Slashdot Mirror

Have you not read about New Horizons?

for the most part these guys were paid by the people in control of the governments.

But not as government representatives. Newton had many patrons. It might be argued that Charles Montagu was part of the government, but his patronage was political, not economic. Newton's principle economic patron appears to have been John Thornton, a wealthy merchant and private citizen.

Galileo's court appointment occurred long after his refinement of the telescope and the writing of the Sidereus Nuncius, which were done while under private employment as a professor at Padua. Large government payment followed, but for rights to the telescope, for use in practical military applications, not for astronomical research. Implying that Galileo was government supported is misleading, as even the later Medici patronage was provided at the personal discretion of aristocracy.

"But you are quite wrong (or possibly dissembling) about Einstein being an amateur. He wasn't being paid as a researcher in 1905,"

"amateur - A person who engages in an art, science, study, or athletic activity as a pastime rather than as a profession." - Am. Heritage, 4th Ed.

Einstein's profession at the time was as a patent examiner, not a theoretical physicist, nor was his work on the Special Theory funded. To argue that his work on it wasn't amateur, in the accepted meaning of that word, is disingenuous. You might as well argue that Archimedes Plutonium http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/, the King of Science, is a professional.

My wife's got a degree in Political Science. Is she a professional scientist, even though she's paid to do accounting? Won't she be surprised!

"why do you care about getting an early crack at the data, given that you don't support the idea of pure research in the first place?"

I personally don't care, but support the rights of others who have funded the research, in true fairness. Why, as someone who depends upon public funding, do you want to bite the hand that feeds you?

The summary makes it sound like it's over for the probe, which is far from the case. Emily Lakdawalla of the Planetary Society has been keeping track of the latest details. According to her posts, although it will take several days to get the probe back into the proper position, they should be ready for another landing attempt sometime next week.

Emily Lakdawalla of the Planetary Society is keeping a running tally of events on the Society's official weblog. In general, the weblog is a great source of space science news. According to her latest post, Venus Express has already reported back to ground control and is in healthy condition.

There's also the obligatory Wikipedia article on Venus Express, which has a nice description of what the craft will be doing.

Unlike what the poster said, Pluto is not the only one with a moon.
Various other KBOs do, including Xena :
http://www.planetary.org/news/2005/xena_moon_1003. html

By the way, I think the second image is taken in infrared, and the color choices for displaying it are even more confusing.

As well, this story was posted six days after the fact.

Anyway, it's a fantastic image of Hyperion. We should launch a manned mission there at once, if only to ski down those pristine slopes of... whatever the hell they are. One of these will get us there.

Griffin was very vocal about what he wanted to do with NASA before we was administrator. Here is a PDF.

Basically it is back to the Moon using Apollo style architectures but with todays off the shelf technology. The objective being permanent Human presence at the Moon.

I took a look at the "About Us" section of the SpaceNow website. The people who put together the site don't really seem to have a large team behind them. Judging by their photos, they are also pretty young - maybe just out of college or maybe recent Master's graduates.

My own experience has shown it is incredibly difficult for someone in their 20s and 30s to really make a difference in government policies on space exploration. Society now has about 50 years of experience in space exploration, so there are already many groups lobbying in favor of space exploration out there. Most of these groups are lead by established scientists and engineers who have developed relationships with government leaders over many years. Most of these groups would not give younger people a whole lot of power in terms of directing programs for communicating with the public. I don't necessarily think this is a good thing, but unfortunately, it's just the way things are. With all of these other groups out there, I think the people behind SpaceNow are going to have a hard time getting noticed by the powers that be.

One group that has done a lot to support both manned and unmanned space exploration is The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has been around for quite a few years and has many famous and wealthy people supporting its objectives. They also provide educational information similar to what the young men behind SpaceNow are going to provide. There are also tons of other web sites out there where people can learn about the fundamentals of rocketry - such as the Planetary Society again, as well as the Basics of Space Flight web site from JPL. The Challenger Center also is an important space science education group, at least in the United States.

One thing that the SpaceNow people are trying to do that's a bit different is provide a public forum for discussion. However, there are already forums out there. Even though Slashdot isn't devoted exclusively to space exploration, there are quite a few lively discussions about this topic on Slashdot.

