Slashdot Mirror

These don't look like drawings: http://www.sg.hu/kep/2005_08/0828kliper1.jpg http://www.spacenews.be/flash/img2005/1204b.jpg http://www.officeroutlook.com/news/Science/144.ht1 0.jpg http://uplink.space.com/attachments/48341-klipper. jpg Not the final product, of course, but at least an advanced mockup.

...so I'm about 6 light-nanoseconds tall, the screen I'm facing is about one by one and a half light nanoseconds.

A light-second is about a billion feet or 300,000,000m, roughly the same as the distance to the Moon.

86400 seconds in a day, so a light-day is about 26,000,000,000,000m, or 4-5 times the distance to Pluto and Charon, or 170 times as far away as the Sun is from us.

A light year is 9,500,000,000,000 km; and Proxima Centauri (the nearest star) is about 4 of those away, and the Crab nebula is about 4,000 of those from us.

Putting all of that into scale is kind of difficult. Making the Sun as big as a basketball, gives you a barely-visible Earth about 30m away, Jupiter a squash (or golf) ball about 150m away, and pluto an infinitesimal speck over a kilometer out. A light-day from the basketball sun would be a circle 9km across, and if you put the basketball sun in the middle of the US, the next basketball would be in Greenland, northwest Alaska, or Brasil. If you put it in my home town (Perth, Western Australia), you'd be looking at the next basketball in South Africa, southern Russia, or the middle of the Pacific. And the Crab nebula twenty times as far away as the Moon.

The fastest manned spacecraft has travelled at ~40,000km/h, so it would take about 100,000 years (a thousand lifetimes, two and a half thousand generations) to get to the nearest star and 100,000,000 years to get to the Crab. I imagine that even the spectacular views as you approached would somewhat lose their appeal after a few generations.

I listen to people who have spent their entire lives studying and methodically researching something using strict scientific methods and extensive peer review.

How about Columbia University and NASA? Do they count? That study suggests that increasing solar output may be partially to blame for changes.

Or are they saying weird things that you don't listen to?

All this news about Saturn and no mention of the news that the F ring is not a ring but actually a spiral!

The launch has been scrubbed until December to bring in more helium and liquid oxygen. See Spaceflight Now or Space.com

A DECENT LINK

The SpaceX Falcon 1 has not launched as of 4:08 p.m. EST. In fact, it's on hold for an hour. Somebody jumped the gun with the story. You can follow live coverage at SpaceFlight Now or Space.com

Oops... The source for the second quote is here on space.com.

The first successful asteroid landing attempt was done on Eros by the NEAR spacecraft :

See Here.

The amazing thing is that NEAR was not even designed to land : they mission controllers did it because NEAR was running out of fuel and would be turned off anyway so they decided to chance it. They put it down (after a few bounces on the surface too) and turned it off. One day they might try to turn it on again.

The point is, that it is not impossible to do it. Indeed, the physics is pretty simple. There is no "hitting a fast moving target" problem : the probe is already in orbit and moving pretty slowly relative to the asteroid. The problem is systems engineering : all the problems that you see from the probe is not because some tools malfunctioned outright etc, it is poor integration of systems. Just look at the communications downlink blackout during the landing rehearsal that results in the loss of the MINERVA miniprobe. I mean, come on, you can PREDICT when those blackouts occur!

Finally, your rant about "Japanese cheating to save face" is just pure flamebait.

I guess third time is not a charm, pretty good college try for their fledgeling space agency. I hope they do better on their ramp up to build a base on the moon by 2025. These kinds of problems on a mission like that could spell disaster. I wonder if anyone over there is thinking, "Maybe we should just stick with robots."

"1,000 staff x $100,000/year (generous) = $100 million/year."

That's not generous at all, since this is a one-off try... NASA needs to spend top dollar to get the best minds working on priority projects like this.

Also, you've costs other than payroll to deal with -- health insurance, recruitment, training, etc. Plus admin and support staff (which will be cheaper no doubt), as well as PMs (which will be more expensive, no doubt).

Throw in the fact that there is almost zero margin for error in terms of manufacturing tolerances, and that many of the parts are not regular production-line parts, and so cost a bunch more to have made... Plus, the mirror itself is being made of Beryllium, which is both expensive and toxic (so working with it is much more expensive).

