Slashdot Mirror

Perhaps those of you who don't get it should look at what you have for an imagination and what you have for an attention span. This is a thinking person's movie, not a movie that will whack you over the head with "get it, moron!". Further, until you've made a movie and dealt with all the problems that come with one, ponder what you say. This was a spectacular thing that we're still talking about 32 years later.

The Technology. My bigger bitch is with the people here that bitch about the technology. Perhaps you've been standing behind the door, but it is you and I that make the technology happen. If we want video phones then we should get off our collective asses and code the damn things up.

And, if we want the things this movie guessed would happen, they're not beyond the edge of our technology. All it takes is a political will to do these things and it will happen. What happened to the US space program, post Apollo 11, can only be considered a travesty. There was a viable team of very smart, can-do people that attained a spectacular goal. What did we did to the team? We laid most of them off and said, 'thanks guys'. That NASA was capable of all sorts of cool things but instead the press and hence the country looked at Vietnam instead.

So if you want the BIG technology this vision of the future offers, argue for it with your government critters. They will listen if you will take the time to clearly state the case. They're actually there to do the right thing, if only they can figure out what that is.

--Multics

P.S. don't whine at me about the Space Shuttle either. They went from an Apollo command module (think row-boat) to a reusable space truck (think modern cargo ship) in one step. They're allowed to have made (and continue to make) some blunders along the way -- after all this is rocket science.

No, the Russians could send up a Soyuz as planned, maybe a little earlier. If they can dock with an uncontrolled station.

And what was Viking, chopped liver?

Fred Espenak's site is better than any I've seen.

http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/eclipse.html

Doubt full,
All shuttle flights launch from Florida (Can We say brother Jeb.)

All US manned flights are directed from Houston Texas (Can we say his home state)

To much pork...

The only parts of NASA to get axed are Dan Goldin and GoreSat

Based on current knowledge, it appears that Pluto represents a class of Trans-Neptunian bodies. Triton, a moon of Neptune, appears to be another large member of this class. The Voyager 2 spacecraft took some wonderful pictures of Triton (JPL Planetary Photojournal), which showed some surprising features such as smoky vents.

It's even theorized that Titan, the only moon in the solar system with a thick atmosphere, might represent what would happen when a Triton or Pluto-like object gets close enough to the sun for the atmosphere to thaw out.

For those who aren't interested in the purely scientific reasons to go to Pluto, consider that the budget for it is not that much in the grand scheme of things, and that the beneficiaries of this research will include the entire world and generations to come, as opposed to say, sending a bunch of money overseas to build palaces for rich dictators so they can have a more comfortable view while oppressing the masses. ;)

The "face" is a rather uninteresting area. Here's a link to photographs of it taken with the Mars Global Surveyor which is in orbit around Mars now and photographing the entire surface in more detail than anything before. The area they are proposing landing the probe in includes areas with potential sedimentary rocks. Since the existence of sedimentary rocks potentially implies water, this is far more interesting than most random areas (especially if they're considering anything related to searching for life).

Of course, you realized that the "face" was mostly a coincidental artifact of lighting and relatively low resolution photography, and were trolling, and I've just fed the troll...

The "face" is a rather uninteresting area. Here's a link to photographs of it taken with the Mars Global Surveyor which is in orbit around Mars now and photographing the entire surface in more detail than anything before. The area they are proposing landing the probe in includes areas with potential sedimentary rocks. Since the existence of sedimentary rocks potentially implies water, this is far more interesting than most random areas (especially if they're considering anything related to searching for life).

Of course, you realized that the "face" was mostly a coincidental artifact of lighting and relatively low resolution photography, and were trolling, and I've just fed the troll...

Capt. Ron

I would love to have a moon base but there is no point in having a base there at this time. What should the residents of the base do - collect rock samples?
What I would like to see is a moon base AFTER perhaps 50 years when (if?) fusion power has become reality.
On the Moon there is a plenty of of helium-3 (not much of it here on Earth) which is an essential ingredient for effective controlled fusion power. If we will somehow find a way to make controlled fusion a reality, a moon base will be well worth it and indeed quite profitable. And when you start having that kind of operation in space the rest will follow. But this will not happen until after 50 or even 100 years.