I really do wish the creators of SpaceNow the best of luck. But I think they are going to have a difficult time getting noticed with all of the similar groups out there. The groups and web sites that I have mentioned are based in the U.S., so I don't know how many similar groups are in Canada (I assume the .ca domain means they are Canadian). The creators seemed to all be associated with the same university, so if any of them are reading this, I suggest that they concentrate on getting their message out to their local community first. Some ways to do this are through local museums and planetariums, astronomy clubs, and Cafe Scientifique meetings in their area.

Emily Lakdawalla wrote a good summary of this debate for her blog the other day. She echoes the suggestion that we should define more than just 'planets', but rather specific types of planets. Things like Jupiter and Saturn would be defnined as 'Gas Giant Planets' while planets like Earth and Venus would be 'Terrestrial Planets', Plutos would be 'Minor Planets', etc. Seeing as gas giants and terrestrial planets really are completely different things that aren't fit to be grouped together as 'planets', I support this plan. Of course, there will innevitably be arguments about the intricacies of these sub-definitions...

Complex data backup solutions and the use of lossless formats has not, for example, kept the critical Pioneer space probe data available, after less than 30 years (http://www.planetary.org/news/2005/pioneer_anomal y_faq.html)

How in the fucks sake do you expect this to last 100+ years? Don't use lossy compression? How is that a solution?

Take Windows Bitmap image format. It's not lossy. That doesn't mean that we won't forget how to display the damn thing...

Raid 5? What problem do you think you're solving? Keeping the data around, or making the data accesible for (as the OP makes clear is the LoC's responsiblity) as long as the United States exists?

Check again. Budget for NASA went down under Clinton and has gone up since Bush was in office. It also went up during the previous Bush administration.
From here
1993 $14.309 billion, existing NASA budget when Clinton took office;
1994 $14.568 billion, $259 million increase, first Clinton budget;
1995 $13.853 billion, $715 million decrease;
1996 $13.885 billion, $32 million increase;
1997 $13.709 billion, $176 million decrease;
1998 $13.648 billion, $61 million decrease;
1999 $13.654 billion, $6 million increase;
2000 $13.601 billion, $53 million decrease;
2001 $14.253 billion, $652 million increase;
2002 $14.892 billion, $639 million increase, first Bush budget;
2003 $15.000 billion, $108 million increase (estimated);
2004 $15.469 billion, $469 million increase (proposed);
2005 $16.2 billion, $731 million increase (from here
(Sorry, but it's true) Sorry but it really isn't.

The 2006 proposal is for 16.465 billion, $265 million increase

Check again. Budget for NASA went down under Clinton and has gone up since Bush was in office. It also went up during the previous Bush administration.
From here
1993 $14.309 billion, existing NASA budget when Clinton took office;
1994 $14.568 billion, $259 million increase, first Clinton budget;
1995 $13.853 billion, $715 million decrease;
1996 $13.885 billion, $32 million increase;
1997 $13.709 billion, $176 million decrease;
1998 $13.648 billion, $61 million decrease;
1999 $13.654 billion, $6 million increase;
2000 $13.601 billion, $53 million decrease;
2001 $14.253 billion, $652 million increase;
2002 $14.892 billion, $639 million increase, first Bush budget;
2003 $15.000 billion, $108 million increase (estimated);
2004 $15.469 billion, $469 million increase (proposed);
2005 $16.2 billion, $731 million increase (from here
(Sorry, but it's true) Sorry but it really isn't.

The 2006 proposal is for 16.465 billion, $265 million increase

I couldn't help but think of a short essay written by Carl Sagan after he saw an image of the Earth taken by Voyager. It's spine-tingling stuff:

'Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there--on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

'The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.

'Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

'The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.

'It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.'

Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot, 1994

Yeah, but that wasn't a microphone as such: it was there to detect whether there was thunder. The signal received was processed into an approximation of actual sound. Check out the Planetary Society's page on the acoustic sensor.

I'm talking more like a real mic, sending the actual sound. Even the sounds of the instruments moving and working would be neat.

I wonder what the rotation rate of Mars' core is. We know it's either liquid or solid and liquid (the latter being what Earth has), so it could have a difference, which would create a magnetic field. Only problem is, Mars doesn't have a magnetic field. However, Mars' field might also be hiding, as it does on Earth when changing the north and south poles which can take hundred to thousands of years. Now we've only been watching Mars with any sophistication for decades, which means Mars could have a field that's currently undergoing a reversal. If it isn't undergoing a reversal, and the two rotations are different, then it would prove enlightening on why that is the case.

