Slashdot Mirror

NASA's Exoplanet visualization toollets you see where those planets are relative to earth and see the solar systems around far away stars.

However, this presupposes that you knew about the problem before trying to land.

They knew there was a foam strike, they just chose not to actually look at it and instead rely on models to assess the damage. From TFA

The foam strike was not observed live. Only after the shuttle was orbiting Earth did NASA's launch imagery review reveal that the wing had been hit. Foam strikes during launch were not uncommon events, and shuttle program managers elected not to take on-orbit images of Columbia to visually assess any potential damage. Instead, NASA's Debris Assessment Team mathematically modeled the foam strike but could not reach any definitive conclusions about the state of the shuttle's wing. The mission continued.

I'd love to know what the risk analysis of that decision looked like. And boy I would have loved to have seen what Richard Feynman would have make of it, given the new one he ripped for NASA over challenger.

I've always liked the idea of space elevators, but I've also been bothered by a problem that I've never seen addressed, "micrometeoroid erosion". Sure, you can build one. But how long is it going to last, with nothing to protect the main cable/strands/shaft/whatever-you-want-to-call-it from a near-endless --though admittedly low-rate-- series of impacts by speedy dust particles?

I imagine they'd do something similar to how some of the new suspension bridge cables are designed. The main cables are actually cable bundles, and they're made so that individual strands can be replaced if necessary.

I've always liked the idea of space elevators, but I've also been bothered by a problem that I've never seen addressed, "micrometeoroid erosion". Sure, you can build one. But how long is it going to last, with nothing to protect the main cable/strands/shaft/whatever-you-want-to-call-it from a near-endless --though admittedly low-rate-- series of impacts by speedy dust particles?

I imagine they'd do something similar to how some of the new suspension bridge cables are designed. The main cables are actually cable bundles, and they're made so that individual strands can be replaced if necessary.

During a speech he once gave, someone in the audience asked Arthur C. Clarke when the space elevator would become a reality.

"Clarke answered, 'Probably about 50 years after everybody quits laughing,'" related Pearson. "He's got a point. Once you stop dismissing something as unattainable, then you start working on its development. This is exciting!"

Makes sense to me; original link here.

I've always liked the idea of space elevators, but I've also been bothered by a problem that I've never seen addressed, "micrometeoroid erosion". Sure, you can build one. But how long is it going to last, with nothing to protect the main cable/strands/shaft/whatever-you-want-to-call-it from a near-endless --though admittedly low-rate-- series of impacts by speedy dust particles?

I've always liked the idea of space elevators, but I've also been bothered by a problem that I've never seen addressed, "micrometeoroid erosion". Sure, you can build one. But how long is it going to last, with nothing to protect the main cable/strands/shaft/whatever-you-want-to-call-it from a near-endless --though admittedly low-rate-- series of impacts by speedy dust particles?

http://climate.nasa.gov/intera... found here http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/multim... along with other goodies or you could spend time going thru http://nasasearch.nasa.gov/sea...

http://climate.nasa.gov/intera... found here http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/multim... along with other goodies or you could spend time going thru http://nasasearch.nasa.gov/sea...

http://climate.nasa.gov/intera... found here http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/multim... along with other goodies or you could spend time going thru http://nasasearch.nasa.gov/sea...

Just so you know: That "97 percent of all scientists in the world" silliness came from a rigged "poll."

Basically, an AGW-supporting scientist polled a number of his AGW-supporting scientist friends and co-workers - 30 or so - and asked them if they thought AGW was real.

That's where your number came from. Which should tell you something about the actual support for AGW among the scientific population at large...

They recently came up with another poll, where they cherry-picked a bunch of papers, and said "97% of scientific papers agree!" While not mentioning that only about a third of them actually addressed AGW, and they got their "new" 97% by only looking at 65 papers. Out of 12,000. Oops.

ok, so.. read through all of this page, and repeat that this is just a guy polling his friends:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scient...

