Slashdot Mirror

Typical vehicles:

Jacked up pickup trucks: (Ford)
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~kimberly/images/Antarctic a/ben_truck.jpg
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~kimberly/images/Antarctic a/ben_sib_truck.jpg
http://tiger.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/truck_tracks_sm. jpg

Deltas: (built by Canadian Foremost)
http://astro.uchicago.edu/cara/vtour/mcmurdo/delta .gif
http://www.theice.org/gifs/delta.gif
http://www.gmra.org/n0nhp/antarctica/mendelta.jpg

Ivan the Terra Bus: (Foremost)
http://images.google.com/images?q=ivan+terra+bus&i e=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en

Other odd specialized vehicles:
Haagelund
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~kimberly/images/Antarctic a/SnowSchool.jpg
Sprite: (Thiokal)
http://tiger.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/sprite.jpg
Nodwell: (Tracked Delta)
http://tiger.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/nodwell.jpg
Tracked Crash/Fire vehicle:
http://www.theice.org/gifs/1frtrax.gif

Given that there are very strict rules for handling human impact in Antarctica, isn't this road, which will draw even more tourists and researchers, cause a real logistical nightmare? It's hard enough to haul the trash generated from shore, but if you start carrying truckloads of junk to the pole itself... you have to truck it out too. That's the trash collection job to end all trash collection jobs. From the McMurdo Station website for incoming Antarctic visitors:

WASTE MANAGEMENT
In 1990, McMurdo Station developed and implemented its first formal recycling program. Since then, Waste Management has continuously upgraded the program to maximize recycling efforts. During the 1993-94 season, the USAP recycled 70% of hazardous and non-hazardous waste. The program stands as a model for other communities and is a point of pride for the USAP community.

Except for human waste, all waste generated by the USAP is removed from Antarctica and returned to the United States for disposal. Because of strict Federal and State regulations on this process, it is crucial that waste be handled effectively.

The key to McMurdo's recycling program is careful source segregation: as careless separation of waste in McMurdo can result in material being unfit for recycling, it is everyone's responsibility to separate waste effectively. You will be briefed on the details of McMurdo's recycling program. Please be sure you gain a thorough understanding of your part in the recycling process; make sure your questions are answered. With a little practice, you'll find the separation of waste materials into a myriad of containers will become second nature--a process you expect to continue when you return to the world.

Over the years NASA has had a few successful programs that were swept under the carpet or killed. These were always low cost projects that never got much support and were progressing quite well for the money invested. Not only did they not get support the support they needed but they often had to fight for every dime against NASA.

The first example is the Lifting Body program in the early sixties. The Lifting Body Fact Sheet outlines the history of this project similar to the DynaSoar project of the Air Force at about the same time frame. The biggest difference was that the Lifting Body program cost about 3% of the other program and had real flight data from hundreds of flights. Guess which one got cancelled first?

Then there is the DCX project and thats an interesting study of how successful projects are quietly killed off. For general info see Delta Clipper and DC X FAQ for grneral info. I have run across several documents over the years that highlight how congress and others tried to kill off the DC X. Initially it was under DARPA (the Internet folk) and later it ended up under NASA budget. After NASA got it it was quietly eliminated in favor of the X33. Now the X33 was a great public works project as it required development of new technology where the DC-X was designed to be inexpensive and be iteratively developed to its full potential. Which one was selected for development into the next generation space craft?

Maybe the X33 was retasked for airforce use as the Arora. Hows that for a wild speculation?

In the Moon shot NASA iterated through several platforms while learning and growing along the way. The STS was more of a waterfall big bang approach and when it arrived it was already obsolete. Maybe NASA is just a public works errort after all.

Over the years NASA has had a few successful programs that were swept under the carpet or killed. These were always low cost projects that never got much support and were progressing quite well for the money invested. Not only did they not get support the support they needed but they often had to fight for every dime against NASA.

The first example is the Lifting Body program in the early sixties. The Lifting Body Fact Sheet outlines the history of this project similar to the DynaSoar project of the Air Force at about the same time frame. The biggest difference was that the Lifting Body program cost about 3% of the other program and had real flight data from hundreds of flights. Guess which one got cancelled first?