Contact info:
http://www.planetary.org/html/society/society-cont act.html

That Planetary Society FAQ does seem like... now what's the right word.... bullshit. So they came up with a suspiciously large and round number ($250K) but, as far as we've seen, no detailed budget behind it? No explanation of what happens to excess funds?

For fuck's sake, Planetary Society people, it looks disturbingly like a "don't think just donate! QUICKLY!" campaign, built around fear of NASA apparently doing something extraordinarily stupid. There are just too many holes in the story, too much that makes no sense.

I strongly suspect that they really just want to fund a few qualified people to work on the data full-time for 6-12 months. But if that's so, a little honesty would be appreciated. There's no fucking way I'd donate to support some ridiculous US salary, when I'm sure there are an enormous number of university-based people all around the world that would love to spend time analysing this kind of data and would do it for free.

And yeah, it is kind of hazy regarding what information of value they hope to extract from this data. The slashdot writeup "...or it may be as groundbreaking as a clue to completely new physics, perhaps related to dark matter or dark energy" sounds like a nutcase trying to sell something.

Will the data be made publicly available?
Yes. First, the data first must be recovered, validated, documented, and preliminary analyses must be done. After those tasks are completed (probably taking months to a year), the data will be made publicly available, including second-order data products when the raw data is processed by JPL orbit software.

The Planetary Society's Emily Lakdawalla put together a fairly nice animated GIF of the impact and posted it to the Society's official blog:

http://planetary.org.nyud.net:8090/deepimpact/imag es/encounter/animation-small.gif

Her description: OK, I've managed to get back on the raw image website, and I grabbed a whole bunch of the images that we were apparently looking at earlier. I just threw together this little animation, showing mostly Impact Targeting Sensor images, but moving at the end to some Medium Resolution Imager images. Now, I've probably dropped some frames, and these images are smaller than the ones the scientists get to use, but I have to say that this is pretty sweet as it is. I can't wait to see what the scientists produce!

Actually, we do.

Just sit right back and you'll hear a tale,
A tale of a fateful trip.
That started out in the Barrents sea
Aboard a sub-sea ship

The sub was unpronouncable
The Volna's risk unsure
One spacecraft took off that day for a three month tour ("a three month tour...")

The Volna burn was getting rough, the tiny craft was tossed
If not for the courage of the CPU, the Cosmos would be lost ("the Cosmos would be lost..").

The craft impacted far away, on a tiny desert moon
With Obi-Wan!
The Princess, too!
The Jedi Knight!
And his droids!
A speeder car!
The wookie, and Solo (Han)
Here on Parody Isle!!

Wow, I can't believe that they posted that article submission of mine after all this time. As an FYI, I submitted that before the Russians made official statements that they thought Cosmos 1 had crashed, and before the planetary society became still hopeful, but gloomy.

I really feel for all of them.

Wow, I can't believe that they posted that article submission of mine after all this time. As an FYI, I submitted that before the Russians made official statements that they thought Cosmos 1 had crashed, and before the planetary society became still hopeful, but gloomy.

I really feel for all of them.

this site says that three ground stations in Alaska, California, and in the Pacific heard faint signals, suggesting the slight possibility that the craft is in a lower than expected orbit but may deploy it's solar sails in 4 days.

This wasn't a man-rated rocket. In the U.S. non-man-rated rockets (like Russian non-man-rated rockets) have a significant failure rate (2%, I think. According to this post, it was 25% for Arianne 5 in 2002. The Delta rocket program is not scrapped when a rocket fails (neither is Arianne).

You are comparing this with shuttle losses, which do shut down the program while investigations are carried out and suggested remedies are implemented. The idea with man-rated rockets is to _minimize_ risk to humans. The technology is obviously there to put people into space with a 2% failure rate, and I'm sure there would be plenty of astronauts willing to accept those risks, but it would be a public image nightmare for NASA and the United States to accept those odds and do nothing to improve them.

Now the pear: this is a non-government organisation which bought space on a Russian rocket to put their payload into space. The question is not whether they have the cajones to dust themselves off and try again (as you say the Russians do) but rather can they get the money to do it again. It is an expensive venture. (And how do you say "cajones" in Russian?)

If you want to see them try again, donate here.

Ok, then let's slashdot this link.

The Planetary Society has the following to say:

10:30 am PDT, June 22 (17:30 UTC)

The Planetary Society as issued the following statement on the fate of Cosmos 1, the first Solar Sail Spacecraft:

In the past twenty-four hours, the Russian space agency (RKA) has made a tentative conclusion that the Volna rocket carrying Cosmos 1 failed during the firing of the first stage. This would mean that Cosmos 1 is lost.

