Slashdot Mirror

how bout using a container made of Aerogel?

Of course you are in hot-head debunker mode, but really, there are solutions to all of these problems, from all of your posts. just try to have a little imagination...

:)Fudboy

Afraid nobody on Slashdot, understands it's a beta

t's amazing that there wasn't anything worse than the Apollo 13 accident

Unless you count Apollo 1, which burned up during a launch pad test, killing the entire crew.

First, one reason is to explore the possibility of water in the moon. Didn't NASA just send up the Lunar Prospector at a cost of $63 million, and it discovered water? Yes it did. See the story hereABC News:Theres water on the moon

Another suggested activity, the unexplained levitation of dust in the airless lunar environment. Can you say gravity? Micrometeors make it to the moons surface and spray up dust, and since there is less gravity they appear to float.

One of their strong points is to show that they are on the cutting edge of technology. Is doing something that was done 30 years ago on the edge of technology?

Lets get serious, if they want to prove cutting edge, why not join the effort for the International Space Station?NASA ISS Homepage

Well, yes, but this is a slashdot post, and it's late at night. I'm sure I could have taken into account the reduce gravitational effects the higher you go, but this was just a rough off-the-cuff calculation and not meant to be a real scientific analysis. Besides, there's a ton (excuse the pun) of other reasons why it wouldn't fly (excuse that pun too) - namely the wind would create enough force to topple them. Then there's the problem with decompression. People need to remain in a pressurized environment.. which space, unfortunately, does not provide. As those people got above a hundred or so miles above the earth, pressure would drop off, and as boyle's law states, as pressure drops, assuming the volume remains constant, what happens to the temp? It goes up. These poor bastards would literally be having their blood boil at those altitudes without protection. Actually, NASA has some information on this very question, if you're interested.

For that matter, there is a lot of info out there already, such as this Easy Low-Cost Lunar Explorer student project.

I think that is addressed under the keyword scalability: "Perhaps the most far-reaching innovations have been brought by the Keck, with virtually unlimited scalability of the telescope primary optics". The Keck telescope consists of 36 smaller mirrors (supplied by Kodak). Since for such big telescopes active optical control (meaning that the mirror(s) can be deformed slightly by special elements under them) is necessary anyway to counteract athmospheric effects and structural relaxation in different positions the problem of microadjusting all those smaller mirrors could be addressed by the active optics (though this is apparently still an issue).

This might also mean that the OWL could already start working before the main mirror is completely assembled, probably starting with the outer ring to make most of the diameter.

eellis speculates wildly:
On reading the press release, it seems that the Russians still haven't got a clue about generating the power required for a space station. [...] One of the designers of the solar array [told] me that the then planned array size of 60 feet was too small by a factor of 2. It seems that they've added some extra capacity, but nowhere near enough. So, this mission is doomed to fail. They'll run out of power.

What the bleep do you mean "doomed" and "fail"? Is it going to flicker on and off until something catches fire and the entire space station veers off course and crashes and burns spectacularly in Central Park? Or is it (worst case scenario) going to simply be chronically short of the expected power requirements, meaning the crews have to reroute the systems it supports, and perhaps give up some luxuries? I guess the second scenario isn't as ominous sounding.

Perhaps there is some truth to this -- there are always engineering disagreements on projects this big -- but the Russians aren't doing this alone, and there has been ample consideration given to the ISS power requirements.

The Service Module is only responsible for a small percentage of station power. When complete, the entire ISS power system will consist of four US-built arrays connected to the US Node 1 via the Z1 Truss, each with four 112x39' wings, as well as the solar arrays on the Zarya and Zvezda modules, and possibly (if the Russians meet their commitments) a separate array to power the Russian science modules (which are themselves not guaranteed). The aggregate power systems will produce 110 kW, of which 98 kW will come from the US-built main arrays. (By comparison, all of Mir's solar panels, including the US-built-and-delivered MCSA, produce a mere 30 kW.)

The first of the main arrays will be installed by ISS Crew 1 around November, so they won't be dependent on the Zvezda arrays for very long at all. Each PANEL on the array has more power capacity than BOTH the Zvezda wings, and there will be four panels.

In short, for the completed ISS, Zvezda will be providing about 1.5% of the power requirements.

In any case, the Mir power problems weren't related directly to the power-generation abilities of the solar arrays; they were related to the lousy Russian batteries that couldn't keep the station running when Mir lost the ability to stay pointed at the sun. Fortunately, ISS has better batteries and more of them. We'll see how this goes.

