Slashdot Mirror

http://spacefligh t.nasa.gov/station/assembly/flights/2000/1r.html

Looks like the prototype minus some panels & the rapid-fire gun.

You can see pictures of the plane at this page.

My favorite factoid about Hyper-X is that the front half of the plane, more or less, is solid tungsten -- one of the densest materials there is; significantly denser than lead or even gold. Tungsten is very resistant to heat; and the weight serves as ballast to keep the pointy end forward -- but as I build model planes out of balsa wood using something 100 times as dense tickles my funny bone.

thad

For everyone who can't/won't do a google search themselves. ;-)

Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL)
www.google.com/search?q =Air+Force+MOL+&num=10&lc=www
www.airspacemag.com/ ASM/Mag/Index/1998/JJ/Contents.html
www.farhills.org/s/lees/space/air force.htm


Dyna Soar
www.google.com/search?q=dynasoar&lc= www
www.google.com/search?q=dyna+soar+%2Bsmithsonian&n um=10&lc=www&btnG=Google+Search BR> www.arnold.af.mil/aedc/systems/60- 933.htm
www.nasm.edu/galle ries/gal114/SpaceRace/sec500/sec540.htm
www.hq.nasa.gov/offi ce/pao/History/Timeline/1961-4.html

Blue Gemini
www.google.com/search?q=Bl ue+Gemini&num=10&lc=www
student.uq.edu.au/~s373901/land /coldwar.htm
www.hq.nasa.gov/office/ pao/History/SP-4203/ch6-2.htm

LK Lander
www.google.com/search? q=%2BLK+%2BLander&num=10&lc=www
www.interaxs.net/pub/spacey/lk1.htm
www.ninfinger.org/~sven/mode ls/sovietsp/lk.html

Spiral
www.google.com /search?q=%2BSpiral+%2Bspacecraft&num=10&lc=www
www.mcs.net/~rusaerog/spiral/spiral .html

General Spacecraft info
www.rocketry.com/mwade/spaceflt.htm Encyclopedia Astronautica

For everyone who can't/won't do a google search themselves. ;-)

Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL)
www.google.com/search?q =Air+Force+MOL+&num=10&lc=www
www.airspacemag.com/ ASM/Mag/Index/1998/JJ/Contents.html
www.farhills.org/s/lees/space/air force.htm


Dyna Soar
www.google.com/search?q=dynasoar&lc= www
www.google.com/search?q=dyna+soar+%2Bsmithsonian&n um=10&lc=www&btnG=Google+Search BR> www.arnold.af.mil/aedc/systems/60- 933.htm
www.nasm.edu/galle ries/gal114/SpaceRace/sec500/sec540.htm
www.hq.nasa.gov/offi ce/pao/History/Timeline/1961-4.html

Blue Gemini
www.google.com/search?q=Bl ue+Gemini&num=10&lc=www
student.uq.edu.au/~s373901/land /coldwar.htm
www.hq.nasa.gov/office/ pao/History/SP-4203/ch6-2.htm

LK Lander
www.google.com/search? q=%2BLK+%2BLander&num=10&lc=www
www.interaxs.net/pub/spacey/lk1.htm
www.ninfinger.org/~sven/mode ls/sovietsp/lk.html

Spiral
www.google.com /search?q=%2BSpiral+%2Bspacecraft&num=10&lc=www
www.mcs.net/~rusaerog/spiral/spiral .html

General Spacecraft info
www.rocketry.com/mwade/spaceflt.htm Encyclopedia Astronautica

They have a total of 5 of these computers, 3 of which are functioning during flight, with the others are in a standby mode, ready to be powered up at a moments notice. The 3 computers vote on all things they measure. Of one disagrees a set number of times, it is thrown out of the pool and a backup brought online in it's place. This is, I am sure, a vastly simplified explanation. All flight software is written in assembler and ADA.