While it is likely that this conclusion is correct, there are some inconsistent indications from information received from other sources. The Cosmos 1 team observed what appear to be signals, that looks like they are from the spacecraft when it was over the first three ground stations and some Doppler data over one of these stations. This might indicate that Cosmos 1 made it into orbit, but probably a lower one than intended. The project team now considers this to be a very small probability. But because there is a slim chance that it might be so, efforts to contact and track the spacecraft continue. We are working with US Strategic Command to provide additional information in a day or so.

If the spacecraft made it to orbit, its autonomous program might be working, and after 4 days the sails could automatically deploy. While the chances of this are very, very small, we still encourage optical observers to see if the sail can be seen after that time.

We await further developments and information coming out of Russia, STRATCOM, and the tracking stations.

http://planetary.org/solarsailblog/index_05.html http://planetary.org/solarsail/latest_update.html

http://planetary.org/solarsailblog/index_05.html http://planetary.org/solarsail/latest_update.html

The source is the Associated Press. Fox News is just one of many places that reprints the AP's stories.

That said, this just looks like the same story everyone's been printing since the first problems were discovered. If you read the Planetary Society's updates and blog it sounds like the information about the rocket cutting out 83 seconds into flight is old news that may not be accurate. The Planetary Society hasn't given up yet and there are weak signals that suggest it made it to orbit, they just aren't sure what orbit it made it to.

At this point it looks like there are two possibilities:
1) The Russian Navy report that the first stage cut off early is right, the signals received by the ground stations are false, and the craft is effectively lost.
or 2) That the Planetary society really did receive signals from an orbitting Cosmos 1, the Russian Navy is wrong, and there is still a chance to point the antennae at a different part of the sky and find the craft operating correctly in the wrong place.

I'm hoping for the latter, but Russia's track record seems to suggest the former.

The source is the Associated Press. Fox News is just one of many places that reprints the AP's stories.

That said, this just looks like the same story everyone's been printing since the first problems were discovered. If you read the Planetary Society's updates and blog it sounds like the information about the rocket cutting out 83 seconds into flight is old news that may not be accurate. The Planetary Society hasn't given up yet and there are weak signals that suggest it made it to orbit, they just aren't sure what orbit it made it to.

At this point it looks like there are two possibilities:
1) The Russian Navy report that the first stage cut off early is right, the signals received by the ground stations are false, and the craft is effectively lost.
or 2) That the Planetary society really did receive signals from an orbitting Cosmos 1, the Russian Navy is wrong, and there is still a chance to point the antennae at a different part of the sky and find the craft operating correctly in the wrong place.

I'm hoping for the latter, but Russia's track record seems to suggest the former.

No, that's a legit contradiction. If you go to the Planetary Society's website, you'll find that they are still hunting and there are clear signs that something is screwed up, but the spacecraft may have made it to orbit:

http://planetary.org/solarsailblog
http://www.planetary.org/solarsail/latest_update.h tml

I'm kind of suprised that the Russians are so quick to call "fail" on this, given the conflicting data, but they had a bad karma space day yesterday, what with their other launch of a military payload failing as well.

No, that's a legit contradiction. If you go to the Planetary Society's website, you'll find that they are still hunting and there are clear signs that something is screwed up, but the spacecraft may have made it to orbit:

http://planetary.org/solarsailblog
http://www.planetary.org/solarsail/latest_update.h tml

I'm kind of suprised that the Russians are so quick to call "fail" on this, given the conflicting data, but they had a bad karma space day yesterday, what with their other launch of a military payload failing as well.

Check out the latest updates!

They have received a brief signal from maybe three ground stations, and the last one was Panska Ves: if this is true then the spacecraft must have reached orbit and not having done only a long suborbital jump to crash in the Pacific.

It's probably in a slightly wrong orbit: this explains the problems in locating and communicating with it.

If in the end this turn out to be a problem with the cheap Russian launcher (probably the upper stage underperformed), maybe the next time can be a good idea to buy a few kilograms aboard an Ariane 5 as an auxiliary payload (just like Smart 1, which was launched together with two big satellites): it's worth every euro of it, and will give them an higher (although highly elliptic) orbit, which is good for a big solar sail to reduce the atmospheric drag.

Anyway: keep your fingers crossed, this may still be a success!