For the "mission" (whatever you meant by that) to be "doomed", the American-built main arrays would have to be so badly designed that they generate less than half the expected power. Anywhere in between that, and they will simply have to modify the science expectations until they can supplement the power systems.
----

Wouldn't we expect that the greater mass of the large planets, and consequently greater gravity, would compress all their matter into denser (solid) forms?

Whilst it's still an open question thanks to the huge pressures inside Jupiter, it is theorised that Jupiter does have a solid core surrounded by a layer of liquid metallic hydrogen - see this page for some more information. Since Jupiter is so large the gravity at its outer edges isn't enough to overcome centripetal forces and cause the entire planet to collapse to a solid core.

And a related question: our solar system has solid and gaseous planets; is there any fundamental eason that there couldn't be liquid planets, or is that just how it happens to fall in this particular uncharted backwater of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm?

Well, there aren't that many liquid elements at the temperatures present in the Solar System - the material that formed it would have been mainly simple elements that were either gaseous or solid at those kinds of temperatures. IIRC some of the outer moons have liquid ammonia and methane on their surfaces, but in terms of overal quantity these substances remain rare.

The last major climatic event (being Krakatoa going bang) in the dark ages was probably responsible for the death of King Arthur.

Eh? What are you talking about with the dark ages? Krakatoa started being active in May 1883, with the final explosive eruption of Krakatoa taking place on August 27 1883. The force was equivalent to that of a 100 megaton bomb, some 5000 times more powerful than the Hiroshima nuke.

There's more information on it here at NASA.

As far as I know, should we be hit by something a few KM across, the devastation would be immense. Even after the initial impact had settled, there are likely to be worldwide temperature falls of a couple of degrees.

I heard of some research done on tree rings that suggests that there was a similar global climatic catastrophe around the middle of the ninth century. This produced frosts in summer in temperate regions for a few years. Lord knows how cold it git in winter. This was caused by Krakatoa, but estimates suggest that an impact by one of these asteroids at about 6KM across would produce similar results. Here is a link to the NASA page covering this topic.

The last major climatic event (being Krakatoa going bang) in the dark ages was probably responsible for the death of King Arthur.

all jokes about the polar lander aside, nasa has a pretty good record of knowing what they're talking about. if they do announce this, they deserve at least initial trust.

all jokes about the polar lander aside, nasa has a pretty good record of knowing what they're talking about. if they do announce this, they deserve at least initial trust.

all jokes about the polar lander aside, nasa has a pretty good record of knowing what they're talking about. if they do announce this, they deserve at least initial trust.

Since there aren't really any signs in the Universe that say "I am perfectly stationary, measure from me"

Actually, there is a pretty good one - the microwave background radiation.

There is a nice picture here which shows the relative temperature of this radiation as seen from earth. It is clearly red-shifted in one direction and blue-shifted in the opposite direction, indicating that the earth is moving rapidly (600 km/s) in the direction of the blue-shift. Some of this velocity is our motion around the sun, some is the sun's motion in our galaxy, but most of the velocity is common to our entire local group of galaxies.

If we were "at rest" in the universe, the microwave background would be uniform in all directions [more precisely, the dipole component would be zero; quadrupole and higher terms would still be present]. However, distant stars and galaxies would still be moving away from us due to the expansion of the universe.

The current NORAD boxscore is only 8,754.

This (Post-Flight Inspection of STS-90) is from NASA Orbital Debris Quarterly News:

Using samples collected by tape pull, dental mold, and wooden probe extraction techniques, a scanning electron microscope (SEM) equipped with energy dispersive X-ray spectrometers (EDXA) were able to identify the nature of 29 of the impactors. A total of 16 particles (55%) were found to be man-made debris, while the remaining 13 particles (45%) were meteoritic in nature. An analysis of the orbital debris impactors revealed an assortment of aluminum (56%), paint (31%), and stainless steel (13%) projectiles.

---

The FAQ from this site says:

8). Does the U.S. Space Shuttle have to dodge orbital debris?
Whenever a Space Shuttle is in orbit, the U.S. Space Command regularly examines the trajectories of orbital debris to identify possible close encounters. If another object is projected to come with a few kilometers of the Space Shuttle, the Space Shuttle will normally maneuver away from the object, even though the chances of a collision are only approximately 1 in 100,000. This occurs infrequently, about once every year or two.