Why did they not update these? I believe the newest CPU they use in space now is a special version of the 486 qualified for spaceflight (one replaced an old 286 on hubble I believe). Everything NASA sends in space has to be miltary quality or above (more above then anything). It MUST not fail or people will die! So, NASA has to go with proven technologies. Putting a Pentium !!! Xeon for the shuttles computer is just asking for trouble. The other reason they went mainframe with those is IO! The shuttle is fly by wire and every flight surface and reaction jet has multiple redundant sensors monitoring their function. They can't wait on a hd or memory to respond. MUST HAVE NO BOTTLENECKS! Lives are at stake. This is why computers in spacecraft are not as complex as you might think.

Go to NASA

Go to NASA's website to check out the FAQ on the shuttle.

While not nearly enough has been done to keep the shuttles up to date, some work has been done on the shuttles -- recently, as reported on Slashdot I believe, Columbia was fitted with a "glass cockpit" -- LCD displays instead of hardwired controls. The links shows work that's been done on Columbia, plus other info about Columbia in general.

IIRC, the Tupolev-144 was largely a carbon copy of Concorde, at least in it's later incarnation. The first prototype (that flew before Concorde) was configured differently. It carried more passengers than Concorde, but was a lot less fuel efficient (It was heavier, and needed more power). Details on the amount of spying that took place can be found here. It seems that Soviet Russia certainly did not have her eye solely on the USA.

Of course, popular theory would suggest the West would never have stooped to spying back, until it was discovered that the famous crash at Le Bourget, which sank the Tupolev's reputation was caused by maneouvres to evade a French Mirage photo-reconaissance jet ;-)

There was a comparitively recent NASA experiment on supersonic transport, using the Tupolev as a basis.

This could be considered OT, but it shows exactly how much those on both sides of the Iron Curtain would throw at a project to keep them one step ahead (Not that I would relish a return to those dark old days).

Without copyright, everybody is selling my binary-only modifications. Ok, what's my incentive to make better software?

People have, and always will, write programs (and songs, and stories, and poems) without getting paid to do so.

New-school: in addition to the above, you could be hired to write an open-source application, or you could write a custom job on contract. See CoSource or SourceExchange for two models of how you can get paid to write free software.

Many large and interesting software projects being written today could be open sourced without much economic impact, because they're custom-made. For example, my current contract is hacking for TRW on EDOS, a NASA project. Giving NASA the source wouldn't really make a difference, since they're expected to be the only user. (Heck, they might be getting it now - I'm just the hired help, I don't know the details.)

There are also secondary ways to make a buck. You can sell support, manuals, and the like; and I think that in the future we'll actually see mechandizing and endorsements start to play a role. Hell, if Microsoft can sell a "Windows 95" blend of coffee (I'm not making this up), why not "Jolt: Official Cola of Red Hat Linux"?

Bringing the issue back to music -- suppose I write a great song, Warner Brothers tapes it and has their flavor-of-the-month artist record her own version. I stayed up late many nights working on that song, but WB can afford to package it and make more money when their artist tours. They get income from concerts, t-shirts, and nicely-packaged CDs. I get ZERO.

Which is why I've been saying that while making and giving away copies should be unrestricted, selling copies or other profit-making off a work might require that a royalty be paid to the author. I think that song performance royalties are a good model to start from - I can perform any song anywhere (as if anyone could stop me), but if I'm getting paid I (really the venue owner, usually) owe the artist a cut via BMI or ASCAP.

But strictly, that's not a copyright issue, since anyone would still have the right to make copies of the work. We're talking about something new, a "salesright" if you will, which is more practical and more ethically palatable.

NASA has an absolutely incredible mission coming up with a similar purpose. Armed with an impressive array of radio telescopes, amplifiers, and such, the MAP probe will pick up where COBE left off. It could answer questions like, "How fast is the Universe expanding?" and, "What shape is the Universe?" MAP only has three moving parts, so it should fair well. A very ambitious project. More information about MAP can be found here.

Anyways, I'm glad that the FSL is the first government lab to buy Linux systems.

Hardly the first, since NASA Goddard invented Beowulf.

The press release says that they are the first to buy a "turn-key" Linux supercomputer.

