Slashdot Mirror

Also, I have to mention Celestia, a great Space Simulator, similar to OpenUniverse.

In closing, let me say that I think people should take more of an interest in astronomy, as the understanding and exploration of space is one of the most important goals humans should have if they wish to survive longer 500 million years or so.

the SkyView Virtual Observatory run by NASA, though I suspect this National one will be far more sophisticated. Cheers.

U.S.S. Enterprise

Shuttle

Mid-sized

The other problem NASA has, and it is also symptomatic of being a beaurocracy, is incurable featuritis.

I have to argue that NASA's featuritis is not so much a disease as a stated mission goal. NASA spends >50% of its budget on research projects, a lot of them real blue-sky stuff, like the breakthrough physics propulsion project.

The assumption is that pure research in fields like aeronautics, propulsion, etc., can benefit not only space exploration but more practical projects as well. And what good is funding the research if you aren't willing to be a proving ground for it as well? It's funny to think that the NASA administration has a desire to push boundaries, as well as an ingrained distrust of unproven technology. Seems contradictory.

Very insightful post, btw.

The other problem NASA has, and it is also symptomatic of being a beaurocracy, is incurable featuritis.

I have to argue that NASA's featuritis is not so much a disease as a stated mission goal. NASA spends >50% of its budget on research projects, a lot of them real blue-sky stuff, like the breakthrough physics propulsion project.

The assumption is that pure research in fields like aeronautics, propulsion, etc., can benefit not only space exploration but more practical projects as well. And what good is funding the research if you aren't willing to be a proving ground for it as well? It's funny to think that the NASA administration has a desire to push boundaries, as well as an ingrained distrust of unproven technology. Seems contradictory.

Very insightful post, btw.

The other problem NASA has, and it is also symptomatic of being a beaurocracy, is incurable featuritis.

I have to argue that NASA's featuritis is not so much a disease as a stated mission goal. NASA spends >50% of its budget on research projects, a lot of them real blue-sky stuff, like the breakthrough physics propulsion project.

The assumption is that pure research in fields like aeronautics, propulsion, etc., can benefit not only space exploration but more practical projects as well. And what good is funding the research if you aren't willing to be a proving ground for it as well? It's funny to think that the NASA administration has a desire to push boundaries, as well as an ingrained distrust of unproven technology. Seems contradictory.

Very insightful post, btw.

...there hasn't been any 'wow' project which has simply been unable to get funding.

NASA basically killed the McDonnell Douglas DC-X.

Instead of going ahead with the Delta Clipper, which had working flight tested hardware, they went with the more expensive, riskier, technology of the Lockhead Martin X-33 design for the RLV program. While much more impressive, if it worked, the Lockheed design was alot riskier.

Then in 2001 they killed the entire SSTO program stone cold dead...

Funny you mention that. I just heard a local public radio blurb about a Cincinnati company that is applying this to multi-perspon emergency worker and police radio communications and conference calling. Here's an article (not from the same comapny) about using this for cockpit displays. A PDF about NASA research on the subject. (Goes into exactly how we can fool the ears into spatial localization.) A chapter from a book about auditory cueing using spatial localization.

Most of this seems to be geared towards increasing Situational Awareness in the context of aircraft cockpits.

I wouldn't have made it out of the harbor in one piece, so I don't mean to criticize too harshly. :)

Someone must be burning to know that the Earth is about 8,000 in diameter, fatter at the Equator. There, that's as much showing off as I can muster. More.

Here is an exercise.

It's over a distance of 500 sq miles, which is about a 22.3 * 22.3 mile square. People can see 22 miles and with any number of instruments (a flag, a shiny bit of metal, whatever) could direct others to draw lines. This would only take a few days to mark the places to dig.

I agree with your conclusions. The Inca and their predecessors were adept at surveying and built carefully graded canals that were miles long.