Then there is the DCX project and thats an interesting study of how successful projects are quietly killed off. For general info see Delta Clipper and DC X FAQ for grneral info. I have run across several documents over the years that highlight how congress and others tried to kill off the DC X. Initially it was under DARPA (the Internet folk) and later it ended up under NASA budget. After NASA got it it was quietly eliminated in favor of the X33. Now the X33 was a great public works project as it required development of new technology where the DC-X was designed to be inexpensive and be iteratively developed to its full potential. Which one was selected for development into the next generation space craft?

Maybe the X33 was retasked for airforce use as the Arora. Hows that for a wild speculation?

In the Moon shot NASA iterated through several platforms while learning and growing along the way. The STS was more of a waterfall big bang approach and when it arrived it was already obsolete. Maybe NASA is just a public works errort after all.

Yet another poster who says that "they dont care". Obviously you DO care; do you think that by saying this you


I'm not saying at all that I don't care about this thread. Obviously, as you point out, I do, or I wouldn't have done that simulation. What I meant (at the bottom of the website I posted and which you quote) is that I don't care to spend more time on the simulation, because I didn't believe it necessary.


Proving that something can be faked doesnt make the original a lie; what it proves is that you are skilled at forgery,


I was not attempting to prove that it was a forgery, and I do not in fact believe it was a forgery. I suspect it is, most likely, an actual telescopic photograph taken by the satellite in question.

What I was attempting to demonstrate was that there wasn't enough information in their original image to form a conclusion about the nature of the object.

That the original was a very low-resolution image. In specific, that the bright white object seen is only 3 pixels wide and in reality is just a 4-pixel upside down "T" shape. In only looks like the classic UFO shape because of the "enhancement" they applied. The shape it was before ehnancement could have been a picture of anything: a star, a planet, a comet, a spacecraft, or a speck of dust on the lens.

My argument is that, based on only a few pixels of color and no other information, one cannot generally make a conclusion as to the nature of the object.


havent got either the brains or skills to do the REAL WORK that is needed to comb through this evidence to find out whats really going on.


While normally I wouldn't even respond to such an obvious troll, in this case I'll make an exception. I would be the first one to cheer in the case of confirmed evidence of extraterrestrials. My real work is, in fact, in astrobiology - the search for life on other worlds. It involves a great deal of "combing through the evidence" -- many years worth, and a whole lot of hard work. I work now at the California Institute of Techonology in collaboration with researchers at JPL and USC.

I just can't abide people who don't understand the scientific method and critical thought, and who believe a tiny amount of nonspecific, unconfirmed data like a three-pixel-wide image can prove anything.

Give me *real* evidence, say a few 300-pixel-wide image showing spacecraft structures, or parallax and spectrographic shift data demonstrating that this object is in our solar system but moving contrary to gravity (i.e. under thrust or other sort of propulsion), and get that data confirmed by a couple of independent laboratories, and you'll make a believer out of me. I want it to be true as much as you do.

In the meantime, I'll remain wary of charlatans who would capitalize on your naievete and fanatical desire for UFOs to be real in order to sell you CDs of "enhanced" pictures of what are probably random space rocks.

What are those flying saucer-shaped objects in the LASCO images?

The "funny-looking spheroid" is a typical response of the SOHO LASCO coronagraph CCD detector to an object (planet or bright star) of small angular extent but so bright that it saturates the CCD camera so that "bleeding" occurs along pixel rows. There is a bright horizontal streak on either side of the image, because the charge leaks easier along the direction in which the CCD image is read out by the associated electronics.

CCD stands for charge-coupled detector, and refers to a silicon chip, usually a centimeter or two across, divided into a grid of cells, each of which acts like a small photomultiplier in that an incoming photon knocks loose one or more electrons. The electrons are "read out" by row (fast direction) and column (slow direction), the current converted to a digital signal, and each cell or picture element ("pixel") thus assigned a digital value proportional to the the number of incoming photons in that pixel (the brightness of the part of the image falling on that pixel). This is the same kind of detector as is used in a hand-held video camera, though until recently, the analog-to-digital conversion was left out in consumer devices.

If you point a video camera at a very bright source (say, the Sun), the image "blooms" or brightens all over --- there are so many electrons produced in the pixels corresponding to the bright source that they spill over into adjacent rows and column, perhaps over the entire detector. Better CCD's will "bleed" only along the fast readout direction (a single row), and perhaps a few adjacent rows.

The LASCO and EIT CCD cameras include "anti-bleed" electronics which limit the pixel bleeding around bright sources to less than the full row (and usually no adjacent rows). In the case of a marginally too-bright object, the pixel bleeding will be only a few pixels in either direction along the fast readout direction. Thus, the "flying saucer" images.