These 2 candle sticks provide over 70% of the lift required to get the shuttle to jump off the pad.

I haven't kept up with recent developments on jet engine design, but I can assure you that there is no way to get this kind of thrust/weight ratio in any other reusable device. http://spaceflig ht.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/srb/srb.html has more info.
___

Remember, it was grounded and mothballed for several years before it got launched. (Can anyone say "Engineering difficulties and the Challenger explosion"?) According to this timeline on Nasa's website, "spacecraft integration" was completed in 1985. By my math, that would make Hubble 15 years old today, not 10, although obviously the resolution wasn't too good before it got launched (though some would say the same about after it was launched and before the subsequent repairs).

The Astronomy Picture of the Day has a picture (sort of) at http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap9 60204.html. Astronomers now believe that this galaxy [the Sagittarius Dwarf]is slowly being torn apart by the vast gravitational forces of our Galaxy.

I'm waiting for the desktop theme.

The X-38 (NASA's technology demonstrator for the Crew Return Vehicle, AKA "Space Station Lifeboat") does indeed use INS/GPS for its primary navigation sytem. It also uses GPS for direct flight control under that huge (7500 square foot!) parafoil ("square parachute," to the skydivers in the audience). Part of the reason it can do this is that its airspeed is reasonably low under the parachute (on the order of 50 knots), and it uses a laser altimeter to determine its altitude as it closely approaches the ground.

Since the Shuttle operates under entirely different circumstances during its entire flight envelope, GPS isn't particularly workable for direct flight control -- as you noted.

---

Here is the STS-101 Photo Archive

Included are some photos of the new cockpit.

Here is the STS-101 Photo Archive

Included are some photos of the new cockpit.

I love the 6502. I learned machine code on it as a teenager in the late 70's. But I don't believe any 6502 version was ever space qualified. [I do recall a lot of talk about it in the 80's, though] Maybe there is a "6502-like" CPU, but I'll leave that determination to the CPU experts.

Space Technology ia an area of special interest for me. Here are the CPUs that I use in "back-of-the-envelope" speculation and planning.

AFAIK, the most powerful fully space-qualified CPU is the RAD-6000 SC (rad-hardened IBM/6000 single chip RISC computer akin to a R6000 workstation) used on the Mars pathfinder, the IMAGE satellite (Imager for Magnetopause-to-Aurora Global Exploration) and several other projects. As a guess, the GNU CC-supported MIL-SPEC 1750A (16 bit PDP-11-like CPU ca. 1979) is the most popular CPU in use right now for 'power apps', and 80C85 and 80C86 are quite common among NASA craft currently in space.

I had some links to lists of space qualified CPUs (don't know if they were comprehensive) but they are all dead now. If anyone has the link to the space-qualified hardware list, please post them here.

I love the 6502. I learned machine code on it as a teenager in the late 70's. But I don't believe any 6502 version was ever space qualified. [I do recall a lot of talk about it in the 80's, though] Maybe there is a "6502-like" CPU, but I'll leave that determination to the CPU experts.

Space Technology ia an area of special interest for me. Here are the CPUs that I use in "back-of-the-envelope" speculation and planning.

AFAIK, the most powerful fully space-qualified CPU is the RAD-6000 SC (rad-hardened IBM/6000 single chip RISC computer akin to a R6000 workstation) used on the Mars pathfinder, the IMAGE satellite (Imager for Magnetopause-to-Aurora Global Exploration) and several other projects. As a guess, the GNU CC-supported MIL-SPEC 1750A (16 bit PDP-11-like CPU ca. 1979) is the most popular CPU in use right now for 'power apps', and 80C85 and 80C86 are quite common among NASA craft currently in space.

I had some links to lists of space qualified CPUs (don't know if they were comprehensive) but they are all dead now. If anyone has the link to the space-qualified hardware list, please post them here.

actually sts-101 is the 98th Shuttle mission.

You can check the sts-101 mission page to check my facts it you'd like.

But, yes this still means they are about 1/4 of the way through their lifespan.