The problem is one of a society that has been trained to misunderstand Science. In the USA Science is replaceable with a body of facts and argument (which isn't really what Science is in either circumstance). Yes, there are a few people who really understand it better than I mention, but the masses do not.

These people who misunderstand Science are the same ones that misunderstand wealth. When people complain that there is a large increase in poverty, they will state that they have $80 in their pocket. The cannot separate out a fact finding from their personal observations. Personal observations are selective, not accounting for data that was not observed, which is exactly why Science first determines the pool of data to be collected and then attempts the collection randomly.

So the USA had a record cold winter, but the north and south poles had a record warm winter. It was so warm that the ice packs didn't rebuild equal to previous years. As a result, the upcoming summer will devastate the ice packs. It's already to the point that the north pole could be in the water, in just a few years. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic-seaice-2012.html

.

Note that this image is based on the shrink from an 30 year average that ended in 2010. In 2010, they reported a trend of massive melting. Back in 1979 it looked like this

Faced with this evidence, most people will still say, "Well, it's actually getting colder, because they live in the northern USA, and they can't see further than their own backyards.

Are you aware Lake Ontario froze two months early this year? I haz photos even. That's not because "winter".

Also, remember when the Greenland ice sheet melted last year and everyone freaked out?

"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data."

In a warming world wouldn't this have happened even one day early?

And if it's cyclical why did the headline read: "Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt"

How can it be "unprecedented" if it's cyclical? And on time?

No, no alarmism there. That's not "spin" at all.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/ear...

Hansen doesn't work there any more. I'm sure thats just a coincidence. But this sort of self inconsistency has stopped showing up in NASA stuff now. Just another coincidence I'm sure.

Really? It can't have anything to do with the massive ball of fire that we call the Sun having record low activity [newscientist.com]?

Yes, really. The current total solar irradiance (TSI) is about 1361 W/m^2. For the satellite era (1979 to the present) it has varied between a low of around 1360 to a high of around 1364 W/m^2 so it's not outside the norm. Changes in solar irradiance such as we've seen have a small effect on the climate that mostly cancels itself out when averaged over several cycles.

If you request it NASA will put you on a mailing list for times when the ISS is supposed to fly over. You can sign up here.

And LADEE recently demonstrated a laser communications system with data rates about ten times over what Artemis demonstrated.

I think these articles and summaries that appear on Slashdot would better serve the community if they took a moment to figure out what the new part of "the news" really is. This sounds like an improvement which will enable more efficient laser communication over longer distances than was demonstrated with LADEE. So, an improvement more applicable to deep space probes or maybe allow the packing of more sensors on Earth observing satellites which will then have more bandwidth to transmit all that data.

One or more private companies will win a contract to build prospecting robots, the first step toward mining the moon.

Look, IANAL and TINLA and all that, but no, that is not what is on offer here.

NASA "seeks to facilitate the development of one or more robotic lunar lander capabilities."

It will do that by "entering into one or more no-funds-exchanged Space Act Agreements (SAAs) with U.S. private-sector partners as a result of this Announcement."

Space Act agreements are not procurement contracts and "no-funds-exchanged" means, well, no funds will be exchanged.

So, no-one is going to (as a result of this) "win a contract" to build anything, and NASA is interested (in this announcement) in cargo transport, not prospecting.

Thanks!

Actually, I think the NASA shot is better than the HiRise one?

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.g...

http://static.uahirise.org/ima...

Grrrr. I know. I had to hunt down a useful link for the Earth shot.

A link that shows the photo! Imagine that, 2 seconds to proof click an article.

This from an organization that, when they recently redesigned their website, *still* didn't get around to forwarding http://nasa.gov/ to http://www.nasa.gov? Who would've thought?

This from an organization that, when they recently redesigned their website, *still* didn't get around to forwarding http://nasa.gov/ to http://www.nasa.gov? Who would've thought?

