Slashdot Mirror

It's good that we agree on something. It should be noted, however, that there has been a flat line in global temperature for the last 10 or so years. While this is insignificant as an indicator of anything, it should be noted that the models that are used for all projections failed to predict this.

Careful... that line worked in 2008, but not in 2010. 1998 is a useful year for selection bias.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/5951409.cms Following the release of global temperature data which revealed April of 2010 was the hottest April ever and that this year so far has been warmest on record, Nasa has said global temperatures have been steadily rising since the late 1970s with no significant let-up in the trend.

Interesting. Looking at the Nasa GISS temperature graphs, they seem to disagree with themselves, see here. Your point about selection bias is correct, but I was not claiming that global warming has stopped, I was claiming that the models used for all kinds of funky predictions about the future temperatures failed to predict the 10-year flatline(what happens next is anyone's guess). I should probably also point out that choosing the year 1880 can also be seen as selection bias, since the Little Ice Age ended right about then, so increasing temperatures is only natural after an extended cooling like that. Without context, graphs beginning at 1880 also provide a nice upward slope all the way to the present, save for the "small" dive at around 1950.

I also think it's curious that you choose to use an article in the Times of India as proof, instead of pointing to the data that they draw their conclusions from. Climate science is so politicized that everything on the Internet having to do with it should be taken with a truckload of salt, whether it agrees with your position or not.

I'm sorry, what? I'd like to know how you link a few years of poor oyster harvesting to global warming, so please quote some kind of source.

Using google is really not that difficult. (Further down the article downplays the link, but that's business press for you.)

http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2010/06/28/story1.html Young oysters seem to be dying in their swimming larval stage because the slightly acidic seawater is dissolving their shells from the outside faster than they can grow, Kaufman said. The breeding cycle has failed for each of the past four years, he said.

Using google runs into the problem I outlined above. Using google to find a business journal article that suggests ocean acidification as a reason for poor harvest of oysters, even if "some scientists" think so, is anecdotal and not evidence of anything. As the guy later on in that article says, the problem is not unprecedented and is likely caused by entirely natural factors.

Same goes for the coral statement. Ocean acidification is a scary-sounding theory, but whether it will have any major ill-effects is pretty much an open question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification Research has already found that corals, coccolithophore algae, coralline algae, foraminifera, shellfish and pteropods experience reduced calcification or enhanced dissolution when exposed to elevated CO2.

Uh-huh. I also experience increased perspiration when subjected to higher temperatures. I should also point out that using wikipedia as a source in any highly political issue is pretty futile, since one side will always highjack any articles having to do with it, even if attempts are made to avoid it. The wikipedia article

Please also see this http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/torino_scale1.html

THE TORINO IMPACT HAZARD SCALE
No Hazard
(White Zone)
0
        The likelihood of a collision is zero, or is so low as to be effectively zero. Also applies to small objects such as meteors and bodies that burn up in the atmosphere as well as infrequent meteorite falls that rarely cause damage.

Actually there are many objects we are monitoring, please see http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/.
This object's impact probability is 7.1*10E-4. That's 0.00071, and not 1/1000.
The Torino Scale Color says white, which means impact is almost impossible.
Most of the times even if the probability is increased, it is quickly reduced after some investigation.
Currently the most dangerous object is 2007 VK184 (2048-2057) which gets green rating. This article is nothing more than sensationalist and stupid.

No one is doubting Global Warming.

That's simply not true. There's a large contingency of folks who are outright denying even the temp rises. They're typically the mindless followers of Beck & Limbaugh.

By "solar weather theory" are you referring to the false arguments that AGW is caused by cosmic rays and/or temps are increasing on other planets? If so, no problem. Here's 34 different scientific papers that refute each aspect of them. :)

So, you ready to change your business model now?

I think just this data center and the observatory is enough to bring down the south pole ice caps... If this is taking place at the south pole, shouldn't this be concerning? Also, most of the IT staff can manage the center remotely with a minimum number of people required at base camp. With regards to power, I believe geothermal is a possibility but I don't know how that would interfere with their observations.

Anyone else hoping to see a splotch of green in the Antarctic besides me?

No

It would seem that the $18 million was to draw the picture & maybe a mockup or two.

Actually, there's a fair bit more of that Boeing will have to accomplish if they want the full milestone-based payments, if you look at the Space Act agreement they signed with NASA:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/444144main_NNJ10TA03S_boeing_saa.pdf

Boeing/Bigelow ($18M): trade study and down-select between pusher-type and tractor-style LAS, system definition review, Abort System Hardware Demonstration Test, Base Heat Shield Fabrication Demonstration, Avionics Systems Integration Facility demonstration, CM Pressure Shell Fabrication Demonstration, Landing System Demonstration (drop test and water uprighting test), Life Support Air Revitalization demonstration, AR&D hardware/software demonstration, Crew Module Mockup demonstration. It also explicitly mentions that the capsule is designed for Atlas, Delta, and Falcon 9 launch vehicles

Although the crew capsule has been receiving most of the attention, if anything the escape system is the more difficult and costlier part to develop. Although the Russians have extensive experience with them, nobody in the US has built a capsule-based escape system since the 60s or 70s. SpaceX, Boeing, and Blue Origin are also working on developing novel "push-based" (rather than the typical tractor-based) escape systems, and I'm curious if they'll end up consolidating their efforts if Congress doesn't come through with sufficient commercial crew development funding.