Until then we should dedicate our resources to [limited] research in space, we should send probes to all of the planets in the solar system, investigate the asteroid belt, build a new space telescope to replace Hubble (as is currently being done), and [my favorite] continue with the current deep-space research, planet finding and such.
Perhaps we could even send a manned mission to Mars in 20 years, if it won't be too expensive.

What we don't need at this time is another 100 billion mission that has no clear goal. It is quite enough that we are already spending 100 billions or so on Alpha, a space station that will never be really useful. We certainly don't need another mess like that.

The obvious question is why not fund both? The reason is that the NASA budget has been effectively frozen for years, and Space Station and Shuttle suck up a large chunk of it. What's left over is used to fund such things as planetary science missions.

Yakking in space? Very common. Off the top of my head I know that Frank Borman, commander of Apollo 8, was quite sick for a while, and Fred Haise, lunar module pilot for the ill-fated Apollo 13, was sick early on. NASA of course has researched this and has a relatively technical paper on what is known as vestibular alterations, or space sickness.

The cleanup is to vacuum up the gunk. I'm eating my breakfast right now so I don't want to get into details.

Shuttle astronauts have an amazing menu to choose from.

Ok, there are a few things which are troublesome here, which no one seems to have acknowledged. First, the technology, which I do know off the top of my head, is EEG Electro-Encephalo-Gram, and Nasa did/does use it. the problem is, EEG is the analogous to poking about in a goat's innards. the same technology (little electrodes on your head) is used in the much more fruitful ERP (event related potential research). However this involves a rigourous experimental design, and a computer to breakdown, usually fourier transforms, the signals in response to specific stimuli in the millisecond range. Additionally, you need someone who can understand the data (sorry, a computer can't do this yet), this person need to know enough about neuroanatomy and cognition to decide just how meaningful the results are. for example, these folks The Sackler Institute . To honestly expect to be able to teach your kids to focus by having them play video games with an 800$ helmet? It is really quite sad actually. Basically, the people and technology involved in meaningfully researching in this domain are a not going to come with this helmet, which in effect is pricey, do-it-yourself phrenology .

Try OGR, the Optimal Golomb Ruler project. Finding better OGRs is actually a lot more clueful than brute-force cracking encryption keys (we've demonstrated that can be done, enough already!) - these interesting mathematical objects actually have many practical applications in comms, radio astronomy (so you are helping to find the LGMs) and other funky areas. And they even make beautiful necklaces....

The problems with the shuttle were not brought about by congress, but by technology.

In a word, bullshit.

From the STS 51-L Mission Overview and Preface to Presidential Commission Report on the Challenger Accident:

1. The Space Shuttle System was not designed to survive a failure of the Solid Rocket Boosters. There are no corrective actions that can be taken if the boosters do not operate properly after ignition, i.e., there is no ability to separate an Orbiter safely from thrusting boosters and no ability for the crew to escape the vehicle during first-stage ascent.

Neither the Mission Control Team not the 51-L crew had any warning of impending disaster.

Even if there had been warning, there were no actions available to the crew of the Mission Control Team to avert the disaster.

The original design of the Shuttle was quite different from what we finally ended up with; check this bibliography if you want more detail. The short story was that it went from a completely-reusable, general-purpose launch vehicle to one which was extremely compromized by two things: reusable space vehicle only (with partial reuse of the solid boosters) and the military-driven cross-range necessary for once-around abort returns to Vandenberg AFB. What had been liquid boosters were now solids, and there was no separation capability during solid burn -- the separation rockets had been removed to meet DOD spy-satellite launch requirements.

These changes were driven by Congress, admittedly with help from the Nixon administration.