However I think you are probably neglecting some essentials about the visibility issue. First, the earth's curvature. From twenty miles off, the object would have to be tall enough to stand above your horizon. For a six foot tall individual this distance is less than five kilometers (see this for example). Atmospheric conditions that increase refraction can increase this distance, but normally not much.

Another point is object size. A two meter object subtends about 1/5,000 of a degree of arc at 10 kilometers - 6 miles - (if my trig is correct). Regardless of how clear the atmosphere may be, a normal human eye doesn't have that kind of resolution.

Very long linears can be accurately surveyed in short segments using geometric methods provided that care is exercised. A siting device such as a staff, ropes, and pegs for swinging arcs, and possibly a leveling device, are probably all that was necessary. High visibilty probably was not necessary. In fact, the lines could probably have been done in moderate fog.

So the full 16 solar panels (not counting those in the science platform that will likely never be added) generate 1/4 Megawatt of continuous power. Now what would three people need with enough power for 200 homes? Recall that the space station was started (see history) in 1985 when Reagan was president.

Essentially, all the science and habitation modules of the space station have been nixed, but all the solar panels have been preserved.

If you don't try to hold your breath, exposure to space for half a minute or so is unlikely to produce permanent injury. Holding your breath is likely to damage your lungs, something scuba divers have to watch out for when ascending, and you'll have eardrum trouble if your Eustachian tubes are badly plugged up, but theory predicts -- and animal experiments confirm -- that otherwise, exposure to vacuum causes no immediate injury. You do not explode. Your blood does not boil. You do not freeze. You do not instantly lose consciousness.

Various minor problems (sunburn, possibly "the bends", certainly some [mild, reversible, painless] swelling of skin and underlying tissue) start after ten seconds or so. At some point you lose consciousness from lack of oxygen. Injuries accumulate. After perhaps one or two minutes, you're dying. The limits are not really known.

You do not explode and your blood does not boil because of the containing effect of your skin and circulatory system. You do not instantly freeze because, although the space environment is typically very cold, heat does not transfer away from a body quickly. Loss of consciousness occurs only after the body has depleted the supply of oxygen in the blood. If your skin is exposed to direct sunlight without any protection from its intense ultraviolet radiation, you can get a very bad sunburn.

Actually the closest comparison would be endevour's reboosting od INTELSAT VI dusirng STS-49

Actually the closest comparison would be endevour's reboosting od INTELSAT VI dusirng STS-49

America is not suffering from a lack of vision; it is suffering from a lack of results, a plague of soured "return on investments". It's one thing to have lofty goals, but it is quite another to spend without purpose.

Why was the ISS built? Was it so NASA scientists could perform all of these hi-tech crystal expieriments & gravity tests? NASA lists a set of reasons here. Some goals are noble... "To create a permanent orbiting science institute in space capable of performing long-duration research in the materials and life sciences areas in a nearly gravity-free environment", "To conduct medical research in space", "To develop new materials and processes in collaboration with industry"

No, why was it really built? Two more "reasons" are more ominous (and really, the only goals that suceeded). "To forge new partnerships with the nations of the world." and "To sustain and strengthen the United States' strongest export sector-aerospace technology-which in 1995 exceeded $33 billion." In retrospect, we now know that that "export sector" was selling long range rocket diagrams & targeting systems to the Chinese, some of the more ethically dubious actions of the Clinton administration. ISS was a shortcut for the US government to funnel money out to other First World nations, which bloated the national budget and artifically increased our Gross Domestic Product... a surprising correlation to Wall Street's activities over the same time period.

So, where is America's spirit of exporation today? In my opinion, it's not outward to the stars, but inward... the Internet. We're working to build a world of interconnected services, where a doctor can telemeter themselves accross the country to perform operations, or have digital paper, or communicate in virtual worlds (EverQuest & now the Sims Online). Each new network discovery has the same effect as throwing another satelite in space, for a much smaller cost.