Good news! It's not conclusive, but:

http://www.planetary.org/solarsail/latest_update.h tml

9:40 pm PDT (4:40 UTC, June 22):
Tracking Station Data Suggest Cosmos 1 in Orbit
Close reviews of telemetry data received at several ground stations appear to reveal weak signals from the Cosmos 1 during the first hours after the launch. This may indicate that Cosmos 1 did make it into orbit around the Earth, though quite possibly not the orbit it was intended for.

In an official statement released at this time The Planetary Society said: We continue to search for the Cosmos 1 spacecraft. We have reviewed our telemetry recordings and have found what we believe are spacecraft signals in the data recorded at the tracking stations in Petropavlovsk, Kamchatka and Majuro, Marshall Islands. The review of data received at the tracking station in Panska Ves, Czech Republic also appears to indicate a spacecraft signal. If confirmed, these data will indicate that Cosmos 1 made it to orbit. We will continue to monitor planned telemetry sessions and will be working with U.S. STRATCOM (Strategic Command) to locate Cosmos 1.

If you want to know what the people organizing the mission are thinking, the Planetary Society's Latest Update section is a good spot to go. As it stands, the following has been stated:

* The signal didn't dissapear suddenly when the kick fired - it became irregular, and then dissapeared after three minutes.

* The signal was received clearly after launch for six minutes.

* There were irregular readings coming from the Volna; however, clearly the craft detached, or there wouldn't have been six minutes of signal.

* STRATCOM can't find the satellite. That doesn't mean that it's gone - only that it's not where they told them to look. Likewise, the lack of ground station reception could mean the same thing. It could be in the wrong orbit, which is actually a more common phenominon than a total craft loss.

* The chance of signal acquisition at the early two stations was only considered marginal to begin with. The big test will be at the permanent stations in Paska Ves, and especially the Tarusa and Bear lakes.

* Not receiving a signal from a spacecraft during the first few orbits is "not extremely unusual". Nonetheless, they do sound a bit nervous.

I seem to remember that one Arthur C. Clark has been officialy recognized as the "inventor" of the satelite concept...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._C larke
And yes, he has a first class degree in mathematics and physics at King's College, London...

Lets see, hmm, yes it was in a sci-book.

I agree with having "knowledgeable" people writin sci-fi, but I also remember all I read about nuclear fusion and now I see it made available(ok, in actual testing and producing actual electricity) in a breadbox sized box...

What I really like about sci-fi is that sometimes you see In Real Life situations or Technologies that you already read about, already had a time to dream or think about or appreciate the implications and possibilities of something that is, for the rest of the world, new.

Lets take fusion and/or betavoltaics... (both recent /. articles)

Now take everything you ever read on fusion, interstellar travel, cheap energy everywhere, human facilities and the such...

I already have 3-4 marketable products popping in my head just from the fact I have a possibly durable, cheap and transportable energy source...

On another subject, lets take solar sails.

I'm sure I read about them in some 50's scifi books.

They're launching the first one in 1 day, 18 hours, and 35 seven minutes as of now...
http://www.planetary.org/solarsail/

I always thought that books, and sci-fi books moreover, were made to make me think and dream.

And nowaday, wherever I look, I see the sci-fi from the past in everyday use, and some more sci-fi being announced as coming soon (sic)...

Well, at least I'm more ready than the rest if just because of that. And so are you 8)

I think it's important to note that this spacecraft will never reach these speeds because it's only designed to last a month or so, as can be read here:

http://www.planetary.org/solarsail/timeline.html

The flight of Cosmos 1 will not last long. Within a month the mylar sails will begin to degrade in the harsh sunlight, and the tubes supporting the blades will be losing pressure. It is possible that by this time the spacecraft will have risen to a high enough orbit that it will remain there, forever orbiting the Earth. It is more likely, however, that the orbit will slowly decay, and Cosmos 1 will end its days as a fireball in the Earth's atmosphere.

Darn, I was in the middle of preparing a submission on Cosmos 1 when I saw this. Anyways, I have a little more info which people might find interesting, so I'll go ahead and paste it below:

Countdown to First Solar Sail Spacecraft

The Planetary Society's Cosmos 1, the first spacecraft to be propelled by a solar sail, has just been loaded onto a converted ICBM in preparation for its launch from a Russian submarine this Tuesday, June 21. This is the first mission by a non-profit space advocacy group and is being funded by private donations. Project Operations Assistant Emily Lakdawalla is posting a running description of events on the official blog. Videos and animations describing the mission are available, including commentary from the Planetary Society's Vice President, Bill Nye the Science Guy. Downloadable print-out model kits are also available.

