replied the caller.

Yes, an engineer from JPL was calling to get some tongue-in-cheek advice on what to do to keep the rovers safe over the martian winter.

That was John Wright, one of the rover drivers (scroll to bottom). I had suggested another joke for them to use:

CAR TALK: How old is your car?

JOHN: Less than a year old.

CAR TALK: And how many miles on it?

JOHN: About three hundred million.

Unfortunately, they didn't use it.

This NASA article discusses the main options of removing mars "dust" from the solar cells. Dust removal methods can be categorized briefly into four categories:

Natural - using Mars winds to clean cells
Mechanical - mechanical wiping of cells
Electromechanical - using ultrasound to break dust adhesion
Electrostatic - charging the cells to attract particles of opposite or neutral charge

Could you supply links to that? Google doesn't turn up anything on "Lunokhod 9". Lunokhod 1, however, seems to be an interesting device: designed for 90 days of operation (seems familiar?), lasted 11 months (let's see how well the NASA rovers fare).

Rover specs

You know the Bush administration is taking its toll when NASA's experts are a radio call-in show...

Spring 171 days
Summer 199 days
Fall 171 days
Winter 146 days

Sorry to nitpick, but you hit one of my rant buttons..

NASA does astronomy. To be very blunt and honest, astronomy provides very few concrete short-term benefits.

Really? Astronomy? Well, they do some of that, but every look at NASA Langley. They do aerospace research, have aided Boeing in desinging almost every aircraft they built. Langley has produced some of the finest Structures and Materials research. And has many unique test facilities and wind tunnels that nobody else has.
Or what about NASA Glenn? They do space research, but their studies into new and unique propulsion systems dont look like astronomy to me.

NASA is a low-frills research organization. They get poor public support, and even more limited congresional support, yet they produce some amazing stuff. The problem that I see is, the public thinks exactly like your first sentance, they dont view NASA as an incubator for new expensive tech that can mature and develop well only in a gov funded (ie no worries about profit) situations. If you dont belive me on that point, go look at the papers on Optics, Radar, Ultrasonics, look at aircraft structures, etc, somewhere in there is a NASA engineer who developed, or help develop core features that are curtial today.

Ok.. off my soap box...

Sorry to nitpick, but you hit one of my rant buttons..

NASA does astronomy. To be very blunt and honest, astronomy provides very few concrete short-term benefits.

Really? Astronomy? Well, they do some of that, but every look at NASA Langley. They do aerospace research, have aided Boeing in desinging almost every aircraft they built. Langley has produced some of the finest Structures and Materials research. And has many unique test facilities and wind tunnels that nobody else has.
Or what about NASA Glenn? They do space research, but their studies into new and unique propulsion systems dont look like astronomy to me.

NASA is a low-frills research organization. They get poor public support, and even more limited congresional support, yet they produce some amazing stuff. The problem that I see is, the public thinks exactly like your first sentance, they dont view NASA as an incubator for new expensive tech that can mature and develop well only in a gov funded (ie no worries about profit) situations. If you dont belive me on that point, go look at the papers on Optics, Radar, Ultrasonics, look at aircraft structures, etc, somewhere in there is a NASA engineer who developed, or help develop core features that are curtial today.

Ok.. off my soap box...

Getting solar to work on these spacecraft with the intent of using the spin-offs here on earth is overkille, and expensive overkill at that. Even if you develop solar cells efficient enough to make a household self-sufficient as you suggest (which still makes me nervous about all the batteries you'll need lying about), there are fewer watts per square meter to work with the further out from the sun you are. You'll get to the point where the solar cells and the associated batteries are the most expensive components of the mission, ultimately getting in the way of the goal of the mission itself.

Solar works well for Mars and closer, but once you get to Jupiter and beyond it just isn't a realistic option. Imagine giving Cassini two solar arrays, each 9 meters by 32 meters. JPL has, and and they've got diagrams.

And I personlly believe nuclear power sources are more environmentally friendly than all the batteries you'll need to get you through those long, dark winter nights.

Good pics indeed. I had hoped to do something similar myself, but being in the pacific northwest I didn't have that option... damn and it is sunny today too.