It doesn't matter what baseline you use for X and Y if you want to answer "how much greater is X than Y?" When I calculate "X - Y", the choice of baseline cancels out. It doesn't matter if I do the calculation in celsius or kelvin; or if I choose 1900-1999 as a baseline or 1950-1980. The answer to the question "how much hotter was 2005 than 1995?" is still going to be 0.2C.

As for the choice of 1995 as a baseline, it was *your* idea to use a year that set a record for high temperature and ask, "has it got warmer since then?" and surprisingly, the answer turns out to be "yes". That's very different than taking ten or more years as your baseline, which cancels out the effect of unusually hot or unusually cool years impartially.

As for the source of my data, here you go.

Goddard has one too and you can feel the building vibrate when it runs. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/about/unique_resources_prt.htm

You can be specific in your request under FOI, and simply ask for those records and data that are currently here on earth.

However, reading the actual court filing, I don't see any reference to the Freedom of Information Act. Rather, he seems to be demanding the court force NASA to do what he alleges is their responsibility, that they are somehow shirking.

He demands high rez close up photos, which he says NASA hasn't produced, yet there are such already on file and more coming http://marsrover.nasa.gov/gall...

Ten years of photos, and he thinks he spotted a mushroom on mars where the average temp is -81 degrees F.

Costly and time consuming?

Really, you are going with that?

The 90 day mission has stretched to 10 years. They somehow found money to keep these guys employed all those years, they are on the payroll till the rover dies.

What other random thing in the drive-able vicinity is likely to be MORE interesting? This Rover has accomplished just about all it can possibly do with its worn out tools, aging batteries, lame wheels, etc. There is probably nothing more interesting than this rock, and spending the effort (which surely they must be very well practiced and efficient at, considering the ten years they have had to perfect their craft) to evaluate it and release the data is no big deal.

You can go to the JPL site and search all the photos, so its not like they don't have more to give.

When you obtain government records under the Freedom of Information Act, you still have to pay the cost to produce the records, even though the cost of the original record is a sunk cost. So, if you want additional information from Mars, there is the satellite time, the technician time and a whole slew of other costs associated with it. And, yes, those costs are quite expensive and legal to charge.

Why are those procedures in place? It's public data, why can't the public see it as soon as NASA gets it?

The public does see it as soon as NASA gets it. All images are uploaded to marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/ as soon as they are received.

The Exploratorium also has a feed of the raw images as soon as they come down: http://www.exploratorium.edu/m...

Just from the depths of my armchair: perhaps because the data comes in formats that are completely useless to the public, and it takes time for NASA to decompress/deconvert/decrypt/convolve/whatever them?

The raw images are uploaded within a day of when they get received. As you note, these are raw images, and there's some processing needed to make pretty images suitable for public release: flat-field corrections, photometric and geometric corrections, as well as turning the individual frames into mosaics and color-corrected images, which takes more time. (There are also sometimes some dropped packets, and if you get the images right from the raw downlink, they won't have retransmitted the dropped bits yet.)

However, you don't have to wait for NASA to do all of that: there are some amateur groups that do image processing on the raw images, and do a pretty good job of making high-quality images, too.

Maybe they can do their own analysis with the data in a raw-ish format, but to give us the real numbers and sort out the metadata flags that say "This sensor is currently busted" takes more time?

Yes; all that gets uploaded onto the planetary data system (pds.nasa.gov/), including all the metadata, but that does take a while, since this is fully calibrated data.

Why are those procedures in place? It's public data, why can't the public see it as soon as NASA gets it?

The public does see it as soon as NASA gets it. All images are uploaded to marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/ as soon as they are received.

The Exploratorium also has a feed of the raw images as soon as they come down: http://www.exploratorium.edu/m...

Just from the depths of my armchair: perhaps because the data comes in formats that are completely useless to the public, and it takes time for NASA to decompress/deconvert/decrypt/convolve/whatever them?