"I hate to be cheeky, but if I could pay 1,000 people $100k/year, I could build you a seriously awesome space telescope for a lot less than $2.5 billion.I hate to be cheeky, but if I could pay 1,000 people $100k/year, I could build you a seriously awesome space telescope for a lot less than $2.5 billion."

I'm sure there are a bunch of things I'm not thinking of, but my point is that pulling numbers out of a hat to say that we're overpaying is a little ridiculous. Admittedly, the overruns are a serious problem, though.

Finally, this is not the first time that they've announced cost overruns for the JWST... see this link from 2003: http://www.space.com/spacenews/archive03/telescope arch_031703.html

Original cost was to be 800 million, with an 8-foot mirror; cost was doubled and mirror diameter was reduced to 6 feet -- and this was with the EC contributing an additional 300 million.

Here is one image. Notice the shadow cast by the long boulder on the left side about half-way down.

http://www.space.com/images/v_itokawa_jaxa1_02.jpg

http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/spacemovies/in dex.php?url=spacemovies_contact_00.jpg&cat=spacemo vies
Database error: Invalid SQL: select * from space_image where id=
MySQL Error: 1064 (You have an error in your SQL syntax. Check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near '' at line 1)

The voting engine is farked up - got to vote for some 3 times, and it doesn't always show the correct one as "Last shown"!

Bah! /G

yes...but we know what space.com's official opinion is on the whole firefly thing is...as terrible as it is.

isn't it interesting that this earlier list from last year contains an almost completly different set of movies?
i could understand a bit of a change but to tell the truth, this is a little shocking...

I was thinking about sumitting it, but why the hassle - small chance it will get accepted

about water on Mars. The problem is that temperature and pressure on Mars are oscilating around water triple-point, it means that there is a chance that you will get liquid/ice water at night, but it will vaporize during the day (speaking about non-polar areas, in polar areas water can stay in ice form). Colonists are more likely to settle near equator due to temperature and (maybe) resources. If we consider pressure also, then hellas planitia is very tempting.

And it looks like there is a workaround for problem with constantly vaporizing water - use salt water instead :)

I took this piece from http://marsnews.com/

Patents need to be thrown out. If we want to reward inventors using a "First to invent" scheme, let's do it fairly, and introduce competitions and bonuses for specific, named, inventions that are generally wanted. The X-Prize was a reasonable idea. An eighteen-year monopoly on space wouldn't be. Those who promote patents think the latter would be more legitimate, reasonable, and required, than the former.

However, the configuration designed by Scaled Composites for SpaceShipOne is unique with its fuel case and nozzle cantilevered off the main oxidizer tank - forming part of the vehicle's aft fuselage. Rutan has applied for a patent given this new design.

I've heard asteroid landing was successfully tried once, with the craft which wasn't even designed for landing!

Incorrect. I'd fanthom to think that the amount of CO2 that we put into the air as a species from mechanical sources is dwarfed by CO2 coming from the planet itself. When Mt. Pinatubo erupted, it put more than 8, probably closer to 10 times as much CO2 into the air in a day than we put into the air in a year. If one single event can turn our output as a species into a fraction, then I don't want to imagine how much the worldwide impact of all geothermal activity is having on our percentage. Documented releases of CO2 output from Mud Volcano in Yellowstone is even huge... somewhere between 12 and 24 tons of CO2 per hour, and during higher periods of seismic activity, its been measured as high as 84 tons/hour. This does not include gasses coming from other vents in the park, or what bubbles up from out of Yellowstone lake. CO2 Emmissions from the Horseshoe trail area in CA have been documented at about 50-160 tons per day depending on seismic activity, and that number does not even include the rest of the emmissions from the long valley caldera system, Mono and Mammoth lake. Mt. St. Helens is still gassing as we speak, along with gas emmissions from the other venting volcanos and active caldera systems, black smokers on the sea floor, and many other geothermal sources worldwide. Based on this alone, I think we as humans are actually very poor at putting CO2 into the air compared to the planet. But since when do enviromental crackpots ever see the thing that they claim to be attempting to protect actually being the cause of the problem? oh, then throw http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_0 30320.html on top of it all.. Bottom line is this: Should be be more responsible about the emmissions that we put out? Yes, because they exist in high concentrations around where they are emmitted, and thats where we live. Do our current emmissions affect global warming? Doubtful.