I too was disappointed by the main article's linked pics. There are some good ones at NASA as you might expect.

Aerogel pics (including the crayon image).

More aerogel pics.

Cheers.

You also apparently need a primer on the corona.

K corona: white light scattering off free electrons, 1 to 2.3 R_s

F corona: white light scattering off dust, 2.3 R_s to merging with zodiacal light

E corona: emission lines from ions, overlaps K and F coronas

The take-home lesson is that there is no well-defined outer boundary for the corona. The corona is quite visible in the C3 image as white rays radiating outward from the sun, some extending past the edge of the frame. Coronal mass ejections are harder to discern in a single image: I recommend the movies, mpeg or gif, where the ejections are visible as coronal-looking material moving outward swiftly. Comets and cosmic ray strikes are also occasionally seen.

Asserting the same thing over and over is not the same as providing proof. I've given you several examples of the use of the word 'transit' by the astronomical community in reference to an object passing in front of something other than a disk. Put up or shut up.

You also apparently need a primer on the corona.

K corona: white light scattering off free electrons, 1 to 2.3 R_s

F corona: white light scattering off dust, 2.3 R_s to merging with zodiacal light

E corona: emission lines from ions, overlaps K and F coronas

The take-home lesson is that there is no well-defined outer boundary for the corona. The corona is quite visible in the C3 image as white rays radiating outward from the sun, some extending past the edge of the frame. Coronal mass ejections are harder to discern in a single image: I recommend the movies, mpeg or gif, where the ejections are visible as coronal-looking material moving outward swiftly. Comets and cosmic ray strikes are also occasionally seen.

Asserting the same thing over and over is not the same as providing proof. I've given you several examples of the use of the word 'transit' by the astronomical community in reference to an object passing in front of something other than a disk. Put up or shut up.

Uh, can you provide a source for this? I'm more inclined to believe NASA than a random post on /., no offense...

According to this, CDs and Floppy disks both make safe filters. Optically crummy filters, yeah. But safe. Maybe because the document is specifically taylored to eclipses where the amount of sunlight is less?

The Astronomical Society of Victoria has arranged with the Victoria Gardens Shopping Centre, Richmond to conduct a viewing event of this rare astronomical event. A variety of telescopes with solar observing gear will be available for safe solar viewing. Venus's disk should be very noticeable in silhouette against the face of the Sun.

Time: 2pm - Sunset. Place: Southern end, Upper Level 6, Carpark, Victoria Gardens Shopping Centre, cnr Victoria & Burnley Streets, Richmond. Melway 44 H7

ASV members, their guests and members of the public are invited. The Shopping Centre is at Tram Super Stop 25, Victoria St on the Port Melbourne-Box Hill line. Catch Tram 109 in Collins Street, City. Undercover parking is available.

The next opportunity to Observe a Transit of Venus is in June 2012 and then the next two occur in December 2117 and December 2125 - a long wait.

More information on the Transit of Venus can be obtained from www.astronomy.org.au (Astronomical Society of Australia), http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov... or www.lpl.arizona.edu... (top overseas sites)

You sure?

Their page on viewing techniques doesn't seem to be working ;-)

The Transit of Venus is a phenomena witnessed very seldomly -- in fact, next Tuesday's transit will be the first witnessable from Earth since 1882. (Google News points to hundreds of stories.) The transit of a planet occurs when it passes between another and the sun, thus only transits of Mercury and Venus are possible from Earth. It will begin at 05:13 Universal Time, which is 9:13pm July 7 on the US West Coast (more info), and it will last several hours. NASA has a map that shows when and where it will be viewable (more maps here), some safety tips for properly viewing the sun, and a Sun-Earth Day 2004 web site with lots more, including where to find webcasts. This Transit of Venus FAQ should answer many of your questions, including why transits of Venus follow a regular pattern of recurrence at intervals of 8, 121.5, 8, and 105.5 years. FYI, The event won't be visible in North American sky until the sun rises, and by then it will be almost over. If you miss this one, you'll have one more chance at it on June 6, 2012, when the transit will be most visible the Pacific.

(I submitted this to Slashdot several days ago; I was rejected.)