The raw images are uploaded within a day of when they get received. As you note, these are raw images, and there's some processing needed to make pretty images suitable for public release: flat-field corrections, photometric and geometric corrections, as well as turning the individual frames into mosaics and color-corrected images, which takes more time. (There are also sometimes some dropped packets, and if you get the images right from the raw downlink, they won't have retransmitted the dropped bits yet.)

However, you don't have to wait for NASA to do all of that: there are some amateur groups that do image processing on the raw images, and do a pretty good job of making high-quality images, too.

Maybe they can do their own analysis with the data in a raw-ish format, but to give us the real numbers and sort out the metadata flags that say "This sensor is currently busted" takes more time?

Yes; all that gets uploaded onto the planetary data system (pds.nasa.gov/), including all the metadata, but that does take a while, since this is fully calibrated data.

Yeah, working for NASA and JPL ten years on a 90 day mission has a lot of risk to their careers.
Really? Nobody is "risking their careers" working on the single most prestigious off-world project in existence.

The (many years worth of images), it takes time for all of them to be transmitted.
Other data may not so readily interpreted, but its not like it would be totally beyond other scientists to evaluate it.

They have been imaging the thing for days. So apparently they have plenty of time and money:

http://marsrover.nasa.gov/gall...

http://marsrover.nasa.gov/gall...

http://marsrover.nasa.gov/gall...

http://marsrover.nasa.gov/gall...

They have been imaging the thing for days. So apparently they have plenty of time and money:

http://marsrover.nasa.gov/gall...

http://marsrover.nasa.gov/gall...

http://marsrover.nasa.gov/gall...

http://marsrover.nasa.gov/gall...

They have been imaging the thing for days. So apparently they have plenty of time and money:

http://marsrover.nasa.gov/gall...

http://marsrover.nasa.gov/gall...

http://marsrover.nasa.gov/gall...

http://marsrover.nasa.gov/gall...

They have been imaging the thing for days. So apparently they have plenty of time and money:

http://marsrover.nasa.gov/gall...

http://marsrover.nasa.gov/gall...

http://marsrover.nasa.gov/gall...

http://marsrover.nasa.gov/gall...

Costly and time consuming?

Really, you are going with that?

The 90 day mission has stretched to 10 years. They somehow found money to keep these guys employed all those years, they are on the payroll till the rover dies.

What other random thing in the drive-able vicinity is likely to be MORE interesting? This Rover has accomplished just about all it can possibly do with its worn out tools, aging batteries, lame wheels, etc. There is probably nothing more interesting than this rock, and spending the effort (which surely they must be very well practiced and efficient at, considering the ten years they have had to perfect their craft) to evaluate it and release the data is no big deal.

You can go to the JPL site and search all the photos, so its not like they don't have more to give.

If this idiotic shitstain spent more than five hard seconds looking at the processed press release images, forgetting to take his meds, and crying conspiracy, he would've discovered that the Mars Exploration Rover site on JPL actually releases every single raw image the second it gets downlinked from Mars, including photos that deny claims of not taking micrographs, and also ignorant of basic traits of the MERs (well, MER now - RIP Spirit), such as the relatively low resolution of its sensors compared to modern standards, the microscopic imager just having a resolution of 1024x1024 and a working area of 3.1cm square at operating distance, and because it doesn't have an light on it like MSL/Curiosity's MAHLI, isn't as good at taking photos of things on the ground, like a little rock on the surface of mars.

In fact, there's even hazcam images of the arm being swung into place, denying that the rover never got close, and that it's actually just the really small rock it is.
Before arm placement, and after.

Anyways - oh look, close up, in focus images of a mushroom. Not. I hope this fuck gets laughed out and never returns.

If this idiotic shitstain spent more than five hard seconds looking at the processed press release images, forgetting to take his meds, and crying conspiracy, he would've discovered that the Mars Exploration Rover site on JPL actually releases every single raw image the second it gets downlinked from Mars, including photos that deny claims of not taking micrographs, and also ignorant of basic traits of the MERs (well, MER now - RIP Spirit), such as the relatively low resolution of its sensors compared to modern standards, the microscopic imager just having a resolution of 1024x1024 and a working area of 3.1cm square at operating distance, and because it doesn't have an light on it like MSL/Curiosity's MAHLI, isn't as good at taking photos of things on the ground, like a little rock on the surface of mars.