A few of the LASCO images that have appeared on the "extraterrestrial" Web sites show much larger and brighter, but still saucer-like features. These images are in fact obtained with the instrument door closed, but with an incorrectly long exposure. The big "saucers" result from massive pixel bleeding along every row of the detector containing part of the image of the "opal," or small diffusing lens, in the instrument door, that is used for obtaining calibration data.

If your correspondents still prefer to believe that the pixel-bled images of planets or bright stars are something else, ask them why the extended part of the "saucers" (i.e., the pixel bleeding) always occurs in the same direction relative to the image --- even when the spacecraft is rolled relative to its normal orientation relative to the Sun.

You forgot to mention the 2010-artifacts: http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/hotshots/2000_02_07 /hale/swa009.gif

You knew it all along! You're part of the conspiracy!!

a large, flaming head takes a bite out of the sun!

In fact, there's a great picture at Science@NASA that shows Jupiter, Venus, Mars, and Saturn all in SOHO's field of view. All with the diffraction spikes at the sides of the planets.

More images with diffraction spikes:

The Finding of Comet SOHO 2002 C4
Hot Shots from SOHO - high bandwidth, but great examples showing that the image at the top of the EuroSeti page is almost definitely a comet

In fact, there's a great picture at Science@NASA that shows Jupiter, Venus, Mars, and Saturn all in SOHO's field of view. All with the diffraction spikes at the sides of the planets.

More images with diffraction spikes:

The Finding of Comet SOHO 2002 C4
Hot Shots from SOHO - high bandwidth, but great examples showing that the image at the top of the EuroSeti page is almost definitely a comet

CCD effects look like a good bet. If you watch the interview video, you'll see that all the "saucer" shapes line up with the pixel grid of the camera. Funny that.

And then read the SOHO FAQ page and you'll see that it's a known artifact. I'm personally used to CCD artifacts in video cameras, where the design tends to result in vertical lines from bright lights (aka "vertical smear"), but obviously the SOHO CCD design lends itself to horizontal smear instead.

If anyone ever makes a real UFO discovery, it won't be from science-ignorant bozos like these.

For a dose of cure for some of this, here are some relevant links:

National Space Centre

SOHO Mission Page

In the end, I'm left with the feeling that the folks at the UFO magazine seized on some out-of-context statement made by the ESA or NASA and interpreted it as they saw fit.

I think so. The specs don't specify the details, but I think that the Mobile Servicing Station, provided by Canada, uses electromagnets within the Base System and the Dexterous Manipulator.

Here's more info on Canada's robotic hand/arm thing. It's like a crazy robotic slinky/robot arm which doesn't have a shoulder. I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that it uses electro-magnets, but I can't find any direct mention of the coupling mechanism it uses.

" We allredy have Plasma Engines as well.

But well, they are build by ESA, so of course they are off limits for the NASA."

First off, if you're going to use something as vague as "plasma engine," you're bound to have it come back and bite you. On 12 October 1975 and 1 September 1976, the US Navy and NASA launched the Triad 2 and TIP 3 spacecraft respectively. Both of them successfully tested a pulsed plasma engine (amongst other things). My source.

(For those of you keeping track at home, the ESA didn't even exist until April 1974.)

"With Plasma Engines the trip would take roughly 33 days ..."

That's interesting. JPL's VASIMR says it will take 3 months. Where are you getting your number?

Not that your number actually matters even if its correct. To provide the kind of specific impulse needed for a manned mission to Mars with a plasma-based engine, you're going to need a lot of electricity, so much that you'll need your own nuclear reactor. And it's pretty much accepted that the US Navy is the world leader in making small, efficient and safe nuclear reactors.

Before you go calling NASA a glorified jobs program, remember that NASA also has scientific missions not directly related to manned space flight. These scientific segments, such as most of the activity as NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, do a lot of scientific work that is very valuable to the scientific community, obviously especially astronomers. Projects such as the High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center provide invaluable reseach tools to scientists. Another example is the Laser Interferometry Space Antenna project, which will be invaluable to physicists in testing Einstein's theory of general relativity, cosmological theories, and possibly "theories of everything".

While I think there are some valid goals for manned space flight, and I think that getting man into space can also have positive social effects, many things like the Internation Space Station have very questionable scientific value. This is clear to many inside NASA as well, but in the case of the ISS this has more to do with the fact that budget cutting in congress cut out most of the valid scientific componants of the mission as to expensive. So, first of all, don't blame all of NASA for the failing of the manned space flight program, and second don't think that many of the people within NASA aren't just as frustrated as those on the outside.