The present vehicle bears little resemblance to the original proposals; not having seen those embodied and flown, I can't say whether they'd meet the design turnaround and costs. However, if you bother to talk to anyone who was significantly involved in the early Shuttle work, you'd find that I have told the simple truth. In a sense, they are technology problems -- but the technology is a forced, cutrate bastardization of the original designs.

---

The problems with the shuttle were not brought about by congress, but by technology.

In a word, bullshit.

From the STS 51-L Mission Overview and Preface to Presidential Commission Report on the Challenger Accident:

1. The Space Shuttle System was not designed to survive a failure of the Solid Rocket Boosters. There are no corrective actions that can be taken if the boosters do not operate properly after ignition, i.e., there is no ability to separate an Orbiter safely from thrusting boosters and no ability for the crew to escape the vehicle during first-stage ascent.

Neither the Mission Control Team not the 51-L crew had any warning of impending disaster.

Even if there had been warning, there were no actions available to the crew of the Mission Control Team to avert the disaster.

The original design of the Shuttle was quite different from what we finally ended up with; check this bibliography if you want more detail. The short story was that it went from a completely-reusable, general-purpose launch vehicle to one which was extremely compromized by two things: reusable space vehicle only (with partial reuse of the solid boosters) and the military-driven cross-range necessary for once-around abort returns to Vandenberg AFB. What had been liquid boosters were now solids, and there was no separation capability during solid burn -- the separation rockets had been removed to meet DOD spy-satellite launch requirements.

These changes were driven by Congress, admittedly with help from the Nixon administration.

The present vehicle bears little resemblance to the original proposals; not having seen those embodied and flown, I can't say whether they'd meet the design turnaround and costs. However, if you bother to talk to anyone who was significantly involved in the early Shuttle work, you'd find that I have told the simple truth. In a sense, they are technology problems -- but the technology is a forced, cutrate bastardization of the original designs.

---

Check this out

Oxidizer - Ammonium Perchlorate

Fuel - Aluminum Powder

Burn Rate Catalyst - Iron Oxide
They sure do use that

And here, have a link to various mission profiles complete with some graphics of return tragectories:

Free Return Trajectories for Mars Missions
Mars Exploration Strategies
Exploration of Mars

drive stainless!

>The US and France (not that France has any kind
>of space program) are not at the best of terms,
>Germany is still re-building the eastern half,
>the UK... what are they up to, and Japan.
>Actually, I'm surprised that Japan isn't
>involved... well, maybe they are, but if so, the
>newspeople are ignoring it.

>You can pretty much count out all of Africa, the
>Middle East, most of Asia, South America,and a
>fair chunk of Europe. No one really lives in
>Antarctica, so that really leaves the Aussies.
>Are they involved? If not, why not? (Probably
>because you couldn't convince an Aussie he'd
>need a spacesuit...)

Well while it is true Russia and the U.S. are doing the majority of the work and cost, there are a number of other countries that will contribute after the core of the station is built.

Some of the countries future contributions include:

U.S.:
-Truss and Photovoltaic Arrays
-U.S. Lab
-Centrifuge Accomodation Module
-Node 2
-Node 3
-Crew Return Vehicle (X-38)
-Habitation Module

Russia:
-Science Power Platform
-Universal Docking Module
-Research Module 1
-Research Module 2
-Docking Compartment

Japan:
-Kibo [JEM Experimental Logistics Module, JEM Remote Manipulator System, JEM Exposed Facility]

European Union:
-European Lab/Columbus Orbital Facility

Canada:
-CSA Remote Manipulator System (robot arm)

Italy:
-Multi-Purpose Logistics Module (A supply "van" for moving stuff from Earth to the station) Brazil: Express Express

Some excellent links:

• Diagram
• Timeline
• Progress

>The US and France (not that France has any kind
>of space program) are not at the best of terms,
>Germany is still re-building the eastern half,
>the UK... what are they up to, and Japan.
>Actually, I'm surprised that Japan isn't
>involved... well, maybe they are, but if so, the
>newspeople are ignoring it.