One of the many neat things about this project is that if the first phase of regular solar sailing is successful, they'll run a later experiment with focusing a microwave beam on the sail to see how well it propels the craft. I wish the Planetary Society the best in this high-risk endeavour.

Darn, I was in the middle of preparing a submission on Cosmos 1 when I saw this. Anyways, I have a little more info which people might find interesting, so I'll go ahead and paste it below:

Countdown to First Solar Sail Spacecraft

The Planetary Society's Cosmos 1, the first spacecraft to be propelled by a solar sail, has just been loaded onto a converted ICBM in preparation for its launch from a Russian submarine this Tuesday, June 21. This is the first mission by a non-profit space advocacy group and is being funded by private donations. Project Operations Assistant Emily Lakdawalla is posting a running description of events on the official blog. Videos and animations describing the mission are available, including commentary from the Planetary Society's Vice President, Bill Nye the Science Guy. Downloadable print-out model kits are also available.

One of the many neat things about this project is that if the first phase of regular solar sailing is successful, they'll run a later experiment with focusing a microwave beam on the sail to see how well it propels the craft. I wish the Planetary Society the best in this high-risk endeavour.

Darn, I was in the middle of preparing a submission on Cosmos 1 when I saw this. Anyways, I have a little more info which people might find interesting, so I'll go ahead and paste it below:

Countdown to First Solar Sail Spacecraft

The Planetary Society's Cosmos 1, the first spacecraft to be propelled by a solar sail, has just been loaded onto a converted ICBM in preparation for its launch from a Russian submarine this Tuesday, June 21. This is the first mission by a non-profit space advocacy group and is being funded by private donations. Project Operations Assistant Emily Lakdawalla is posting a running description of events on the official blog. Videos and animations describing the mission are available, including commentary from the Planetary Society's Vice President, Bill Nye the Science Guy. Downloadable print-out model kits are also available.

One of the many neat things about this project is that if the first phase of regular solar sailing is successful, they'll run a later experiment with focusing a microwave beam on the sail to see how well it propels the craft. I wish the Planetary Society the best in this high-risk endeavour.

how ill is that???? look here to see what i'm saying: http://www.planetary.org/cometbash.html

Yeah, replying to my own post, but there's another misconception a lot of people here seem to have that needs addressed.

Also from the Planetary.org Solar Sail FAQ

5. Does a solar sail fly on the solar wind?

No! The solar wind is made up of ionized particles ejected by the Sun. These particles move much slower than light. A solar sail does not stop or reflect them, although they also may impart some of their momentum to the solar sail. However, the force from the solar wind is less than one percent of that from light pressure.

For one thing, almost by definition you can't travel towards a star on this thing because as you approach it, it will start to slow down, and eventually stop.

From the Planetary.org solar sail FAQ

9 . Can a solar sail only provide thrust away from the sun?

No, thrust can be generated inward or outward with respect to the sun. By turning the sail at different angles, we can add or subtract velocity to the spacecraft. When we add velocity, the sail flies away from the Sun. When we subtract velocity, its orbit spirals inward.

It's going to be launched by The Planetary Society not NASA.

PS. Mod parent Funny

From:Planetary.org/solarsail/science_fiction.html
"Neither film based on the novel incorporates much of its satirical content, and both entirely omit its frame story: a "wealthy leisured couple" taking a holiday in space, in a ship described as "a sort of sphere with an envelope - the sail - which was miraculously fine and light and moved through space propelled by the pressure of light-radiation. . . . Furthermore, this elastic envelope could be stretched or contracted as the navigator pleased," to increase or decrease the craft's speed [translation by Xan Fielding]. The craft's direction is controlled by changing the "reflective power of certain sections" of the spherical envelope. Other aspects of the craft's operation sound more literary than scientific in origin. But Boulle clearly had in mind at least the basics of a light-powered sailship."

Note that The Planetary Society website says "The Cosmos 1 spacecraft will be shipped to the launch area in mid May. Until then we have put our countdown on hold. The actual launch date will be announced during the week of May 16." http://planetary.org/solarsail/

... which is (9.3 x 10^-6 m/s^2kg/m^2) * A/m. With m = 100 kg and A = 600 m^2 (see the FAQ, that works out to be an acceleration of 6 x 10^-5 m/s^2, or 6 microgees.