In fact, there's even hazcam images of the arm being swung into place, denying that the rover never got close, and that it's actually just the really small rock it is.
Before arm placement, and after.

Anyways - oh look, close up, in focus images of a mushroom. Not. I hope this fuck gets laughed out and never returns.

If this idiotic shitstain spent more than five hard seconds looking at the processed press release images, forgetting to take his meds, and crying conspiracy, he would've discovered that the Mars Exploration Rover site on JPL actually releases every single raw image the second it gets downlinked from Mars, including photos that deny claims of not taking micrographs, and also ignorant of basic traits of the MERs (well, MER now - RIP Spirit), such as the relatively low resolution of its sensors compared to modern standards, the microscopic imager just having a resolution of 1024x1024 and a working area of 3.1cm square at operating distance, and because it doesn't have an light on it like MSL/Curiosity's MAHLI, isn't as good at taking photos of things on the ground, like a little rock on the surface of mars.

In fact, there's even hazcam images of the arm being swung into place, denying that the rover never got close, and that it's actually just the really small rock it is.
Before arm placement, and after.

Anyways - oh look, close up, in focus images of a mushroom. Not. I hope this fuck gets laughed out and never returns.

China will eventually learn the same lesson that the US now, finally, is seeming to learn: spending money on space exploration is a money pit, a drain on national coffers and more productive endeavors

Like killing people? The US has spent 6 times as much as the entire shuttle program on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars alone. The total military spending for the US in 2010 was $680 billion (ref). The entire shuttle program, consisting of over 100 flights, cost $196 billion (ref). The total cost of the Curiosity lander, the largest rover ever landed, was $2.5 billion (ref). Don't even get my started on the bailout, which wouldn't have been necessary if the financial industry was properly regulated. Space exploration is a fucking bargain.

It is unfortunate in some ways that you're modded down. This is the evidence for why there is no face on Mars: The other side of the coin is that seeing faces where there aren't any is an artefact of how your brain is wired up. Random natural formations (on any scale) stand a better chance than most people think of appearing as a face. This also extends to other objects, however, such as Jesus, and genitals. This one is really cool too.

Making 10 of them is probably hardly more expensive than just making one anyway.

http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/mi...

$1.8 billion for development and investigations. This would probably not increase significantly.

$0.7 billion for launch and operations. This will.

So, one rover is $2.5 billion; ten rovers at once are a minimum of $8.8 billion.

Basically even if they're using a bunch of identical rovers, each additional rover is probably gonna add nearly a billion in costs. Getting stuff all the way to Mars is *expensive*!

Should we ever get some kind of space elevator or something that should change the numbers significantly though...

Many large drones are capable of aerial refueling.

Name one.

No current drones are capable of aerial refueling: RQ-4 (Global Hawk) flew in trail, but never executed a plug and never passed gas, and X-47B isn't on contract to fly the demonstration yet

Please don't conflate unproven plans and desires with demonstrated capability

Right. the LAND area of Mars and Earth are close.

Land area of Earth 148 million km.
Surface area of Mars 144.8 million km

So our sample to date is pretty miserable.
However, our samples to date agree with out space based observations. Both on earth and on mars. We don't have to turn over every rock.

We need rovers that can get to some more risky locations. http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap03...

Well using NASA's numbers it looks like you would need to cover 1% of earth's surface with 1% efficient panels to meet all of civilizations current energy needs. Granted this is a large number of square miles but percentage wise really is almost nothing. Add in the 20% efficient panels are fairly common and now you only need to cover .05% earth surface. The problems arise in storage and transport.

The government can do great things. Look at NASA.