Before you go calling NASA a glorified jobs program, remember that NASA also has scientific missions not directly related to manned space flight. These scientific segments, such as most of the activity as NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, do a lot of scientific work that is very valuable to the scientific community, obviously especially astronomers. Projects such as the High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center provide invaluable reseach tools to scientists. Another example is the Laser Interferometry Space Antenna project, which will be invaluable to physicists in testing Einstein's theory of general relativity, cosmological theories, and possibly "theories of everything".

While I think there are some valid goals for manned space flight, and I think that getting man into space can also have positive social effects, many things like the Internation Space Station have very questionable scientific value. This is clear to many inside NASA as well, but in the case of the ISS this has more to do with the fact that budget cutting in congress cut out most of the valid scientific componants of the mission as to expensive. So, first of all, don't blame all of NASA for the failing of the manned space flight program, and second don't think that many of the people within NASA aren't just as frustrated as those on the outside.

Before you go calling NASA a glorified jobs program, remember that NASA also has scientific missions not directly related to manned space flight. These scientific segments, such as most of the activity as NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, do a lot of scientific work that is very valuable to the scientific community, obviously especially astronomers. Projects such as the High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center provide invaluable reseach tools to scientists. Another example is the Laser Interferometry Space Antenna project, which will be invaluable to physicists in testing Einstein's theory of general relativity, cosmological theories, and possibly "theories of everything".

While I think there are some valid goals for manned space flight, and I think that getting man into space can also have positive social effects, many things like the Internation Space Station have very questionable scientific value. This is clear to many inside NASA as well, but in the case of the ISS this has more to do with the fact that budget cutting in congress cut out most of the valid scientific componants of the mission as to expensive. So, first of all, don't blame all of NASA for the failing of the manned space flight program, and second don't think that many of the people within NASA aren't just as frustrated as those on the outside.

Are you certain? MER (two rovers) is a quarter billion dollar project, assuming it hasn't overrun its budget. While mass production would certainly cut down the price of the rovers, you need to have ninety science teams operating in parallel to achieve this.

Leaving asside the assumptions that their efforts would be truly cumulative, that somehow having 90 rovers would make up for the deficiencies inherent to robotic planetary exploration, and that the 45s/1hr estimate is more than just an off-the-cuff figure, you'd require (1) a new rocket for each rover (ninety total) (2) a massively enlarged control infrastructure (not just rooms with computers--we're talking a huge expansion of the Deep Space Network now) and (3) lots and lots of additional scientists. I expect all of this would cost many billions of dollars.

I know, you were probably just kidding, but it's fun to think about this stuff.

--Tom

Most likely the propulsion system will be based on NERVA technology developed in the 50s and 60s. The vehicle has been in discussion for some time.

There have been a number of nuclear propulsion ideas over the years, i.e. ORION (using nuclear explosions) and the like, but NERVA is, imho, the best. To bad it's not practical to scale up the Ion propulsion system used on DS-1.

It's become a nearly-complete waste of money.

Sure, there have been some spectacular failures. But there have been spectacular successes as well. There's an awful lot we know about the Universe we live in, and about our own planet, that we would not know if it were not for those missions. For that matter, the Apollo project, expensive as it was, and despite the fact that it was not focussed on science, told us a huge amount about the past, present, and future of Earth.

(I have to admit, much though I emotionally like the idea of humans in space, that the uncrewed missions are a lot less expensive per quantum of discovery than the crewed ones.)

It's become a nearly-complete waste of money.

Sure, there have been some spectacular failures. But there have been spectacular successes as well. There's an awful lot we know about the Universe we live in, and about our own planet, that we would not know if it were not for those missions. For that matter, the Apollo project, expensive as it was, and despite the fact that it was not focussed on science, told us a huge amount about the past, present, and future of Earth.

(I have to admit, much though I emotionally like the idea of humans in space, that the uncrewed missions are a lot less expensive per quantum of discovery than the crewed ones.)

It's become a nearly-complete waste of money.

Sure, there have been some spectacular failures. But there have been spectacular successes as well. There's an awful lot we know about the Universe we live in, and about our own planet, that we would not know if it were not for those missions. For that matter, the Apollo project, expensive as it was, and despite the fact that it was not focussed on science, told us a huge amount about the past, present, and future of Earth.