Finally, I don't think anybody's yet posted the video of the CST-100 (it's somewhat rudimentary, but does the job of depicting the basic architecture):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mn_gXEK5XmQ

I'm no expert by any means but here are some numbers I pulled out of...Google. By extrapolating from what this guy says I get an answer of about only 750,000 years and judging by what else I've read that number is probably very low. Not that long on the cosmic scale but a little longer than you or I will be around for.

For anyone curious, as I was, what the surface temperature of our star is: 5500 degrees C

My source was NASA's world book page (then again, it goes on to state that our solar system has nine planets, so trust NASA at your own risk)

The data from WMAP indicates that we're living in a Big Freeze universe. Although it's still possible that enough dark energy may exist to reverse it, it seems unlikely.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_fate.html

Would it not be an option to send robotic construction workers to the site ahead of time to begin construction of the shelter? Or, send two separate ships, one that just has cargo on board? That way, the ship that carries the people would need to carry less, and therefor the weight that would be allocated to kit could be allocated to slightly thicker walls. But, in typical Slashdot fashion, I'm just putting forth something that seems reasonable, substituting what I believe to be common sense for the engineering degree that I don't have.

This was NASA's plan. They wanted to have a lunar base prepared for astronauts. A cleared landing site, and oxygen production from lunar rock and soil.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/sep/HQ_05273_moon_dirt.html

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/may/HQ_05128_Centennial_Challenge.html

Also perhaps some base assembly, with the robotic capabilities of the ATHlete rover

http://www-robotics.jpl.nasa.gov/systems/system.cfm?System=11

and the Robonaut

http://robonaut.jsc.nasa.gov/default.asp

Would it not be an option to send robotic construction workers to the site ahead of time to begin construction of the shelter? Or, send two separate ships, one that just has cargo on board? That way, the ship that carries the people would need to carry less, and therefor the weight that would be allocated to kit could be allocated to slightly thicker walls. But, in typical Slashdot fashion, I'm just putting forth something that seems reasonable, substituting what I believe to be common sense for the engineering degree that I don't have.

This was NASA's plan. They wanted to have a lunar base prepared for astronauts. A cleared landing site, and oxygen production from lunar rock and soil.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/sep/HQ_05273_moon_dirt.html

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/may/HQ_05128_Centennial_Challenge.html

Also perhaps some base assembly, with the robotic capabilities of the ATHlete rover

http://www-robotics.jpl.nasa.gov/systems/system.cfm?System=11

and the Robonaut

http://robonaut.jsc.nasa.gov/default.asp

Would it not be an option to send robotic construction workers to the site ahead of time to begin construction of the shelter? Or, send two separate ships, one that just has cargo on board? That way, the ship that carries the people would need to carry less, and therefor the weight that would be allocated to kit could be allocated to slightly thicker walls. But, in typical Slashdot fashion, I'm just putting forth something that seems reasonable, substituting what I believe to be common sense for the engineering degree that I don't have.

This was NASA's plan. They wanted to have a lunar base prepared for astronauts. A cleared landing site, and oxygen production from lunar rock and soil.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/sep/HQ_05273_moon_dirt.html

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/may/HQ_05128_Centennial_Challenge.html

Also perhaps some base assembly, with the robotic capabilities of the ATHlete rover

http://www-robotics.jpl.nasa.gov/systems/system.cfm?System=11

and the Robonaut

http://robonaut.jsc.nasa.gov/default.asp

Would it not be an option to send robotic construction workers to the site ahead of time to begin construction of the shelter? Or, send two separate ships, one that just has cargo on board? That way, the ship that carries the people would need to carry less, and therefor the weight that would be allocated to kit could be allocated to slightly thicker walls. But, in typical Slashdot fashion, I'm just putting forth something that seems reasonable, substituting what I believe to be common sense for the engineering degree that I don't have.

This was NASA's plan. They wanted to have a lunar base prepared for astronauts. A cleared landing site, and oxygen production from lunar rock and soil.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/sep/HQ_05273_moon_dirt.html

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/may/HQ_05128_Centennial_Challenge.html

Also perhaps some base assembly, with the robotic capabilities of the ATHlete rover

http://www-robotics.jpl.nasa.gov/systems/system.cfm?System=11

and the Robonaut

http://robonaut.jsc.nasa.gov/default.asp

OK you've lost me, how does my carbon footprint in North America effect whether billions of Nepalese, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Chinese and Hindustanis cook their food over a sooty kerosene fire, or ride around on smoky 2-cycle mopeds?