What will it take to rekindle the spirit to go to space? Money. Show me where I can make a profit, when the transportation costs are negligible, or maybe asteroid mining to find pure crystals of metal, or terraforming ... this time around, it's not government that's going to have to lead the way.

85% [wired.com] of their time is required for maintenance.

Very little hard science has been done due to construction delays and retrofitting many of the parts.

The editorial in the December issue of Sky and Telescope grumbles about this. As the author put it, 30 years ago (i.e. Apollo 17) we had three guys at the Moon, making discoveries. Now we have three guys in low Earth orbit, fixing things.

Sigh.

...laura

I wouldn't worry, a billion of your tax dollars are being 'well spent' carrying girders up to the ISS so that they'll have something to attach other girders to in the future.

When I put it like that the ISS sounds like a colossal waste of money. Perhaps I should mention all the really useful science going on up there - umm... err... ahem...

Still, I'm sure its a very nice girder - the Rolls Royce of girders, the sort of girder that Harrods would offer to their clientele should they be in the building trade.

Best wishes,
Mike.

You're right, at NASA 113=112, but I did take the number from a NASA source. Go figure -- it was probably dated despite the date on the page. Interesting that the # of missions and flight number are coinciding.

This claims 111: http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/factoids/orbite r.htm

Anyway, the point was the probabilities! Future, not past, as past probabilities don't exist ... they're called outcomes. So, someone break out a calculotor before I have to.

Take a look here to take a look at how many satellites there are in the near-Earth environment.

BTW, does anyone have a similar link to a site showing space junk?

- rotwhylr

You're right, the missions are out of sequence, but there have been over 100 missions. I believe this is the 112th flight (incl 51L). If you feel like counting see spaceflight.nasa.gov.

But the Hubble telescope is 375 miles from earth, while the moon is 240,000 miles from earth. If it can only resolve a 1-cm object at 50 miles, then the smallest object it can resolve at this distance is about 50 km (30 miles). I seem to recall the lunar landers are a little smaller than this.

This month NASA tried to put an end to the controversy by commissioning a definitive account of the evidence for the landings. Days later it dropped the idea after criticism that it was wasting money by taking on the lunatic fringe: naturally, this only boosted claims that the agency was trying to hide something.

Do you think the Russians have a veneratic fringe?

It isn't an 18 meter telescope. It is actually an array of four 8-meter telescopes. With three 1.8-meter telescopes for interferometry, and a 2.5-meter auxillary telescope. All of this should provide for relatively wide-field optical imaging.

Here is a great diagram and description of the VLT

As for being able to see the lander, it should be able to see objects of about 1.3 meters in diameter.
The supporting math:
(5e-5 m) / (1.6e4 m) * (3.85e8 m) = (1.2m)

Human hair: ~5 x 10^-5 meters
Maximim Distance human hair can be seen by telescope: 1.6 x 10^4m (according to story)
Distance to moon: 3.85 x 10^7m

there is only so many times in a day you can "go make coffee" or "check your email".

Geek Slack List

• http://www.subgenius.com/
• http://www.slackersguild.com/
• BBC News
• http://www.memepool.com/
• http://www.plastic.com/
• http://www.arstechnica.com/
• http://www.metafilter.com/
• http://www.techdirt.com/
• http://www.bottomquark.com/ (Science News)
• http://newsforge.com/
• http://www.theregister.co.uk/
• http://www.anandtech.com/
• http://www.bjorn3d.com/
• http://cellar.org - Image of the Day
• http://www.collegehumor.com/
• http://www.everything2.com/
• http://www.kuro5hin.org/
• http://www.theonion.com/
• NASA - Astronomy Picutre of the Day
• http://www.majorgeeks.com - Windows Shareware / Freeware
• http://www.advogato.org/
• http://www.sweetcode.org/
• http://www.disinfo.com/ - Disinformation
• http://www.somethingawful.com/
• http://www.astronomynow.com/ - Astronomy News
• http://www.aip.org/ - American Institue of Physics - News
• http://www.adequacy.org/

• The Effects of Moore's Law and Slacking 1 on Large Computations

Hope this helps =)

There is a problem in that we don't know what the likelihood of one of these particles hitting earth is (much less of it hitting a person). The study registers very few cases, but it can hardly be said to be very extensive or conclusive (or even correct).