(I have to admit, much though I emotionally like the idea of humans in space, that the uncrewed missions are a lot less expensive per quantum of discovery than the crewed ones.)

Just the other day I saw on Discovery Wings a part all about the Russian built shuttle called the Buran. See http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/rsa/buran.html for details. The part I found interesting is that since they were running low on budget (you thought NASA has a budget problem, look at Russia!), they only flew it once, and since they didn't have money or time for life support systems, they flew it by autopilot! I thought that was pretty incredible. A Shuttle took off, orbitted twice, and landed, with no one flying the thing.

In related news, it appears that they were trying to auction the thing off, and for only $6,000,000!! Google for more info.

Columbia is also a groupie and a space shuttle.

A woman born in India is in the space shuttle

In case you didn't know - In addition to the Israeli guy, the space shuttle also has a woman who was born in India and now works for NASA like many other people born in India. Her name is Kalpana Chawla and she has been in space before.
Here is her bio on NASA's website
In November, 1996, Kalpana Chawla was assigned as mission specialist and prime robotic arm operator on STS-87 (November 19 to December 5, 1997). In completing her first mission, Kalpana Chawla traveled 6.5 million miles in 252 orbits of the Earth and logged 376 hours and 34 minutes in space. This is her second mission.

Don't most IT guys hate people from India !!

A woman born in India is in the same space shuttle

In case you didn't know - In addition to the Israeli guy, the space shuttle also has a woman who was born in India and now works for NASA like many other people born in India. Her name is Kalpana Chawla and she has been in space before.
Here is her bio on NASA's website
In November, 1996, Kalpana Chawla was assigned as mission specialist and prime robotic arm operator on STS-87 (November 19 to December 5, 1997). In completing her first mission, Kalpana Chawla traveled 6.5 million miles in 252 orbits of the Earth and logged 376 hours and 34 minutes in space. This is her second mission.
Very surprising that the media is covering the story of Israeli guy while they completely ignored her(or not surprising at all, considering that media has been completely oblivious to contribution of Indians in American society which results in ignorant public opinion)!

A woman born in India is in the same space shuttle

In case you didn't know - In addition to the Israeli guy, the space shuttle also has a woman who was born in India and now works for NASA like many other people born in India. Her name is Kalpana Chawla and she has been in space before.
Here is her bio on NASA's website
In November, 1996, Kalpana Chawla was assigned as mission specialist and prime robotic arm operator on STS-87 (November 19 to December 5, 1997). In completing her first mission, Kalpana Chawla traveled 6.5 million miles in 252 orbits of the Earth and logged 376 hours and 34 minutes in space. This is her second mission.
Very surprising that the media is covering the story of Israeli guy while they completely ignored her(or not surprising at all, considering that media has been completely oblivious to contribution of Indians in American society which results in ignorant public opinion)!

The date on that link doesn't make it very believable..

Which was, of course, not the reason why NASA decided to launch April 4 instead of April 1. Of course, this also prevented some jokers leaving an applecore to a critical circuit panel (/obscurereference) and causing a disaster of Challengerian proportions.

http://amesnews.arc.nasa.gov/releases/2003/03_04AR .html

You're right. Sputnik was billed as Earth's first artificial moon - and nobody complained that it was only as big as a basketball.

It'd be nice if they read this and answered. But it seems like in practice any natural object in a reasonably stable orbit around a planet or even an asteroid is called a moon. I think at about 1.6 km Dactyl holds the record - Ida, the asteroid it orbits, is only about 30 km across. There is a size limit for moons, but it's based on whether we can determine a definite orbit.

Here

According to a quote in this press release, the parrafin-based engines can be throttled, shutdown and even restarted, all of which are impossible with current solid-rocket motors.

"A hybrid rocket equivalent to the Space Shuttle's solid rockets would be about the same diameter, but would be somewhat longer," said Stanford University Professor Brian Cantwell. "Hybrid rockets, using the paraffin-based fuel, can be throttled over a wide range, including shut-down and restart. That's one reason why they could be considered as possible replacements for the Shuttle's current solid rocket boosters that cannot be shut off after they are lit," he said. "One design concept being considered is a new hybrid booster rocket that is able to fly back to the launch site for recharging," he added.

The "Ozone Hole" has been decreasing since 1998. A simple google search on this and you will see.