The reference is this blog posting over at Foreign Policy which was posted back in March: http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/blog/5630 The test was of a sub-orbital kill vehicle intercepting a sub-orbital target, both launched from ballistic missiles. There was no orbital debris generated and a satellite was not destroyed. This can be verified by looking at NASA's Orbital debris Quarterly Reports as well as the satellite catalog on Space Track: http://www.orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/newsletter/newsletter.html http://www.space-track.org/perl/login.pl However, because the same technology can be used for both hit-to-kill missile defense and hit-to-kill ASATs, the test can be seen as another test of China's ASAT capability, in the same way as the destruction of USA 193 (a satellite) by the US Aegis missile defense system

Another idea is have the ship use an umbrella
You mean like this?

Yes, there is a definite positive correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures. Using ice core samples, tree growth rings, etc., this has been confirmed. But the fly in the ointment is that the CO2 levels *lag* the temperature changes by 40 to 50 years. Excuse me? The "cause" of the global warming happens "after" things warm up? That little datum all by its lonesome is rather hard to dispute.

The whole reason why GW is perceived as so dangerous is that it is a positive feedback loop - warming up means more CO2 means more warming up. Historically, some other reason for warming (e.g. Sun) would also trigger that cycle, so no surprise there.

The major greenhouse gas in our atmosphere isn't CO2. It's H2O. Yup, plain old water. The effect of the CO2 is about 1 percent of the overall greenhouse effect.

H2O is in equilibrium - if you add more to the atmosphere, the excess will fall out as precipitation. But if you add more CO2 to the atmosphere, it stays there. We don't care about the part that cannot change no matter what happens, it's just "always there" (similar to ocean albedo, for example). But that "tiny 1%" can grow practically indefinitely, and what's worse, it's that positive feedback loop again, so the effects are exponentially proportional to the amount we add, rather than linearly.

There seems to be some viking farms being uncovered in Greenland. Yup, the glaciers are melting and in the process exposing abandoned farms. Hmm. Seems to me that if there were farms where there's currently glaciers, that would imply it being much warmer in the past.

Yeah, it's called a Medieval warm period, and it was pretty much localized to North Atlantic. The mean surface temperature during it was actually below what we had 40 years ago. Other places were actually much colder. North America had some major droughts, by the way - I presume you're planning your move to Greenland already?

And finally, the polar ice on Mars seems to be also shrinking.

Mars has different atmosphere and different orbit, and its caps are covered by frozen CO2 - dry ice - which likely changes their interaction with everything else. Also, the observed changes in the caps mostly have to do with dry ice, not with water ice.

Overall, it's a system that plays by entirely different rules which we don't presently understand anywhere nearly as well as those on Earth, so it's unclear what - if any - relevance it has to Earth GW discussion. Anyway, here is one take on why the Martian caps shrink.

Think of insulation. Insulation can keep heat in, and it can also keep heat out. Insulation will keep your house warm in the winter, and also cool in the summer. It's not that hard to understand, is it?

Although CO2 may be causing cooling high in the troposphere, it's keeping the surface of the Earth warm. So far, 2010 is the warmest year on record, with Arctic and Antarctic ice continuing to melt, despite low solar activity.

Astronomy pic of the day: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/

With all the artifacts, seams and inconsistencies processed away

It seems the seams are gone. Excellent! I'll have to see how this compares to Google Sky. I'll bet I'll still prefer NASA's closeups from their Picture of the Day Gallery, though.

Let me try, using your timeline as a base (feel free to modify/copy/reuse):

2003: Space Shuttle Columbia accident

2004: Bush announces Vision for Space Exploration for sustainable human presence on the Moon starting in 2020 as testbed for Mars exploration and expansion into the solar system, calls for shuttle retirement in 2010 and replacement crew capability in operation by 2014, calls for commercial cargo/crew to ISS and no new launch vehicles developed unless absolutely necessary, NASA solicits plans from industry for best ways to achieve these goals

2005: Sean O'Keefe resigns as NASA administrator, Bush appoints Michael Griffin and gives him free reign with NASA, Michael Griffin throws out industry studies and NASA releases ESAS study which has NASA design two rockets in-house instead of utilizing commercial rockets (The Ares I and V, coincidentally based on old designs Michael Griffin came up with), ostensibly because they're "safe, simple, and soon" compared to alternatives

2005-present: Ares I development slips in schedule a year for every year that it exists, costs balloon from a few billion dollars to tens of billions of dollars, 2020 lunar date becomes increasingly unachievable

2009: NASA and White House appoint Augustine Committee, consisting of best and brightest from aerospace and astronaut community, to evaluate Constellation's progress and come up with options for future of
human spaceflight at NASA; they release a report presenting a number of viable options for NASA's beyond-Earth exploration plans

February 2010: White House calls for boost to NASA's budget (but not as large as Augustine Committee presented) releases plan similar to Augustine Report's option 5B, calling for investments in commercial crew and long-neglected space technology and cancellation of Ares I, delays building of heavy-lift launcher until 2015 since it won't be needed until then; a lot of congressmen in space states freak out