When I think of Sea Launch, I think BOOM!
Sea Launch Fails to Deliver ICO Satellite

If we're talking decades here, could this be used to send other asteroids into Mars to introduce the planet with some new water?

And this just after news about how the US is cutting down on NASA's budget and missions like this..

The US federal government cut NASA's budget? Do you have a link for this? The only articles I've seen indicate an increase in NASA's budget, virtually one of the only non-defense sectors of the government to see an increase.

Which doesn't really support your original claim that Soyuz is 'much safer'. At best it shows it is might be slightly safer, but the sample size is small enough that is statistically pretty meaningless. Especially if you start to look at the other close calls Soyuz has had: Soyuz 5 the first attempt of Soyuz 18 the first attempt at Soyuz t-10 The first 2 of those were only non-fatal by a large amount of luck.

Nor is recent history flawless:
- Loss of cabin pressure on TMA-6 landing http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9888881/
- Thruster malfunction on TMA-5 http://www.russianspaceweb.com/iss_soyuztma5.html
- battery problems on TMA-5 http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2005/04/soyuz_ba ttery_p.html
- Pyro accident and H2O2 tank problems in TMA-5 prelaunch processing. http://www.spaceflightnow.com/station/exp10/status .html
- Fuel pressurization problem on TMA-3 http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/exp8_soyuz_04 0428.html
- Flight computer failure/ballistic landing on TMA-1 http://www.russianspaceweb.com/iss_soyuztma1.html

The above obviously aren't in the same league as the early incidents, but do show a system that is encountering a significant loss of redundancy on nearly every flight. If you go back over the Mir era flights, you will find plenty more, although the Russians were even less inclined to talk about them.

I'm not trying to bash Soyuz... if you offered me a seat today, I'd jump on it. I'm just pointing out that the commonly held assumption that it is a whole lot safer than the shuttle doesn't really add up.

Really? I did wonder why they are so stuck to using the shuttle - that would explain it.
Do you have a source for this as the only (unreliable) source I have puts the CEV at 3G, but it does make sense that the cargo only heavy lift vehicle would accellerate harder(no humans to squash). Although I have heard rumblings that they _might_ human rate that booster too - so it might be limited to the 4G that Saturn V had?
http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board =missions&main=345068&type=thread

That was one of the most insightful posts I've read lately.

For those who, like me, actually support humans in space almost all comments regarding space on /. reads like a bunch of luddites complaining and it's getting old. So if any of those actually support an, over time, increasing human presence in space they should get out of their "old grumpy man" act. To put it in a simple way the astronauts sent to ISS are themselves the biggest experiment and the most important one (and if anyone thinks that could be done on earths surface they've reached rock bottom - pun not intended). The ISS serves as a real testbed for hands on technology concerned with keeping humans alive in space for prolonged periods and with increased efficiency and reliability. Yes, it has the potential to be much more over time, personally I hope that at some point in the future when we are actually ready to do so its orbit can be boosted to GEO, but that is of course a long way off and money is actually the least objection to doing it right away: we don't presently have the requisite technology at a sufficient level to make it worthwhile, not even close.

And so what if the ISS program was used for more than just its face value of space science? Why is that such a horror? Isn't it actually better to employ people in science that benefits us than let them languish and in likelihood be employed against us?

For being a supposed "Nerd" site /. doesn't actually contain many readers that seem to be aware of how incrementally and tediously science normally progresses. Many seem to think that science progresses like the technology tree in some C&C-like game and /. is filled with people who think it more important to criticize NASA (or Burt Rutan or anyone else actually trying to do something it seems) than to actually say something enlightened (!=rehashed bickering). I guess we can all blame the armchair for that :)

Anyway I'm not worried as I doubt anyone on /. has much clout either politically and scientifically and the ranting doesn't actually affect much except the /. "image".