Also see CACM Volume 27, Issue 9 (September 1984) for an interesting article on Shuttle software.

-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

This biggest problem with mission critical code is it needs to be designed arround the belief that every thing is going wrong other wise you end up being unable to handle any problems (aka : the mars polar lander).

Or am I the only geek that read more than the summary of the reports released on the loss...

TastesLikeHerringFlavoredChicken

This page has all kinds of crazy info on the original stuff that the Shuttle ran on. It gives a good idea of what it takes to run a shuttle- something like 6 processing units, each with about 400 KB of memory. Lots of stuff in there- details on the custom OS and language which they use, and on the extreme levels of redundancy (software written in two separate locations, 4 copies running in parallel, and an emergency landing program constantly loaded on a separate processor just in case.) Cool stuff...
~luge

> At least they all still have the Mars Face...

Well, unfortunately that has been disproven. :/

However, they recently found a smiley face on mars.

Sheesh..it's amazing how we look so far into things.

The most important thing I forgot for you /. ers is that since this a government contract, it's completely open source. You can download it from the SkyView FTP site. --Keith

The most important thing I forgot for you /. ers is that since this a government contract, it's completely open source. You can download it from the SkyView FTP site. --Keith

I find this absolutely offensive! I started working on SkyView nearly seven years ago! The very first web interface went live in March of 1994. Since 1996, SkyView has been called itself "The Internet's Virtual Telescope."

I can understand that Microsoft is trying to generate enthusiasm and good PR for this, but it shouldn't be at the expense of accuracy and truth.

If you don't feel like waiting for Microsoft to make good and want to see pretty pictures (that also mean something to the professionals) check out SkyView . It already contains the Digitized Sky Survey which is an all-sky optical survey comprised of the Palomar plates made back in the 50's for the northern hemisphere and the SERC Southern Sky Survey for the southern hemisphere.

In addition, SkyView goes beyond the optical and has dozens of surveys ranging from radio wavelengths to gamma-rays.

For those who are curious as to how it works, you type in a coordinate or name of object you're interested in as well as the survey(s) you want to view. Your request then is processed and the image is literally created on the fly to match your specifications. For example, in the case of the Digitized Sky Survey, your request will typically be a composite of 10s of compressed images mosaicked together to produce a final image. This is also the reason why it may take up to a minute to display an image (it's a lot of geometric manipulation).

Also, as to not leave out other possibilities, if all you're looking for is optical images, the Space Telescope Science Institute has a DSS archive. It contains First and Second generation images ( SkyView currently only has the First), though it cannot mosaic across different plates whereas SkyView can.

Finally, yes, I have a bit a vested interest in this. I wrote 95-99% of the code for SkyView up until I left a year ago (now in the capable hands of Laura MacDonald with Tom McGlynn as the principal investigator and originator).

Someone or some group may come along and do it better, but I hope they don't forget those who came before them and are here while they talk of what they'll do in the future.

Besides, who do you trust for your astronomy, NASA or Microsoft? (no Martian spacecraft were harmed in the creation of SkyView )

--Keith Scollick scollick@stsci.edu

I find this absolutely offensive! I started working on SkyView nearly seven years ago! The very first web interface went live in March of 1994. Since 1996, SkyView has been called itself "The Internet's Virtual Telescope."

I can understand that Microsoft is trying to generate enthusiasm and good PR for this, but it shouldn't be at the expense of accuracy and truth.

If you don't feel like waiting for Microsoft to make good and want to see pretty pictures (that also mean something to the professionals) check out SkyView . It already contains the Digitized Sky Survey which is an all-sky optical survey comprised of the Palomar plates made back in the 50's for the northern hemisphere and the SERC Southern Sky Survey for the southern hemisphere.

In addition, SkyView goes beyond the optical and has dozens of surveys ranging from radio wavelengths to gamma-rays.