March-July 2010: lots of back and forth discussion and congressional hearings, Armstrong and Cernan come out against White House Plans, Buzz Aldrin comes out in favor; NASA scales back Ares/Constellation program without congressional approval, ostensibly to comply with termination liability laws

June-July 2010: NASA announces a bunch of new space technology initiatives (contingent on White House funding plans coming through), including new Centennial Challenge prize competitions (Nanosatellite launch, night rover, and sample return robot challenge) , revived NIAC to research experimental concepts, in-space technology demonstrations/missions utilizing in-space refueling, inflatable modules, electric propulsion, and inflatable reentry shields, all launched on existing commercial rockets

Today (July 15): Senate comes out with compromise bill, adding 1+ shuttle flight using existing equipment (no backup rescue shuttle if there's a problem, though); immediate development of 75mt shuttle-derived rocket quite similar to the one proposed by the DIRECT project, more commercial crew, robotic precursor mission, and space technology funding than 2010 but much less than Obama requested (over three years $1.6B vs. $3.3B for commercial crew, $244M vs. $1.33B exploration robotic precursor missions, $2.1B vs. $8B space technology development/missions); White House and Congress potentially both support the compromise, though

Let me try, using your timeline as a base (feel free to modify/copy/reuse):

2003: Space Shuttle Columbia accident

2004: Bush announces Vision for Space Exploration for sustainable human presence on the Moon starting in 2020 as testbed for Mars exploration and expansion into the solar system, calls for shuttle retirement in 2010 and replacement crew capability in operation by 2014, calls for commercial cargo/crew to ISS and no new launch vehicles developed unless absolutely necessary, NASA solicits plans from industry for best ways to achieve these goals

2005: Sean O'Keefe resigns as NASA administrator, Bush appoints Michael Griffin and gives him free reign with NASA, Michael Griffin throws out industry studies and NASA releases ESAS study which has NASA design two rockets in-house instead of utilizing commercial rockets (The Ares I and V, coincidentally based on old designs Michael Griffin came up with), ostensibly because they're "safe, simple, and soon" compared to alternatives

2005-present: Ares I development slips in schedule a year for every year that it exists, costs balloon from a few billion dollars to tens of billions of dollars, 2020 lunar date becomes increasingly unachievable

2009: NASA and White House appoint Augustine Committee, consisting of best and brightest from aerospace and astronaut community, to evaluate Constellation's progress and come up with options for future of
human spaceflight at NASA; they release a report presenting a number of viable options for NASA's beyond-Earth exploration plans

February 2010: White House calls for boost to NASA's budget (but not as large as Augustine Committee presented) releases plan similar to Augustine Report's option 5B, calling for investments in commercial crew and long-neglected space technology and cancellation of Ares I, delays building of heavy-lift launcher until 2015 since it won't be needed until then; a lot of congressmen in space states freak out

March-July 2010: lots of back and forth discussion and congressional hearings, Armstrong and Cernan come out against White House Plans, Buzz Aldrin comes out in favor; NASA scales back Ares/Constellation program without congressional approval, ostensibly to comply with termination liability laws

June-July 2010: NASA announces a bunch of new space technology initiatives (contingent on White House funding plans coming through), including new Centennial Challenge prize competitions (Nanosatellite launch, night rover, and sample return robot challenge) , revived NIAC to research experimental concepts, in-space technology demonstrations/missions utilizing in-space refueling, inflatable modules, electric propulsion, and inflatable reentry shields, all launched on existing commercial rockets

Today (July 15): Senate comes out with compromise bill, adding 1+ shuttle flight using existing equipment (no backup rescue shuttle if there's a problem, though); immediate development of 75mt shuttle-derived rocket quite similar to the one proposed by the DIRECT project, more commercial crew, robotic precursor mission, and space technology funding than 2010 but much less than Obama requested (over three years $1.6B vs. $3.3B for commercial crew, $244M vs. $1.33B exploration robotic precursor missions, $2.1B vs. $8B space technology development/missions); White House and Congress potentially both support the compromise, though

Let me try, using your timeline as a base (feel free to modify/copy/reuse):

2003: Space Shuttle Columbia accident

2004: Bush announces Vision for Space Exploration for sustainable human presence on the Moon starting in 2020 as testbed for Mars exploration and expansion into the solar system, calls for shuttle retirement in 2010 and replacement crew capability in operation by 2014, calls for commercial cargo/crew to ISS and no new launch vehicles developed unless absolutely necessary, NASA solicits plans from industry for best ways to achieve these goals

2005: Sean O'Keefe resigns as NASA administrator, Bush appoints Michael Griffin and gives him free reign with NASA, Michael Griffin throws out industry studies and NASA releases ESAS study which has NASA design two rockets in-house instead of utilizing commercial rockets (The Ares I and V, coincidentally based on old designs Michael Griffin came up with), ostensibly because they're "safe, simple, and soon" compared to alternatives