This (Post-Flight Inspection of STS-90) is from NASA Orbital Debris Quarterly News:

Using samples collected by tape pull, dental mold, and wooden probe extraction techniques, a scanning electron microscope (SEM) equipped with energy dispersive X-ray spectrometers (EDXA) were able to identify the nature of 29 of the impactors. A total of 16 particles (55%) were found to be man-made debris, while the remaining 13 particles (45%) were meteoritic in nature. An analysis of the orbital debris impactors revealed an assortment of aluminum (56%), paint (31%), and stainless steel (13%) projectiles.

---

The FAQ from this site says:

8). Does the U.S. Space Shuttle have to dodge orbital debris?
Whenever a Space Shuttle is in orbit, the U.S. Space Command regularly examines the trajectories of orbital debris to identify possible close encounters. If another object is projected to come with a few kilometers of the Space Shuttle, the Space Shuttle will normally maneuver away from the object, even though the chances of a collision are only approximately 1 in 100,000. This occurs infrequently, about once every year or two.

This (Post-Flight Inspection of STS-90) is from NASA Orbital Debris Quarterly News:

Using samples collected by tape pull, dental mold, and wooden probe extraction techniques, a scanning electron microscope (SEM) equipped with energy dispersive X-ray spectrometers (EDXA) were able to identify the nature of 29 of the impactors. A total of 16 particles (55%) were found to be man-made debris, while the remaining 13 particles (45%) were meteoritic in nature. An analysis of the orbital debris impactors revealed an assortment of aluminum (56%), paint (31%), and stainless steel (13%) projectiles.

---

The FAQ from this site says:

8). Does the U.S. Space Shuttle have to dodge orbital debris?
Whenever a Space Shuttle is in orbit, the U.S. Space Command regularly examines the trajectories of orbital debris to identify possible close encounters. If another object is projected to come with a few kilometers of the Space Shuttle, the Space Shuttle will normally maneuver away from the object, even though the chances of a collision are only approximately 1 in 100,000. This occurs infrequently, about once every year or two.

You already can! Most of the time that is. Go to the NASA-TV section of NASA's Spaceflight page and you'll probably be presented with a prerecorded earthview from the previous mission or shots from the current mission (if there is one).

--

You already can! Most of the time that is. Go to the NASA-TV section of NASA's Spaceflight page and you'll probably be presented with a prerecorded earthview from the previous mission or shots from the current mission (if there is one).

--

First of all, Russian Federation (NOT Soviet Union) now isn't "the home of communism". Now we are "going to capitalism" (sic).

I mean sure the Russian launchers are ok, but can they land on their wheels? Can you fly it like a plane? Does it have all these cool tiles everywhere? Nah! American tech rocks!

Hmm... Maybe Americans launched first sputnik (satellite)? Or maybe Americans launched first man in space? Though Russia made Shuttle analog Buran ("Snowstorm" in Russian) too late (1988), first development of it was made in 70's.

"And after all those guys learn me to pick in nose"... And I know that it is a flame.

I am all for companies partnering up and moving forward like this. NASA has a joint venture thing going on with Dreamtime as discussed in last weeks slashback . Why shouldn't corporations do this to? If NASA's ever dwindling federal budget is preventing this type of lunar exploration then they will need to do commercially exploitive things like this as well. RadioShack partnering up with LunaCorp for this type of mission could be a great thing if handled correctly. Every program that NASA has put together has benefited us as a civilization directly and indirectly with new technologies. No need to list them here as most /.er's probably know of atleast 3 (not including TANG) off the top of thier heads. Unfortunately, i fear that this venture will lead to tons on IP trademarks/patents designed to benefit a select few pockets. I am not against making a buck or two but there has to be some benefit to all of US (read civilization as a whole not just the already deep pockets of corporations). I wonder what thier take on the technology involved is. Hopefully, the science aquired on this mission won't go the route of some of the companies involved in the human genome project. Commercial space ventures are an inevitable event that needs some form of government supervision/regulation before it gets out of hand. What bothers me about this venture is that a) LunaCorp is a privately owned corporation b) RadioShack is a publicly owned corporation c) Buzz Aldrin is now a (albeit heroic) civilian d) It would appear that NASA is out of the loop on this deal. I did not see a mention of NASA's involvement in this anywhere on the LunaCorp site even though there are several shameless plugs for Carnegie-Mellon. Rather conspicuous, no? If you are curious go check out The Artemis Project. The Artemis folks have carefully thought out most of the issues and thier plan seems cogent for the most part. IAAMOAC - so are you

The motivation for this work is that the International Space Station requires too much EVA activity just for its routine maintenance. NASA is trying to find a less risky way of doing the more routine stuff.