For those who are curious as to how it works, you type in a coordinate or name of object you're interested in as well as the survey(s) you want to view. Your request then is processed and the image is literally created on the fly to match your specifications. For example, in the case of the Digitized Sky Survey, your request will typically be a composite of 10s of compressed images mosaicked together to produce a final image. This is also the reason why it may take up to a minute to display an image (it's a lot of geometric manipulation).

Also, as to not leave out other possibilities, if all you're looking for is optical images, the Space Telescope Science Institute has a DSS archive. It contains First and Second generation images ( SkyView currently only has the First), though it cannot mosaic across different plates whereas SkyView can.

Finally, yes, I have a bit a vested interest in this. I wrote 95-99% of the code for SkyView up until I left a year ago (now in the capable hands of Laura MacDonald with Tom McGlynn as the principal investigator and originator).

Someone or some group may come along and do it better, but I hope they don't forget those who came before them and are here while they talk of what they'll do in the future.

Besides, who do you trust for your astronomy, NASA or Microsoft? (no Martian spacecraft were harmed in the creation of SkyView )

--Keith Scollick scollick@stsci.edu

I find this absolutely offensive! I started working on SkyView nearly seven years ago! The very first web interface went live in March of 1994. Since 1996, SkyView has been called itself "The Internet's Virtual Telescope."

I can understand that Microsoft is trying to generate enthusiasm and good PR for this, but it shouldn't be at the expense of accuracy and truth.

If you don't feel like waiting for Microsoft to make good and want to see pretty pictures (that also mean something to the professionals) check out SkyView . It already contains the Digitized Sky Survey which is an all-sky optical survey comprised of the Palomar plates made back in the 50's for the northern hemisphere and the SERC Southern Sky Survey for the southern hemisphere.

In addition, SkyView goes beyond the optical and has dozens of surveys ranging from radio wavelengths to gamma-rays.

For those who are curious as to how it works, you type in a coordinate or name of object you're interested in as well as the survey(s) you want to view. Your request then is processed and the image is literally created on the fly to match your specifications. For example, in the case of the Digitized Sky Survey, your request will typically be a composite of 10s of compressed images mosaicked together to produce a final image. This is also the reason why it may take up to a minute to display an image (it's a lot of geometric manipulation).

Also, as to not leave out other possibilities, if all you're looking for is optical images, the Space Telescope Science Institute has a DSS archive. It contains First and Second generation images ( SkyView currently only has the First), though it cannot mosaic across different plates whereas SkyView can.

Finally, yes, I have a bit a vested interest in this. I wrote 95-99% of the code for SkyView up until I left a year ago (now in the capable hands of Laura MacDonald with Tom McGlynn as the principal investigator and originator).

Someone or some group may come along and do it better, but I hope they don't forget those who came before them and are here while they talk of what they'll do in the future.

Besides, who do you trust for your astronomy, NASA or Microsoft? (no Martian spacecraft were harmed in the creation of SkyView )

--Keith Scollick scollick@stsci.edu

I find this absolutely offensive! I started working on SkyView nearly seven years ago! The very first web interface went live in March of 1994. Since 1996, SkyView has been called itself "The Internet's Virtual Telescope."

I can understand that Microsoft is trying to generate enthusiasm and good PR for this, but it shouldn't be at the expense of accuracy and truth.

If you don't feel like waiting for Microsoft to make good and want to see pretty pictures (that also mean something to the professionals) check out SkyView . It already contains the Digitized Sky Survey which is an all-sky optical survey comprised of the Palomar plates made back in the 50's for the northern hemisphere and the SERC Southern Sky Survey for the southern hemisphere.

In addition, SkyView goes beyond the optical and has dozens of surveys ranging from radio wavelengths to gamma-rays.

For those who are curious as to how it works, you type in a coordinate or name of object you're interested in as well as the survey(s) you want to view. Your request then is processed and the image is literally created on the fly to match your specifications. For example, in the case of the Digitized Sky Survey, your request will typically be a composite of 10s of compressed images mosaicked together to produce a final image. This is also the reason why it may take up to a minute to display an image (it's a lot of geometric manipulation).