2005-present: Ares I development slips in schedule a year for every year that it exists, costs balloon from a few billion dollars to tens of billions of dollars, 2020 lunar date becomes increasingly unachievable

2009: NASA and White House appoint Augustine Committee, consisting of best and brightest from aerospace and astronaut community, to evaluate Constellation's progress and come up with options for future of
human spaceflight at NASA; they release a report presenting a number of viable options for NASA's beyond-Earth exploration plans

February 2010: White House calls for boost to NASA's budget (but not as large as Augustine Committee presented) releases plan similar to Augustine Report's option 5B, calling for investments in commercial crew and long-neglected space technology and cancellation of Ares I, delays building of heavy-lift launcher until 2015 since it won't be needed until then; a lot of congressmen in space states freak out

March-July 2010: lots of back and forth discussion and congressional hearings, Armstrong and Cernan come out against White House Plans, Buzz Aldrin comes out in favor; NASA scales back Ares/Constellation program without congressional approval, ostensibly to comply with termination liability laws

June-July 2010: NASA announces a bunch of new space technology initiatives (contingent on White House funding plans coming through), including new Centennial Challenge prize competitions (Nanosatellite launch, night rover, and sample return robot challenge) , revived NIAC to research experimental concepts, in-space technology demonstrations/missions utilizing in-space refueling, inflatable modules, electric propulsion, and inflatable reentry shields, all launched on existing commercial rockets

Today (July 15): Senate comes out with compromise bill, adding 1+ shuttle flight using existing equipment (no backup rescue shuttle if there's a problem, though); immediate development of 75mt shuttle-derived rocket quite similar to the one proposed by the DIRECT project, more commercial crew, robotic precursor mission, and space technology funding than 2010 but much less than Obama requested (over three years $1.6B vs. $3.3B for commercial crew, $244M vs. $1.33B exploration robotic precursor missions, $2.1B vs. $8B space technology development/missions); White House and Congress potentially both support the compromise, though

The moment you mention "Atlas Shrugged" you marked yourself as a retard.

Not quite - at least the retards have a biological reason for their behavior. Randroids, on the other hand, are just dicks for the fun of it.

And if he doesn't like the Muslim outreach, he must *hate* these liberty-destroying commie-loving fucks: Nixon and Reagan use NASA to build bridges with Soviets.

    To reply out of order....

    Speed of sound at sea level, on a standard day, at standard pressure, is 1125 ft/s or 767 miles per hour.

    According to this calculator, the speed of sound would be 684mph. Lacking the pressure to create a sonic boom, it was survivable in an atmospheric suit, so he could tolerate the lack of pressure and oxygen. I've watched the original video quite a few times, and that suit didn't appear to be constructed for much more than to provide pressure, oxygen, and temperature protection. Well, except for his leaking glove.

    NASA had already looked into the possibility of reentry from a geosynchronous orbit in little more than a padded bag with a parachute. That was back in the late 1960's or early 1970's, if I recall correctly. From what I read on that, the idea was dropped due to the duration of the fall. It would take nerves of steel and blind faith the whole way down, which would take a long time.

    There are several problems with astronauts coming back down in such a manner. First, they'd need 0 ground speed, or at least very close to it. The ISS has an orbital velocity of roughly 17,087 mph. The US Space Shuttle has/had an orbital velocity of roughly 17,500 mph.

    Anything hitting the atmosphere at those kinds of speeds will induce a huge amount of heat. If it were possible to bleed off the ground speed first, it could be possible. Otherwise, the returning astronaut would be little more than a short lived shooting star.

    Astronauts don't have the luxury of falling over their own nation, or more importantly, a populated area where they could be recovered quickly. A drop in a random location somewhere on the planet could take days or weeks before a rescue team could be there to pick them up. So in an emergency, they may not die in space, but they could die on the ground for dehydration, starvation, drowning, or expiration due to the elements (how long can you live in just a pressure suit in the Antarctic or the Sahara?)

The article links to some kind of 'ooh, look at me' article instead of NASA's own page on Juno.

Juno Armored Up to Go to Jupiter

Each titanium wall measures nearly a square meter (nearly 9 square feet) in area, about 1 centimeter (a third of an inch) in thickness, and 18 kilograms (40 pounds) in mass.

Not exactly good maths there, so probably a PR piece from a 'journalist'.
9 foot^2 = 0.84 m^2. Could be correct, though I wouldn't use "nearly" for something that far off. And it's impossible to tell if the walls are really 9 foot^2 and they just made a very rough guestimate of the metric equivalent.

1/3 inch = 0.85 cm
Again, that could be right. It might be exactly 1/3rd inch and they guestimated that to about 1 cm. But it's still 15% off.

40 lbs = 18.14 kg
And then you hit something where the weight is actually correct. But since they've messed up that much on the other two, we now don't know if it's exactly 40 lbs or exactly 18 kg.