Subsystems
Hand| Arms| Head| Controls| Avionics| Telepresence|
Videos (.AVI)
Hand (5.3 M)| Telepresenc e (3.3 M)| Arm motion (2.9 M)| Grasping (2.1 M)| Tether hook (1.9 M)| Velcro (2.7 M)|
Tools
Analysis tools| Software development | Telepresence Laboratory
___

Subsystems
Hand| Arms| Head| Controls| Avionics| Telepresence|
Videos (.AVI)
Hand (5.3 M)| Telepresenc e (3.3 M)| Arm motion (2.9 M)| Grasping (2.1 M)| Tether hook (1.9 M)| Velcro (2.7 M)|
Tools
Analysis tools| Software development | Telepresence Laboratory
___

Subsystems
Hand| Arms| Head| Controls| Avionics| Telepresence|
Videos (.AVI)
Hand (5.3 M)| Telepresenc e (3.3 M)| Arm motion (2.9 M)| Grasping (2.1 M)| Tether hook (1.9 M)| Velcro (2.7 M)|
Tools
Analysis tools| Software development | Telepresence Laboratory
___

Subsystems
Hand| Arms| Head| Controls| Avionics| Telepresence|
Videos (.AVI)
Hand (5.3 M)| Telepresenc e (3.3 M)| Arm motion (2.9 M)| Grasping (2.1 M)| Tether hook (1.9 M)| Velcro (2.7 M)|
Tools
Analysis tools| Software development | Telepresence Laboratory
___

Subsystems
Hand| Arms| Head| Controls| Avionics| Telepresence|
Videos (.AVI)
Hand (5.3 M)| Telepresenc e (3.3 M)| Arm motion (2.9 M)| Grasping (2.1 M)| Tether hook (1.9 M)| Velcro (2.7 M)|
Tools
Analysis tools| Software development | Telepresence Laboratory
___

Subsystems
Hand| Arms| Head| Controls| Avionics| Telepresence|
Videos (.AVI)
Hand (5.3 M)| Telepresenc e (3.3 M)| Arm motion (2.9 M)| Grasping (2.1 M)| Tether hook (1.9 M)| Velcro (2.7 M)|
Tools
Analysis tools| Software development | Telepresence Laboratory
___

Subsystems
Hand| Arms| Head| Controls| Avionics| Telepresence|
Videos (.AVI)
Hand (5.3 M)| Telepresenc e (3.3 M)| Arm motion (2.9 M)| Grasping (2.1 M)| Tether hook (1.9 M)| Velcro (2.7 M)|
Tools
Analysis tools| Software development | Telepresence Laboratory
___

Subsystems
Hand| Arms| Head| Controls| Avionics| Telepresence|
Videos (.AVI)
Hand (5.3 M)| Telepresenc e (3.3 M)| Arm motion (2.9 M)| Grasping (2.1 M)| Tether hook (1.9 M)| Velcro (2.7 M)|
Tools
Analysis tools| Software development | Telepresence Laboratory
___

Subsystems
Hand| Arms| Head| Controls| Avionics| Telepresence|
Videos (.AVI)
Hand (5.3 M)| Telepresenc e (3.3 M)| Arm motion (2.9 M)| Grasping (2.1 M)| Tether hook (1.9 M)| Velcro (2.7 M)|
Tools
Analysis tools| Software development | Telepresence Laboratory
___

Subsystems
Hand| Arms| Head| Controls| Avionics| Telepresence|
Videos (.AVI)
Hand (5.3 M)| Telepresenc e (3.3 M)| Arm motion (2.9 M)| Grasping (2.1 M)| Tether hook (1.9 M)| Velcro (2.7 M)|
Tools
Analysis tools| Software development | Telepresence Laboratory
___

Subsystems
Hand| Arms| Head| Controls| Avionics| Telepresence|
Videos (.AVI)
Hand (5.3 M)| Telepresenc e (3.3 M)| Arm motion (2.9 M)| Grasping (2.1 M)| Tether hook (1.9 M)| Velcro (2.7 M)|
Tools
Analysis tools| Software development | Telepresence Laboratory
___