Anyways, when new, previously unknown phenomena is theorized or observed, it is always a good idea to look for prior evidence or see if it can explain other things, even if they were at some time dismissed as lunatics' ravings. An excellent example of this can be found in this recently posted article about a theory that would provide a reasonable explanation to the accounts of witnesses that said they heard sounds produced by meteorites instantly (when they saw them).
--

Within a 100 light-year radius, that will probably be five or ten.

I'd rather have one generation starship than a dozen LEO space stations.

Some of the missions seem to have lacked, shall we say, hard science?

• What are the politico-economic effects to NASA of launching a Brevard County, FL US Representative into space as member of the shuttle crew ?
• What are the politico-economic effects to NASA of launching a US Senator into space as a member of the shuttle crew?
• Experimentation into the adhesive properties of Post-It-Notes (tm) in weightlessness. (okay so I made that one up - I hope).

What about the Lifting Body (LB)? It should be included with the wing and rotor(which are really just rotating wings).
The Space Shuttle is an LB, the wings are not really wings but they look like wings.
The Six Million Dollar Man plane that crashes during the first part of the show was a proto-type LB plane.
The new International Space Station/Alpha will use an LB emergency escape vehicle.
A lot of new high performance aircraft will use it too.

NASA info on LB
Very nice collection of pictures page is in Japanese .
an interesting study
links
more links
Google

Now, the scary part is that I wrote a report on this maniac/genius back in high school and I remembered his name so I could google for it...

it went fine until the tagged on motor lit the main motor....the rocket tumbled just for an instant, and when the main motor fired, the rocket was horizontal

NASA has a pretty good website that talks about "near-earth objects" (comets/asteroids with orbits that bring them close to earth). They even have a page detailing the current impact risks.

Fortunately, only one of them is meriting significant attention. I guess we're safe for a little while then.

NASA has a pretty good website that talks about "near-earth objects" (comets/asteroids with orbits that bring them close to earth). They even have a page detailing the current impact risks.

Fortunately, only one of them is meriting significant attention. I guess we're safe for a little while then.

Oops, I meant to say this . Damn submit button...

Go to this site to determine the best viewing time for your location and the predicted count.

According to this NASA webpage, "The 2nd-best way to watch the Leonids. A royalty-free image from corbis.com."

Anybody notice the stock photo in the NASA page? This picture. I think it's supposed to representing watching TV, but it's really a sad social commentary.

Here's a young boy, ready to go outside and move and run and play. He's got his cap on, and he's got his football under his arm.

But instead of choosing to play in the sun and use the arms and legs nature gave him to enjoy himself, he sits sullen and emotionless in front of a TV.

He chooses the bland garbage spewed forth by the corporate-run media, enticing him to stay on the couch, not to question authority, not take care of his health. They hope to sell him fast food, video games, and heart medication when he grows up.

Really quite sad.

Alternate explanation #1:

This poor little girl wants to play with her dolls and talk with her friends. But her father is a violent man, who regrets never having had a son before his wife's untimely demise. He forces her to hold a football and watch the game on TV. If she resists, she is soundly beaten. She quietly assumes the role of the son her father never had.

Really quite sad.

Alternate Explanation #2:

It's raining and the game was just cancelled.

Really quite sad.

Click HERE to see a map of how it will look from various parts of Australia. I will try to explain the image...

The "Path of Total Eclipse" is the space between the two lines with the ellipses between them. You have to be standing somewhere between those two lines to see the 100% total eclipse.

The XX% lines tell how much of the sun (by diameter, not area, oddly) will be eclipsed if you are standing on that line.