Hell, we don't even know if the NASA guys who wrote this are incompetent or not. Well, we know they're incompetent, we even know how much (about 15%).

However, the NASA page seemingly being written by an 8-year-old with a bad understanding of units, doesn't really justify linking to an article that is essentially a copy of NASA's page, and especially not when there is no attribution or links to the original article.

The mission site is here: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/juno/spacecraft/index.html Includes pictures and better information, including Monday's press release, (which happens to be the source of the ft^3 m^3 units in the linked article): http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/juno/news/juno20100712.html

Shielding is titanium, as lead wouldn't survive liftoff "too soft to withstand the vibrations of launch" and other materials were "were too difficult to work with".

Cables between electronics are shielded in copper or stainless braid, and smaller electronics sections have their own shields.

The mission site is here: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/juno/spacecraft/index.html Includes pictures and better information, including Monday's press release, (which happens to be the source of the ft^3 m^3 units in the linked article): http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/juno/news/juno20100712.html

Shielding is titanium, as lead wouldn't survive liftoff "too soft to withstand the vibrations of launch" and other materials were "were too difficult to work with".

Cables between electronics are shielded in copper or stainless braid, and smaller electronics sections have their own shields.

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ipp/innovation_incubator/centennial_challenges/index.html

The Nano-Satellite Launch Challenge: to place a small satellite into Earth orbit, twice in one week. The prize purse is $2 million.

From this presentation on the new Centennial Challenges, the Nano-Satellite Launch Challenge will require only a very small satellite, >1kg mass and >10cm cubic size. I'm guessing the folks in the best position to win this prize will be VTVL launchers like Armadillo Aerospace and Masten Space System, who could put a smaller orbital secondary stage (either liquid or solid) on top of their reusable suborbital. I believe Virgin Galactic has also mentioned their interest in launching small orbital satellites this way, with a small orbital launcher mounted on their suborbital manned vehicle.

It's too bad Centennial Challenges is so underfunded, though, particularly when you consider that the Ares I-X suborbital rocket cost NASA ~$500M. Winning any one of these new $1.5M-$2M Challenges will probably do more to advance space exploration than what that accomplished, at a couple orders of magnitude less cost.

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ipp/innovation_incubator/centennial_challenges/index.html

The Nano-Satellite Launch Challenge: to place a small satellite into Earth orbit, twice in one week. The prize purse is $2 million.

From this presentation on the new Centennial Challenges, the Nano-Satellite Launch Challenge will require only a very small satellite, >1kg mass and >10cm cubic size. I'm guessing the folks in the best position to win this prize will be VTVL launchers like Armadillo Aerospace and Masten Space System, who could put a smaller orbital secondary stage (either liquid or solid) on top of their reusable suborbital. I believe Virgin Galactic has also mentioned their interest in launching small orbital satellites this way, with a small orbital launcher mounted on their suborbital manned vehicle.

It's too bad Centennial Challenges is so underfunded, though, particularly when you consider that the Ares I-X suborbital rocket cost NASA ~$500M. Winning any one of these new $1.5M-$2M Challenges will probably do more to advance space exploration than what that accomplished, at a couple orders of magnitude less cost.

Oh bummer, I actually just submitted a story on this a few minutes ago, oops. ;) The linked article above has a decent summary, but for the curious the summary below has some links to the original NASA sources:

NASA has announced three new 'Centennial Challenge' technology prizes totaling $5M, awarded via competitions to achieve technological goals important to NASA: The $2M Nano-Satellite Launch Challenge for launching small satellites (at least 1kg) into orbit twice in one week, the $1.5M Night Rover Challenge for demonstrating a rover capable of storing and using solar energy over day/night cycles, and the $1.5M Sample Return Robot Challenge for a robot capable of locating and retrieving identifiable geologic samples in varied terrain without human control or GPS. This is in addition to the ongoing Strong Tether, Power Beaming, and Green Flight Challenges. The White House is currently seeking to boost funding for Centennial Challenges and other NASA technology programs, although many in Congress have other plans.

The NASA Chief Technologist Robert Braun is currently hosting an industry day, and you can view the webcast live (they're currently on lunch break) and read the presentation PDFs here:

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/industry_day_info.html

You can also submit questions relative to whatever the current presentation is via their official twitter account, which has been updated regularly throughout the day:

http://twitter.com/NASA_Technology

Oh bummer, I actually just submitted a story on this a few minutes ago, oops. ;) The linked article above has a decent summary, but for the curious the summary below has some links to the original NASA sources:

NASA has announced three new 'Centennial Challenge' technology prizes totaling $5M, awarded via competitions to achieve technological goals important to NASA: The $2M Nano-Satellite Launch Challenge for launching small satellites (at least 1kg) into orbit twice in one week, the $1.5M Night Rover Challenge for demonstrating a rover capable of storing and using solar energy over day/night cycles, and the $1.5M Sample Return Robot Challenge for a robot capable of locating and retrieving identifiable geologic samples in varied terrain without human control or GPS. This is in addition to the ongoing Strong Tether, Power Beaming, and Green Flight Challenges. The White House is currently seeking to boost funding for Centennial Challenges and other NASA technology programs, although many in Congress have other plans.