Also, as to not leave out other possibilities, if all you're looking for is optical images, the Space Telescope Science Institute has a DSS archive. It contains First and Second generation images ( SkyView currently only has the First), though it cannot mosaic across different plates whereas SkyView can.

Finally, yes, I have a bit a vested interest in this. I wrote 95-99% of the code for SkyView up until I left a year ago (now in the capable hands of Laura MacDonald with Tom McGlynn as the principal investigator and originator).

Someone or some group may come along and do it better, but I hope they don't forget those who came before them and are here while they talk of what they'll do in the future.

Besides, who do you trust for your astronomy, NASA or Microsoft? (no Martian spacecraft were harmed in the creation of SkyView )

--Keith Scollick scollick@stsci.edu

I find this absolutely offensive! I started working on SkyView nearly seven years ago! The very first web interface went live in March of 1994. Since 1996, SkyView has been called itself "The Internet's Virtual Telescope."

I can understand that Microsoft is trying to generate enthusiasm and good PR for this, but it shouldn't be at the expense of accuracy and truth.

If you don't feel like waiting for Microsoft to make good and want to see pretty pictures (that also mean something to the professionals) check out SkyView . It already contains the Digitized Sky Survey which is an all-sky optical survey comprised of the Palomar plates made back in the 50's for the northern hemisphere and the SERC Southern Sky Survey for the southern hemisphere.

In addition, SkyView goes beyond the optical and has dozens of surveys ranging from radio wavelengths to gamma-rays.

For those who are curious as to how it works, you type in a coordinate or name of object you're interested in as well as the survey(s) you want to view. Your request then is processed and the image is literally created on the fly to match your specifications. For example, in the case of the Digitized Sky Survey, your request will typically be a composite of 10s of compressed images mosaicked together to produce a final image. This is also the reason why it may take up to a minute to display an image (it's a lot of geometric manipulation).

Also, as to not leave out other possibilities, if all you're looking for is optical images, the Space Telescope Science Institute has a DSS archive. It contains First and Second generation images ( SkyView currently only has the First), though it cannot mosaic across different plates whereas SkyView can.

Finally, yes, I have a bit a vested interest in this. I wrote 95-99% of the code for SkyView up until I left a year ago (now in the capable hands of Laura MacDonald with Tom McGlynn as the principal investigator and originator).

Someone or some group may come along and do it better, but I hope they don't forget those who came before them and are here while they talk of what they'll do in the future.

Besides, who do you trust for your astronomy, NASA or Microsoft? (no Martian spacecraft were harmed in the creation of SkyView )

--Keith Scollick scollick@stsci.edu

I find this absolutely offensive! I started working on SkyView nearly seven years ago! The very first web interface went live in March of 1994. Since 1996, SkyView has been called itself "The Internet's Virtual Telescope."

I can understand that Microsoft is trying to generate enthusiasm and good PR for this, but it shouldn't be at the expense of accuracy and truth.

If you don't feel like waiting for Microsoft to make good and want to see pretty pictures (that also mean something to the professionals) check out SkyView . It already contains the Digitized Sky Survey which is an all-sky optical survey comprised of the Palomar plates made back in the 50's for the northern hemisphere and the SERC Southern Sky Survey for the southern hemisphere.

In addition, SkyView goes beyond the optical and has dozens of surveys ranging from radio wavelengths to gamma-rays.

For those who are curious as to how it works, you type in a coordinate or name of object you're interested in as well as the survey(s) you want to view. Your request then is processed and the image is literally created on the fly to match your specifications. For example, in the case of the Digitized Sky Survey, your request will typically be a composite of 10s of compressed images mosaicked together to produce a final image. This is also the reason why it may take up to a minute to display an image (it's a lot of geometric manipulation).

Also, as to not leave out other possibilities, if all you're looking for is optical images, the Space Telescope Science Institute has a DSS archive. It contains First and Second generation images ( SkyView currently only has the First), though it cannot mosaic across different plates whereas SkyView can.