West of the "Eclipse Ends at Sunset" line the entire eclipse will be visible. Between that line and the "Maximum Eclipse at Sunset" line you will see at least half of the eclipse, including the best part (totality). Between that line and the "Eclipse Begins at Sunset" line you will only see the beginning of the eclipse which wont include totality (which is why they dont even bother to extend the XX% lines that far).

So, to sum up... Queensland (in general) will have a crappy to moderate (with a tiny section of "great" in the southwest corner that I am ignoring for this summary) view of the eclipse. You will only see the very beginning of the eclipse because the sun will set during the first half of the eclipse. Depending on exactly where you are you could see from a few seconds up to a few minutes of partial eclipse, ranging from 60% to 100% coverage of the sun.

If you live anywhere in Australia it would be worthwhile to drive a few hours to Ceduna to see the total eclipse. If you cant do that, at least go outside near sundown and see what you can from where you are, even a partial eclipse is an interesting sight (do NOT stare at it!) that you dont get to see every decade.

Actually according tn NASA there was a TOTAL solar eclipse in 1998

too bad it doesn't look like we'll be seeing one of these any time soon :(

Wow! Amazing! To see the eclipse you've actually got to be somewhere where the eclipse is happening!

Actually no, the 1999 solar eclipse was visible from the Mir space station as a huge shadow on Earth. Spectacular.

I was in school at Cornell several years ago (1995?) when there was a total-but-not eclipse -- and annular solar eclipse. The one I saw was not quite like that of the link, but it was a very strange event. For several minutes, it was like daylight but not quite; the light was gray and there were bizarre shadows and diffraction effectcs.

So not all solar eclipses are alike. It interests me that the Moon and Sun are so similar is apparent (angular) size. The Moon is unique in the solar system for its enormous one-quarter size relative to its planet.

The link has a 1992 photo and numerous tips and links re eclipses generally.

I was in school at Cornell several years ago (1995?) when there was a total-but-not eclipse -- and annular solar eclipse. The one I saw was not quite like that of the link, but it was a very strange event. For several minutes, it was like daylight but not quite; the light was gray and there were bizarre shadows and diffraction effectcs.

So not all solar eclipses are alike. It interests me that the Moon and Sun are so similar is apparent (angular) size. The Moon is unique in the solar system for its enormous one-quarter size relative to its planet.

The link has a 1992 photo and numerous tips and links re eclipses generally.

How about learning some Geography? ;-) Austria != Australia.

As your map shows, there was a total solar eclipse on Aug 11 1999 passing through Austria (Europe!).

See also here, here for photos, and here for more reports.

...look for the space station, too

Oh, this is fantastic! Instead of launching building materials into space, you could simply supergun material into orbit or, safer, Lagrange points for longer-term parking, and then coagulate and shape them as needed. Of course space material could be used but if that was impractical for the need -- such as not providing the type of radiation shielding needed, for example -- this would be a cheap alternative.

This is the best news I've heard all day.

MacSlash has a brief note how NASA's JPL has put together a cluster of 33 XServes that was able to achieve 1/5 teraflop

I think you meant:

MacSlash has a brief note how NASA's JPL has put together a cluster of 33 XServes that was able to achieve 1/5 teraflop. Apple.

MacSlash has a brief note how NASA's JPL has put together a cluster of 33 XServes that was able to achieve 1/5 teraflop

I think you meant:

MacSlash has a brief note how NASA's JPL has put together a cluster of 33 XServes that was able to achieve 1/5 teraflop. Apple.

NASA has posted a little Palm OS applet to aid people who want to try counting the meteor rate.

You can find it here.

And information about it over on Space.com.

On this topic Did you ever wonder what it would be like to pop a water balloon in space?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the same image as this (click image for full-res) which doesn't purport to show the 'wasted' light but is being used to study urbanisation?

not trolling - just had that awesome image on my desktop for ages and recognised it straight away!