The NASA Chief Technologist Robert Braun is currently hosting an industry day, and you can view the webcast live (they're currently on lunch break) and read the presentation PDFs here:

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/industry_day_info.html

You can also submit questions relative to whatever the current presentation is via their official twitter account, which has been updated regularly throughout the day:

http://twitter.com/NASA_Technology

Oh bummer, I actually just submitted a story on this a few minutes ago, oops. ;) The linked article above has a decent summary, but for the curious the summary below has some links to the original NASA sources:

NASA has announced three new 'Centennial Challenge' technology prizes totaling $5M, awarded via competitions to achieve technological goals important to NASA: The $2M Nano-Satellite Launch Challenge for launching small satellites (at least 1kg) into orbit twice in one week, the $1.5M Night Rover Challenge for demonstrating a rover capable of storing and using solar energy over day/night cycles, and the $1.5M Sample Return Robot Challenge for a robot capable of locating and retrieving identifiable geologic samples in varied terrain without human control or GPS. This is in addition to the ongoing Strong Tether, Power Beaming, and Green Flight Challenges. The White House is currently seeking to boost funding for Centennial Challenges and other NASA technology programs, although many in Congress have other plans.

The NASA Chief Technologist Robert Braun is currently hosting an industry day, and you can view the webcast live (they're currently on lunch break) and read the presentation PDFs here:

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/industry_day_info.html

You can also submit questions relative to whatever the current presentation is via their official twitter account, which has been updated regularly throughout the day:

http://twitter.com/NASA_Technology

Why would we raze the rainforest for sugar cane? Sugar cane doesn't like the soil from there. It loves the soil from the northeastern littoral and the southeastern plains. The rainforests in the northeast were razed centuries ago, and the southeast plains were never real forests. The real gold is in the north, in the Amazon; and its soil is awful for anything. Really. The rainforest only lives because dead trees/animals provide plenty of fertilization and the tall trees with deep roots prevent the rain from washing the soil. Remove the trees and the soil will be promptly washed away, and you won't be able to grow anything even for a single season. It promptly becomes a desert. This happened on the places where the trees get illegally razed for lumber, which then proceed to be exported to the USA and the EU.

Even if you could grow sugarcane in the Amazon, it would still be stupid. The consumers are in São Paulo/Rio de Janeiro/Minas Gerais/Brasília, which is on the other side of the country AND very near both the best soil for sugarcane and most of the ethanol plants. If you tried to sell your ethanol produced in the Amazon here, you would never be able to compete on price and would go bankrupt very soon.

Seriously, this "OMG Ethanol is killing the rainforests!!!" bullshit that people pass around makes me very sad. It obviously comes directly from the big petrol companies who don't like the change in their status quo, but even smart people can't tell the difference and just keep repeating it without checking their facts. The point is that a new technology is making their business model, and it looks like they aren't adapting; just spreading FUD to try to stop the unavoidable. Looks very much like another industry that the Internet loves to hate, actually.

In the last two photos of TFA, striations are clearly visible. Since the craters appear to be mostly round, I doubt the impacts would carry ejecta linearly along the asteroid. Any ideas?

Depending on the impact angle the ejecta might be able to produce that, or perhaps it's some result of the vibrations caused by impacts with certain characteristics. Perhapsthese people should look into it, this type of thing seems right up their alley.

H.264 doesn't actually use a DCT, but a non-exact integer approximation to a DCT, the Integer Cosine Transform, which is exactly invertible,, at the cost of a slightly loss of accuracy in the transform coefficients . (Floating point DCTs have rounding errors, and thus are not exactly invertible. If content is encoded multiple times, then the numerical noise introduced by this will accumulate to troublesome levels.)

The Sun is among the other sources of radio waves streaming down to the surface of the earth. I would suggest that man made radio waves are not automatically the cause. Although we broadcast strongly on particular frequencies in most areas background radiation drowns out total human output but across a wider spectrum. Plants may be sensitive to changes in background radio sources, for example we're in a period of unusual solar activity. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/11jul_solarcycleupdate/

Thinking of comets and their evaporation as they approach the Sun perhaps?

This asteroid is an inner-solar system dwelling rock, not a deep space dirty snowball.

• Happy snap
• Orbit

Thinking of comets and their evaporation as they approach the Sun perhaps?

This asteroid is an inner-solar system dwelling rock, not a deep space dirty snowball.

• Happy snap
• Orbit

Minimum System Requirements
  Win XP SP3

Seems they are only interested in engaging and inspiring today’s tech-savvy students who use Windows.

Minimum System Requirements
  Win XP SP3

Seems they are only interested in engaging and inspiring today’s tech-savvy students who use Windows.

These things have been supplying stations in LEO since 1978, but to hear the media tell it this is a flaky, experimental piece of equipment just waiting to go wrong, and the failure of just a single docking attempt might put the whole ISS program in danger.