Finally, yes, I have a bit a vested interest in this. I wrote 95-99% of the code for SkyView up until I left a year ago (now in the capable hands of Laura MacDonald with Tom McGlynn as the principal investigator and originator).

Someone or some group may come along and do it better, but I hope they don't forget those who came before them and are here while they talk of what they'll do in the future.

Besides, who do you trust for your astronomy, NASA or Microsoft? (no Martian spacecraft were harmed in the creation of SkyView )

--Keith Scollick scollick@stsci.edu

I find this absolutely offensive! I started working on SkyView nearly seven years ago! The very first web interface went live in March of 1994. Since 1996, SkyView has been called itself "The Internet's Virtual Telescope."

I can understand that Microsoft is trying to generate enthusiasm and good PR for this, but it shouldn't be at the expense of accuracy and truth.

If you don't feel like waiting for Microsoft to make good and want to see pretty pictures (that also mean something to the professionals) check out SkyView . It already contains the Digitized Sky Survey which is an all-sky optical survey comprised of the Palomar plates made back in the 50's for the northern hemisphere and the SERC Southern Sky Survey for the southern hemisphere.

In addition, SkyView goes beyond the optical and has dozens of surveys ranging from radio wavelengths to gamma-rays.

For those who are curious as to how it works, you type in a coordinate or name of object you're interested in as well as the survey(s) you want to view. Your request then is processed and the image is literally created on the fly to match your specifications. For example, in the case of the Digitized Sky Survey, your request will typically be a composite of 10s of compressed images mosaicked together to produce a final image. This is also the reason why it may take up to a minute to display an image (it's a lot of geometric manipulation).

Also, as to not leave out other possibilities, if all you're looking for is optical images, the Space Telescope Science Institute has a DSS archive. It contains First and Second generation images ( SkyView currently only has the First), though it cannot mosaic across different plates whereas SkyView can.

Finally, yes, I have a bit a vested interest in this. I wrote 95-99% of the code for SkyView up until I left a year ago (now in the capable hands of Laura MacDonald with Tom McGlynn as the principal investigator and originator).

Someone or some group may come along and do it better, but I hope they don't forget those who came before them and are here while they talk of what they'll do in the future.

Besides, who do you trust for your astronomy, NASA or Microsoft? (no Martian spacecraft were harmed in the creation of SkyView )

--Keith Scollick scollick@stsci.edu

I find this absolutely offensive! I started working on SkyView nearly seven years ago! The very first web interface went live in March of 1994. Since 1996, SkyView has been called itself "The Internet's Virtual Telescope."

I can understand that Microsoft is trying to generate enthusiasm and good PR for this, but it shouldn't be at the expense of accuracy and truth.

If you don't feel like waiting for Microsoft to make good and want to see pretty pictures (that also mean something to the professionals) check out SkyView . It already contains the Digitized Sky Survey which is an all-sky optical survey comprised of the Palomar plates made back in the 50's for the northern hemisphere and the SERC Southern Sky Survey for the southern hemisphere.

In addition, SkyView goes beyond the optical and has dozens of surveys ranging from radio wavelengths to gamma-rays.

For those who are curious as to how it works, you type in a coordinate or name of object you're interested in as well as the survey(s) you want to view. Your request then is processed and the image is literally created on the fly to match your specifications. For example, in the case of the Digitized Sky Survey, your request will typically be a composite of 10s of compressed images mosaicked together to produce a final image. This is also the reason why it may take up to a minute to display an image (it's a lot of geometric manipulation).

Also, as to not leave out other possibilities, if all you're looking for is optical images, the Space Telescope Science Institute has a DSS archive. It contains First and Second generation images ( SkyView currently only has the First), though it cannot mosaic across different plates whereas SkyView can.

Finally, yes, I have a bit a vested interest in this. I wrote 95-99% of the code for SkyView up until I left a year ago (now in the capable hands of Laura MacDonald with Tom McGlynn as the principal investigator and originator).

Someone or some group may come along and do it better, but I hope they don't forget those who came before them and are here while they talk of what they'll do in the future.