Subsystems
Hand| Arms| Head| Controls| Avionics| Telepresence|
Videos (.AVI)
Hand (5.3 M)| Telepresenc e (3.3 M)| Arm motion (2.9 M)| Grasping (2.1 M)| Tether hook (1.9 M)| Velcro (2.7 M)|
Tools
Analysis tools| Software development | Telepresence Laboratory
___

Subsystems
Hand| Arms| Head| Controls| Avionics| Telepresence|
Videos (.AVI)
Hand (5.3 M)| Telepresenc e (3.3 M)| Arm motion (2.9 M)| Grasping (2.1 M)| Tether hook (1.9 M)| Velcro (2.7 M)|
Tools
Analysis tools| Software development | Telepresence Laboratory
___

Subsystems
Hand| Arms| Head| Controls| Avionics| Telepresence|
Videos (.AVI)
Hand (5.3 M)| Telepresenc e (3.3 M)| Arm motion (2.9 M)| Grasping (2.1 M)| Tether hook (1.9 M)| Velcro (2.7 M)|
Tools
Analysis tools| Software development | Telepresence Laboratory
___

Subsystems
Hand| Arms| Head| Controls| Avionics| Telepresence|
Videos (.AVI)
Hand (5.3 M)| Telepresenc e (3.3 M)| Arm motion (2.9 M)| Grasping (2.1 M)| Tether hook (1.9 M)| Velcro (2.7 M)|
Tools
Analysis tools| Software development | Telepresence Laboratory
___

Hmmm..this site, specifically the page about the head claims that "the design was inspired by Centurian armor, giving Robonaut some attitude."

Still looks more like Boba Fett to me...

http://vesuvius.jsc. nasa.gov/er_er/html/robonaut/robonaut.html
___

The reusable shuttlecraft for now (in fact everything is reusable except for the big orange tank which fuels the shuttle burners; the two white O2 containers are picked up and reused) and in the future something that will be competley reusuable except for the fuel cost.

Those aren't O2 containers. The big orange tank contains both liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. The two white things are solid rocket boosters.

The reusable shuttlecraft for now (in fact everything is reusable except for the big orange tank which fuels the shuttle burners; the two white O2 containers are picked up and reused) and in the future something that will be competley reusuable except for the fuel cost.

Those aren't O2 containers. The big orange tank contains both liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. The two white things are solid rocket boosters.

I work for one of the contractors on the Robonaut project. It's coming along nicely, with more automation of repetitious tasks and intelligent responses to failures (such as lost communication) planned for the next few years. Here's some more information.

Here.
--

When talking about Microsoft Research, don't give a pointer to Microsoft. This is almost like confusing, say, NASA and U.S. Government (here or here).
--

I remember how my perception of the world changed when I first put on glasses; suddenly trees had leaves! Imagine how this kind of super sight would enable natural scientists to better observe nature.

The only alternative propulsion spacecraft flying right now is DS1, which uses an ion drive.

The only sample return mission currently flying is Stardust, which uses hydrazine thrusters.

The only alternative propulsion spacecraft flying right now is DS1, which uses an ion drive.

The only sample return mission currently flying is Stardust, which uses hydrazine thrusters.

In the long run, though space travel is neat and fun and interesting, it is not going to solve any of the long term problems of the human species.

I guess in the very long run we are all dead. The Universe may be flat and will eventually run out of entropy. Then we die.

However, the rest of your argument is silly. Some points; -

• Not everyting regenerates. We live of the entropy (note: not energy) provided by the Sun's radiation. That's what keeps things regenerating. It won't last forever and, more to the point, there are limits to the efficiency we can obtain. Resources are never unlimited.
• However, leaving the Earth will give us more resources even in the fairly short term. We could live up there quite comfortably. In space, I mean. We have had the technology to build space colonies for decades.
• This means you don't have to take everything from the Earth. We can live up there. The Earth's ability to sustain life is not in any way reduced. With additional trade from space colonies the ability will arguably be increased. It is not a zero sum game.

[T]he illusion of solving the problems of the human species through space travel is just that, an illusion.

Yes and no. Space travel is the future of the human species but it does not by itself solve many problems anymore than long distance sea-faring and the discovery of the Americas solved anything. But it is a key to greater prosperity and for extending the life of the Human race. We should not waste time in persuing this goal. Be fruitful and increase...