>You can pretty much count out all of Africa, the
>Middle East, most of Asia, South America,and a
>fair chunk of Europe. No one really lives in
>Antarctica, so that really leaves the Aussies.
>Are they involved? If not, why not? (Probably
>because you couldn't convince an Aussie he'd
>need a spacesuit...)

Well while it is true Russia and the U.S. are doing the majority of the work and cost, there are a number of other countries that will contribute after the core of the station is built.

Some of the countries future contributions include:

U.S.:
-Truss and Photovoltaic Arrays
-U.S. Lab
-Centrifuge Accomodation Module
-Node 2
-Node 3
-Crew Return Vehicle (X-38)
-Habitation Module

Russia:
-Science Power Platform
-Universal Docking Module
-Research Module 1
-Research Module 2
-Docking Compartment

Japan:
-Kibo [JEM Experimental Logistics Module, JEM Remote Manipulator System, JEM Exposed Facility]

European Union:
-European Lab/Columbus Orbital Facility

Canada:
-CSA Remote Manipulator System (robot arm)

Italy:
-Multi-Purpose Logistics Module (A supply "van" for moving stuff from Earth to the station) Brazil: Express Express

Some excellent links:

• Diagram
• Timeline
• Progress

>The US and France (not that France has any kind
>of space program) are not at the best of terms,
>Germany is still re-building the eastern half,
>the UK... what are they up to, and Japan.
>Actually, I'm surprised that Japan isn't
>involved... well, maybe they are, but if so, the
>newspeople are ignoring it.

>You can pretty much count out all of Africa, the
>Middle East, most of Asia, South America,and a
>fair chunk of Europe. No one really lives in
>Antarctica, so that really leaves the Aussies.
>Are they involved? If not, why not? (Probably
>because you couldn't convince an Aussie he'd
>need a spacesuit...)

Well while it is true Russia and the U.S. are doing the majority of the work and cost, there are a number of other countries that will contribute after the core of the station is built.

Some of the countries future contributions include:

U.S.:
-Truss and Photovoltaic Arrays
-U.S. Lab
-Centrifuge Accomodation Module
-Node 2
-Node 3
-Crew Return Vehicle (X-38)
-Habitation Module

Russia:
-Science Power Platform
-Universal Docking Module
-Research Module 1
-Research Module 2
-Docking Compartment

Japan:
-Kibo [JEM Experimental Logistics Module, JEM Remote Manipulator System, JEM Exposed Facility]

European Union:
-European Lab/Columbus Orbital Facility

Canada:
-CSA Remote Manipulator System (robot arm)

Italy:
-Multi-Purpose Logistics Module (A supply "van" for moving stuff from Earth to the station) Brazil: Express Express

Some excellent links:

• Diagram
• Timeline
• Progress

>The US and France (not that France has any kind
>of space program) are not at the best of terms,
>Germany is still re-building the eastern half,
>the UK... what are they up to, and Japan.
>Actually, I'm surprised that Japan isn't
>involved... well, maybe they are, but if so, the
>newspeople are ignoring it.

>You can pretty much count out all of Africa, the
>Middle East, most of Asia, South America,and a
>fair chunk of Europe. No one really lives in
>Antarctica, so that really leaves the Aussies.
>Are they involved? If not, why not? (Probably
>because you couldn't convince an Aussie he'd
>need a spacesuit...)

Well while it is true Russia and the U.S. are doing the majority of the work and cost, there are a number of other countries that will contribute after the core of the station is built.