Besides, who do you trust for your astronomy, NASA or Microsoft? (no Martian spacecraft were harmed in the creation of SkyView )

--Keith Scollick scollick@stsci.edu

Go to the NASA Digital Sky Survey and play around.

I don't know, I've seen a very slow SkyView in the middle of linkage from APOD (Astronomy Picutre of the Day), one of the world's best web pages to wake up to. Browse the APOD Archive or Index, especially if you have a fast connection and enjoy looking into the universe.

--

I don't know, I've seen a very slow SkyView in the middle of linkage from APOD (Astronomy Picutre of the Day), one of the world's best web pages to wake up to. Browse the APOD Archive or Index, especially if you have a fast connection and enjoy looking into the universe.

--

I don't know, I've seen a very slow SkyView in the middle of linkage from APOD (Astronomy Picutre of the Day), one of the world's best web pages to wake up to. Browse the APOD Archive or Index, especially if you have a fast connection and enjoy looking into the universe.

--

If you're not an astronomer, try out the non-astronomer page, pick your wavelengths, and browse around the sky. Hopefully NASA's servers can handle a Slashdotting.

--

If you're not an astronomer, try out the non-astronomer page, pick your wavelengths, and browse around the sky. Hopefully NASA's servers can handle a Slashdotting.

--

Actually no. Theoretically yes. But earth's atmosphere actually extends way way up there. I mean, it's a gas, and the molecules in a gas move, well, damn fast. The distribution of molecular speeds in the gas is stoichastic (pertaining to a random process), and also the upper layers can be, well, a bit warmer than down here. (Some are much colder too... don't ask me how it all works).

Anyways, the atmosphere doesn't just 'stop' at 100 miles, and so there is a big region where satelites will orbit for N years ( N being anywhere from 0 to infinity) while their orbits degrade... Certain events (solar, etc) can 'puff out' the atmosphere, causing a bit of variability in the decay of some orbits.

Here is a graph on the ionosphere.
And one on the temperature range of the atmosphere, with the exosphere going past 500 KM.
And a nice general NASA page on the atmosphere, focusing mostly on stuff below the exosphere.

Anyone out there got a paper or graph of orbital decay physics? I know personally that I've seen writups showing lists of satelites, their orbital paths, and their expected decay times (which ranged from 10 years to 100,000 or more)..

The other thing I would add is that the 250ms latenncy is only the physical layer. If you add on the rest of the networking required for data to reach a wireless device, it won't be uncomon to see 500ms or more.
___

Gee, I'm just a posting fool today...

What have we gotten from NASA? Tang, Microwave ovens, pacemakers, Protective paints to better resist weathering, weather Satelites, and (My personal favorite) Cordless tools! and the list goes on and on and on.

For a quick list, check out spacepupnew.pdf .

CSG_SurferDude

Are we forgetting that this is the agency who recently lost one probe because they confused metric and imperial measurements, and lost another due to rushing and cutting corners.

I'm not a NASA basher, but do we really want these folks putting things inside our bodies?

Are we forgetting that this is the agency who recently lost one probe because they confused metric and imperial measurements, and lost another due to rushing and cutting corners.

I'm not a NASA basher, but do we really want these folks putting things inside our bodies?

Who owns NASA tech? We (US Citizens) do! If you want to license some NASA Tech, check out: http://nctn.hq.nasa.gov/technology/index.html.

CSG_SurferDude

Radio waves are made up of photons, just as is visible light, microwaves, x-rays, infrared, etc. All are various wavelengths of the Electromagnetic Spectrum.

Of course, I have no idea how their spray-on doohickeys can intercept both visible and radio waves, but that's another discussion.


You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.

It did fly. You are sitting at a computer connected to the Internet and there are vast resources available to you if you just use them. I will make it easy for you. Here is some information on the Buran , the Russian space shuttle. It had a lot of potential but was canceled due to lack of funding, and by no means technical difficulties.

MIR orbits at an average of 333 km above ground, while Iridium satellites orbit at about 780 km above ground.