I don't mean to disparage an entire agency, but there are bureaucratic screw-ups there as well. I think Feynman's appendix to the Challenger disaster report should be required reading for anybody who supervises people who work in a technical capacity.

By the way, to get a better size perspective of the rock, check out this show from the front Hazcam:

http://marsrover.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/f/3540/1F442454318EFFCAEOP1214L0M1.JPG

You can easily see that this object could have been tossed by the wheels when you see the size comparison to the wheels.

All I can see in that picture is a shadow of and armless Johnny Five from Short Circuit. How did he get on Mars, what happened to his arms, and why is he screwing with Opportunity?

With 1/3 the gravity of Earth I can see typical 80 mph winds carrying something as small as a doughnut

Only 1/3 the gravity but the surface atmospheric density of Mars is only 1.6% that of Earth. By my back-of-the-envelope calculating that means it would take a 360 mph Martian wind to generate 1/3 the force of an 80 mph Earth wind acting on the same object.

With 1/3 the gravity of Earth I can see typical 80 mph winds carrying something as small as a doughnut

Only 1/3 the gravity but the surface atmospheric density of Mars is only 1.6% that of Earth. By my back-of-the-envelope calculating that means it would take a 360 mph Martian wind to generate 1/3 the force of an 80 mph Earth wind acting on the same object.

By the way, to get a better size perspective of the rock, check out this show from the front Hazcam:

http://marsrover.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/f/3540/1F442454318EFFCAEOP1214L0M1.JPG

You can easily see that this object could have been tossed by the wheels when you see the size comparison to the wheels.

The experts think the rock was "Tiddleywinked" by the rover's own wheels while turning or maneuvering on the ground.

One possible location where it might have come from is also pretty obvious when you get wider field photographs than the sensational press like so publish.

For instance, Compare this is a wider field shot of the ares BEFORE the appearance:

Pic 1: http://marsrover.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/p/3528/1P441385599EFFCADPP2385R1M1.JPG

To a wider shot of the area AFTER the appearance.

Pic 2: http://marsrover.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/p/3540/1P442453328EFFCAEFP2594R1M1.JPG

Notice that scuff mark in the lower left corner of the Pic 2, and find the same location in
Pic 1. (Its diagonally down and to the right of the "bald eagle head shot" in Pic 1.)

A little trench has been exposed, dirt turned over and some material is missing. A rock is clearly missing from this hole.
Could the rock have been un-Marsed from this hole by a wheel, and thrown that far, landing it upside down such that we see an un-weathered surface? Not saying for sure this is where it came from, (hole looks a little small), but a simple widefield view will probably reveal similar candidate sources.

I Hope JPL holds off on releasing any new imagery until the conspiracy nut jobs work their way into a screaming lather. The deflation is so much more fun that way,

The experts think the rock was "Tiddleywinked" by the rover's own wheels while turning or maneuvering on the ground.

One possible location where it might have come from is also pretty obvious when you get wider field photographs than the sensational press like so publish.

For instance, Compare this is a wider field shot of the ares BEFORE the appearance:

Pic 1: http://marsrover.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/p/3528/1P441385599EFFCADPP2385R1M1.JPG

To a wider shot of the area AFTER the appearance.

Pic 2: http://marsrover.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/p/3540/1P442453328EFFCAEFP2594R1M1.JPG

Notice that scuff mark in the lower left corner of the Pic 2, and find the same location in
Pic 1. (Its diagonally down and to the right of the "bald eagle head shot" in Pic 1.)

A little trench has been exposed, dirt turned over and some material is missing. A rock is clearly missing from this hole.
Could the rock have been un-Marsed from this hole by a wheel, and thrown that far, landing it upside down such that we see an un-weathered surface? Not saying for sure this is where it came from, (hole looks a little small), but a simple widefield view will probably reveal similar candidate sources.

I Hope JPL holds off on releasing any new imagery until the conspiracy nut jobs work their way into a screaming lather. The deflation is so much more fun that way,