Some of the countries future contributions include:

U.S.:
-Truss and Photovoltaic Arrays
-U.S. Lab
-Centrifuge Accomodation Module
-Node 2
-Node 3
-Crew Return Vehicle (X-38)
-Habitation Module

Russia:
-Science Power Platform
-Universal Docking Module
-Research Module 1
-Research Module 2
-Docking Compartment

Japan:
-Kibo [JEM Experimental Logistics Module, JEM Remote Manipulator System, JEM Exposed Facility]

European Union:
-European Lab/Columbus Orbital Facility

Canada:
-CSA Remote Manipulator System (robot arm)

Italy:
-Multi-Purpose Logistics Module (A supply "van" for moving stuff from Earth to the station) Brazil: Express Express

Some excellent links:

• Diagram
• Timeline
• Progress

"After a day and a half in the LM a warning light showed that the carbon dioxide had built up to a dangerous level. Mission Control devised a way to attach the CM canisters to the LM system by using plastic bags, cardboard, and tape- all materials carried on board."

Will they never learn?

No, it doesn't.

The flight critical software is run on a redundant set of IBM AP-101 computers. The AP-101 is a 32-bit machine that is a descendant of the IBM 360. See this page.

Sounds like you're misinformed.

Can I quote you when I next talk to the folks planning this? ;)

Some quick, publicly-available mentions of the plans (note the recurrent references to Lake Vostok, the Antarctic lake with miles-thick ice cover, which is our present best model for the Europa ocean):

From Wired ; search for "Engelhardt", near the end. He's the CalTech glaciologist who invented the "hot water drill."

BBC's Online talks about this, too: the article is about the parallels between Antarctia's Lake Vostok and Europa. Search for "melt," it's the third occurance of the word. Frank Carsey, who's talking, is with the Polar Oceanography Group at JPL (and is mentioned in the Wired link, too).

A website on Europa's oceans, which mentions the "melting" plan. Papers are cited, and the bibliography's here.

JPL's website also mentions it; search for "hydrobots". Also check the Europa Orbiter Fact Sheet link (to a PDF) on that same page.

And finally, a Michigan State University honors course page which talks about the proposed Odysseus Mission, which is looking at an ice-melting "drill".

I'm not misinformed -- I think you haven't thought it through. Yeah, drilling that deep on Earth is incredibly hard, if not impossible. But Europa (and Lake Vostok, for that matter) are covered with miles of ice, not rock... a very different problem, with a very different solution.

---

We did the same thing for the NASA article that we are supposed to be talking about.

a search on google seems to point to this release. Just a random guess.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2000/blackjackgps .html

First one I found, on NASA's site.

But, the reason that Europa has the scars and canyons running through it is that scientists suspect that it is an ice surface, with liquid water under the surface pushing and proding upwards. This ice surface is more than likely what is keeping the majority of the liquid water on the moon so that it doesn't dissipate into the atmosphere.

I guess water that freezes would be different then a salty ocean, but it still justifies theories of Hydrogen and Oxygen exsiting there.

I guess water that freezes would be different then a salty ocean, but it still justifies theories of Hydrogen and Oxygen exsiting there.

Look at them and see if you can find some water.

They seemed to have a lot of information on that moon for not knowing there is an Ocean on it.

ok ok.
its now 4 hours after i last started playing with this and I have seen and circled over 562 craters. even put up with a slashdotting or two (clicking reload every minute utill te page DID load)

This is just a game for those intrested in space. why would people bother to look at nasa's slow loading images of mars when they can look at some varied and interesting images and feel like they are doing something semi useful at the same time.

If anyone feels like continuing my good work for the afternoon click on http://clickworkers.arc.nasa.gov/crater-marking?cl ickworker=13186001283783000&nocache=5826# and circle some more of them cute wee craters.

we could even make click worker id 13186001283783000 team slashdot

bats = bugs

Images at NASA from the Pioneer robot, and a whole slew of links from one Dr. Meshkati.

The images, in particular, are of very high quality, but are uncaptioned.

NASA's page, with commentary, is found here.

Images at NASA from the Pioneer robot, and a whole slew of links from one Dr. Meshkati.

The images, in particular, are of very high quality, but are uncaptioned.

NASA's page, with commentary, is found here.

Too bad.