The Transit of Venus is a phenomena witnessed very seldomly -- in fact, next Tuesday's transit will be the first witnessable from Earth since 1882. (Google News points to hundreds of stories.) The transit of a planet occurs when it passes between another and the sun, thus only transits of Mercury and Venus are possible from Earth. It will begin at 05:13 Universal Time, which is 9:13pm July 7 on the US West Coast (more info), and it will last several hours. NASA has a map that shows when and where it will be viewable (more maps here), some safety tips for properly viewing the sun, and a Sun-Earth Day 2004 web site with lots more, including where to find webcasts. This Transit of Venus FAQ should answer many of your questions, including why transits of Venus follow a regular pattern of recurrence at intervals of 8, 121.5, 8, and 105.5 years. FYI, The event won't be visible in North American sky until the sun rises, and by then it will be almost over. If you miss this one, you'll have one more chance at it on June 6, 2012, when the transit will be most visible the Pacific.

(I submitted this to Slashdot several days ago; I was rejected.)

The Transit of Venus is a phenomena witnessed very seldomly -- in fact, next Tuesday's transit will be the first witnessable from Earth since 1882. (Google News points to hundreds of stories.) The transit of a planet occurs when it passes between another and the sun, thus only transits of Mercury and Venus are possible from Earth. It will begin at 05:13 Universal Time, which is 9:13pm July 7 on the US West Coast (more info), and it will last several hours. NASA has a map that shows when and where it will be viewable (more maps here), some safety tips for properly viewing the sun, and a Sun-Earth Day 2004 web site with lots more, including where to find webcasts. This Transit of Venus FAQ should answer many of your questions, including why transits of Venus follow a regular pattern of recurrence at intervals of 8, 121.5, 8, and 105.5 years. FYI, The event won't be visible in North American sky until the sun rises, and by then it will be almost over. If you miss this one, you'll have one more chance at it on June 6, 2012, when the transit will be most visible the Pacific.

(I submitted this to Slashdot several days ago; I was rejected.)

The Transit of Venus is a phenomena witnessed very seldomly -- in fact, next Tuesday's transit will be the first witnessable from Earth since 1882. (Google News points to hundreds of stories.) The transit of a planet occurs when it passes between another and the sun, thus only transits of Mercury and Venus are possible from Earth. It will begin at 05:13 Universal Time, which is 9:13pm July 7 on the US West Coast (more info), and it will last several hours. NASA has a map that shows when and where it will be viewable (more maps here), some safety tips for properly viewing the sun, and a Sun-Earth Day 2004 web site with lots more, including where to find webcasts. This Transit of Venus FAQ should answer many of your questions, including why transits of Venus follow a regular pattern of recurrence at intervals of 8, 121.5, 8, and 105.5 years. FYI, The event won't be visible in North American sky until the sun rises, and by then it will be almost over. If you miss this one, you'll have one more chance at it on June 6, 2012, when the transit will be most visible the Pacific.

(I submitted this to Slashdot several days ago; I was rejected.)

The Transit of Venus is a phenomena witnessed very seldomly -- in fact, next Tuesday's transit will be the first witnessable from Earth since 1882. (Google News points to hundreds of stories.) The transit of a planet occurs when it passes between another and the sun, thus only transits of Mercury and Venus are possible from Earth. It will begin at 05:13 Universal Time, which is 9:13pm July 7 on the US West Coast (more info), and it will last several hours. NASA has a map that shows when and where it will be viewable (more maps here), some safety tips for properly viewing the sun, and a Sun-Earth Day 2004 web site with lots more, including where to find webcasts. This Transit of Venus FAQ should answer many of your questions, including why transits of Venus follow a regular pattern of recurrence at intervals of 8, 121.5, 8, and 105.5 years. FYI, The event won't be visible in North American sky until the sun rises, and by then it will be almost over. If you miss this one, you'll have one more chance at it on June 6, 2012, when the transit will be most visible the Pacific.

(I submitted this to Slashdot several days ago; I was rejected.)

From Ontario you'd be able to see Venus move from within the disc of the Sun out past the Sun while the Sun is rising.

Transit Map