The Space Shuttle has been flying since 1982 - but according to the media it's a flaky experimental piece of equipment just waiting to go wrong.
 
And you might ask the crew of Mir what a single docking attempt can result in.
 

Progress, like any spacecraft, is a complex system. Things won't always go to plan - that said it has, like a lot of the old Russian hardware, a decent track record.

It has pretty much the same track record as Soyuz and the Shuttle at about 98-99% reliable.

NASA regularly releases images whose size dwarfs 1400 x 900. For example, the full size on "A Matter Of Perspective" ( http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1695.html ) is 4,888 x 2,000.

the space program

Oh yes. That immediately led to all sorts of space activities by us citizens,

Seriously? I'm just as pissed as the next grounded cowboy, we were promised rocket-ships after all. But the space program has affected us citizens directly and indirectly in profound ways. Here are just a few hits from a quick google search. Enjoy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Race#Legacy

http://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/10-tech-breakthroughs-to-thank-the-space-race-for-617847

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/apollo.htm

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/pdf/80660main_ApolloFS.pdf

http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/NASA_Derived_Technology_Captures_Unique_Inaugural_Image_999.html

http://space-exploration.suite101.com/article.cfm/nasa-space-technology-inventions-and-products

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/industry-02f.html

the space program

Oh yes. That immediately led to all sorts of space activities by us citizens,

Seriously? I'm just as pissed as the next grounded cowboy, we were promised rocket-ships after all. But the space program has affected us citizens directly and indirectly in profound ways. Here are just a few hits from a quick google search. Enjoy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Race#Legacy

http://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/10-tech-breakthroughs-to-thank-the-space-race-for-617847

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/apollo.htm

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/pdf/80660main_ApolloFS.pdf

http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/NASA_Derived_Technology_Captures_Unique_Inaugural_Image_999.html

http://space-exploration.suite101.com/article.cfm/nasa-space-technology-inventions-and-products

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/industry-02f.html

Send a large fuel depot and then we have a truck that can send cargo down to the surface and then return. [...] BTW, the fact that this was done so quickly, hints to me that this is the second vehicle. I am guessing that the first vehicle IS the new shepard.

Err, I think you may have run off with the fairies a little there. Read TFA and watch the videos, this is a low-mass low-funding mini-mission to demonstrate technology/techniques. If it gets fully funded, it'll launch on a regular old off-the-shelf Atlas, and it won't come back. It's a lovely project, and I hope they get fully funded, but it's not a major mission.

Upon landing the robot will deploy and walk on the surface performing [...] science of opportunity (i.e. using existing sensors on the robot or small science instruments); and simple student experiments.

The mission is about inspiration, streamlining agency practices and processes and using unconventional partnerships, and building a workforce and demonstrating technologies to enable the continuation of human exploration beyond low earth orbit.

You should educate yourself about the carbon cycle. Each year natural processes release around 19 times as much carbon as human emissions but other natural processes also absorb more than 19 times as much carbon. What's left over, between 40 and 50% of human emissions has caused nearly all of the rise from 315 ppm yearly average CO2 concentration in the atmosphere when Keeling started measuring in 1958 to 390 ppm in 2010. That's a 24% increase in atmospheric CO2 in 52 years.

On the subject of small changes having big effects, a 1% change in energy retained by the Earth system is equivalent to nearly 3 centigrade degrees of temperature change*. That's a rather large change for natural biological systems to adapt to.

*Measured from absolute zero the average surface temperature of the Earth is about 278 Kelvin. 1% of that is 2.78 Kelvin.

Too many models to reasonably give you a single pointer, I'm afraid, and most of the textbooks are five years (or more) out of date, although I suppose actually that may not be so bad, since the IPCC reports themselves are four years old now. I'm mostly familiar with the models of the atmospheres of other planets-- the search term you want to use is "global circulation model" (or, "general circulation model").
The MIT general circulation model has a pretty good page, and the source code is available if you want to dig into the details: http://mitgcm.org/
For other models, I think that the Goddard Spaceflight "Center's Global Change Master Directory" has a list, although I'm not sure if it's exhaustive, it's probably a good place to start:
http://gcmd.gsfc.nasa.gov/KeywordSearch/Keywords.do?Portal=GCMD_Services&KeywordPath=ServiceParameters%7CMODELS%7CATMOSPHERIC+GENERAL+CIRCULATION+MODELS&MetadataType=1&lbnode=mdlb1

CO2 levels have risen from 280 ppm to 380ppm since the onset of the industrial revolution.

The earth's biosphere can absorb only a certain amount of CO2, i.e. - that which is produced naturally.

Historical CO2-levels in the atmosphere range from over 4000ppm (even 7000ppm further back) to ... about 280ppm. Why is the lowest number suddenly the only number the biosphere can handle?

http://gcmd.nasa.gov/records/GCMD_NOAA_NCDC_PALEO_2002-051.html