Speaking of the ISS, if you want to know where it is, go here. That page shows the location of the ISS. If you go to JTrack3D, you can see the location of quite a few satellites, as well as the ISS and Mir.

Also do a search on /. for nanotube.

The geese do not wish to leave their reflection behind;
The water has no mind to retain their image.

Launched on 2 March 1972, Pioneer 10 was the first spacecraft to travel through the Asteroid belt, and the first spacecraft to make direct observations and obtain close-up images of Jupiter. Famed as the most remote object ever made by man, Pioneer 10 is now over 7 billion miles away. The spacecraft made valuable scientific investigations in the outer regions of our solar system until the end of its mission on 31 March 1997. The Pioneer 10 weak signal continues to be tracked by the DSN as part of a new advanced concept study of chaos theory. Pioneer 10 is headed towards the constellation of Taurus (The Bull). It will take Pioneer over 2 million years to pass by one of the stars in the constellation.

DO NOT waste space toadying to your chief bureaucrat at the expense of useful content.

For example, the top of the menu bar at NASA is a paean to NASA administrator Daniel Goldin: links to his bio, his welcome letter, his speeches. Click hot topics and the menu bar full of juicy Dan Goldin information is still there. In contrast, try to find out what's up with the NEAR mission to Eros. Go ahead-- I gave up.

This problem isn't isolated. Pick another site, say Department of Commerce. The "tribute link" to the chief bureaucrat is top-right, and you get a biography, speeches, op-eds, even "official photographs".

Here's the USDA site, where prime position is taken by a big picture of Secretary Glickman at the ribbon cutting for a new wing of the Dept. of Agriculture.

Gag.

DO NOT waste space toadying to your chief bureaucrat at the expense of useful content.

For example, the top of the menu bar at NASA is a paean to NASA administrator Daniel Goldin: links to his bio, his welcome letter, his speeches. Click hot topics and the menu bar full of juicy Dan Goldin information is still there. In contrast, try to find out what's up with the NEAR mission to Eros. Go ahead-- I gave up.

This problem isn't isolated. Pick another site, say Department of Commerce. The "tribute link" to the chief bureaucrat is top-right, and you get a biography, speeches, op-eds, even "official photographs".

Here's the USDA site, where prime position is taken by a big picture of Secretary Glickman at the ribbon cutting for a new wing of the Dept. of Agriculture.

Gag.

Capt. Ron

Capt. Ron

Capt. Ron

Capt. Ron

Man, that Kibo guy gets around.

Tension between ground controllers and the astronauts reached a point where the crew actually mutinied, refused to obey ground instructions and took a day off. Can't find any info on this on nasa.gov ... go figure ;) Some generic info
--
If the good lord had meant me to live in Los Angeles

• Endeavour
  
• ISS
  
• "...when the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration decided that the limp wing of a new solar array on the station needed to be tightened, engineers worked on the problem around the clock. When a plan was devised, two astronauts on the ground suited up and hopped into a water tank used to simulate weightlessness. When they were finished testing the plan, NASA ground controllers could even tell the shuttle astronauts which torque settings to use on their power tools and gauge the degree of difficulty for each task."
  
• "By contrast, the space station crew was dealing with an air conditioner that broke days ago when the system that removes carbon dioxide from the air also broke down. Since the systems are on the Russian module, the international crew of two Russians and one American dealt with Russian ground controllers, who scolded them after the astronauts decided to set up an alternate system for removing the potentially dangerous gas. 'You could have damaged it,' said a ground controller. 'We have to breathe with something,' snapped Sergei Krikalyov, one of two Russians on the three-man team. At one point the exchange between ground and space grew so heated that a ground controller said, 'Guys, don't swear at me.'"
  
• "As the first crew to live on the space station, the Expedition One crew had little opportunity to adapt to space life when they arrived five weeks ago. They entered a station that had just two days of breathable oxygen. Since then, they have struggled with both the hardware and ground support. 'They plan an activity to take one hour and we know it will take five hours,' ISS crewman Yuri Gidzenko complained.