Check it out here

Maybe a full size image of the rocket site will help figure out what the oxidizer might be. Click Here

Maybe it's contained in the GOX tank?? *Shrugs*

I think it will be interesting to see the types of creatures that we find in the deepest depths of the ocean.. Maybe we might even get some pictures of the elusive Giant Squid!

If everything started with a Big Bang from a singularity roughly 10-20 billion years ago, how is it that things came to be physcially 13 billion or more light years apart? I understand that the "Doppler" redshift is caused by great speed away from us. But is the universe seriously expanding at anything near lightspeed?

Some suggest that initial expansion was faster than light speed, and that the Hubble expansion is accelerating.

"Rho Cas is faraway compared to most stars visible at night, more than 10,000 light-years. It is visible because it is among the most massive stars known, 20 to 40 times more heavy than the Sun, and shines nearly a million times more brightly than the Sun. If it replaced our Sun, its girth would consume Earth and Mars."

And from NASA:

"Black holes are the evolutionary endpoints of stars at least 10 to 15 times as massive as the Sun."

So, is this a black hole waiting to happen? I would think that would be a thing of note, yet I don't see it mentioned in the article. They talk about it going supernova, then collapsing, but they don't say into what... Anyone know?

-T

Humm, what about this

Photons are not particles in the sense of neutrons, electrons et. al which are massy particles.

Photons are better described as 'packets of energy'. Gravity doesn't just affect mass - it affects energy as well. Light doesnt get 'pulled into' a black hole, it just gets redshifted so much (by the gravity sucking the energy out of it), that its wavelength becomes infinite, and thus immeasureable.

Photons can exert a pressure though because they have MOMENTUM. Thus they have a 'mass equivalent', but they do not have mass, and that is not why they cannot escape black holes.

• http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/usability/textfontcss. html
• http://www.wilsonweb.com/wmt6/html-email-fonts.htm
• http://www.hfe.org/resource/articles/fonts.htm

For a long time, I've heard that some astronomers think the Milky Way is a barred spiral galaxy. It's of course very hard to tell looking out from within. This discovery would tend to vindicate that view. What they have detected is the ring of stars that form the faint spiral around the outer periphery. We live at the far end of one of the bars. Have a look at this photo of NGC5850 and you can see what I'm talking about. It's "ring" is a bit more prominent than ours though. Google has more.

There is another very important point to recognize here. The HST Key project results (based upon Cepheid variable stars) is independent of the measurement/modeling of the ages of the oldest stars of Milky Way halo stars and clusters. Sure, both measurements each have significant systematic errors, but their uncertainties come from entirely different things! So the fact that they agree is quite reassuring. It also means that the measurements can be combined, at least to some degree.

With the newest generation of instruments and telescopes observing the Universe from radio waves to gamma rays, there will be new, independent methods of measuring the age and fate of the Universe. Already measurements from Type 1a supernovae are narrowing the uncertainties in some cosmological parameters. Other methods that currently yield very large error bars, but will be pivotal in the next few years are gravitational lensing (a detailed description here) and the Senyaev-Zeldovich effect (some details here).

When and if we get to the point where all methods yield the same result, we'll have our answer. In the meantime, if you just quote the formal results from just a single group, from a single type of argument/measurement, the systematic errors are going to be large, particularly when you're dealing with anything on cosmological scales!

Here's a link directly to JPL's press release:

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2003/1.cfm

There are several interesting anmiations.

I think the giant squid would have something to say about that. =)

Hmm. I think all I can say about this story is, animal planet made an entertaining but uninformative tv show, and if you want to know more about evolution, read some Dawkins.

The fact of the matter is that the distances were are talking about are VAST. We KNOW faster than light travel is impossible.

I care about this cause it's "orbit" as seen from Earth is Really,Really, Reallyneat.

Although I admit that everytime I look at the JPL Orbit Diagrams, I feel the urge to load up the original version of Elite

I care about this cause it's "orbit" as seen from Earth is Really,Really, Reallyneat.

Although I admit that everytime I look at the JPL Orbit Diagrams, I feel the urge to load up the original version of Elite

Actually, it referrs to a bit more than that...

Yes; a lot more. Please see here and here for more information.

The key point is that Terrestrial Planet Finder and similar projects aren't looking just for signs of life, but rather for other places that we (i.e. humans) can live.

Actually, it referrs to a bit more than that...

Yes; a lot more. Please see here and here for more information.

The key point is that Terrestrial Planet Finder and similar projects aren't looking just for signs of life, but rather for other places that we (i.e. humans) can live.