Recommended reading:
http://www.space.com/adastra/adastra_hustle_part1_ 050818.html

The danger of that link of course is that it will shame people into shutting up.... what am I saying? this is /. lol

I remember the Mars Polar Lander crash in 1999 [http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/mars_polar_l ander_031222.html%5D. At the time there was a rumor that said it was a human error : somebody had mixed a foot and a meter. Now we know that it was a software bug that was contained in a single line of code.

These students got theirs into space for $120,000. Sure, that doesn't include "donated material, equipment and expertise", or the estimated $40,000 launch cost, but let's be optimistic and call it $250,000 all told. Well, get 50 people in and it's only $5000 each -- less than a good used car. Make it 500 people and you've got the cost down to less than a trip for two to Vegas. And for this I get to help send a satellite running Linux into space -- as close as I'm likely to come to making the trip myself.

I know that ham radio folks are already doing this sort of thing, but they've got their own goals. I admit, mine are a bit fuzzy beyond "put this L33+ satellite into space", but that's kind of appealing too. What could we cram on a picosatellite? What imaging can you do for cheap -- what resolution, what wavelengths? And of course, the question everyone wants answered: Can you host a webserver in space, and could it survive a Slashdotting?

I think something like this would be cool beyond measure. Who's in?

The neat thing is that the reaction ejects beta radiation (electrons) in all directions, but ejects the alpha particles with the plasma in one direction. The actual fusion generator is the size of a refrigerator, with the coffee can near one end. The larger device captures the beta radiation with a shell around the reactor and has a target at the other end to collect the alpha radiation. The result - fusion reaction produces current directly! The next refinement *decelerates* the speeding alpha particles through a magnetic field, converting their kinetic energy to electricity before it heats up the target. That is the "reverse particle accelerator" aspect. Beta radiation ejected in the same direction as the alpha beam is "lost" and becomes heat at the target. Future refinements will make the alpha beam as narrow as possible so as to minimize the number of beta particles it takes with it.

After the proof of concept, engineering challenges include materials to collect beta radiation without becoming dangerously radioactive, materials to collect alpha radiation (hopefully low speed after magnetic decceleration) without becoming dangerously radioactive, and shielding to stop the occasional neutrons (from impurities, and the random nature of nuclear reactions). Will also need to store energy to "crack the magnetic whip" to drive the reaction, and meter precise amounts of ionized fuel. I'm not convinced that too much fuel won't be dangerous.

Jeez... What's taking so long. Five years and it's not done yet. Here is a better article:
http://space.com/businesstechnology/051102_techwed _iss_fifthyear.html

It wasn't SSETI, it was the other satellite Mozhayets-5 that failed to break free from the upper stage and is missing.

See here: http://space.com/missionlaunches/051028_sseti_russ iansat.html

It fell silent after failing to separate from its booster properly http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/051028_sseti_ russiansat.html

"The washing machine-sized Student Space Exploration and Technology Initiative (SSETI) Express spacecraft took off from the Plesetsk launch site in northern Russia"

Looks like we have a new measuring standard for use on Slashdot to replace VW Bug, or Library of Congress. Proper use of the standard will refer to how many "Washing Machines" an object going to, or coming from space is. 62Kg is the suggested weight in metric.

The satellite is designed to go into safe mode when a problem is encountered, and it has done this.
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/051028_sseti_ russiansat.html

"ESA officials said the $121,185 (100,000 Euro) SSETI Express spacecraft entered a protective "safe mode" after accomplishing many of its initial objectives, including the deployment of three small, cube-shaped satellites built by universities in Germany, Japan and Norway."

I've got a buddy who works at in the space division at Boeing - when I asked him how come we don't just use Apollo tech to get back into space, he gave me a fairly interesting history lesson. All the data for the space programs of the 50's, 60's, and 70's was systematically destroyed while the programs were current. They didn't want any plans to leak, so every two months all the paperwork was destroyed.

This is an old myth. It's not true. See
http://www.space.com/news/spacehistory/saturn_five _000313.html

Are you thinking of the X33 spaceplane? It was cancelled in 2001.

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/x33_ cancel_010301.html

A article from a year earlier.
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology /x33_newlease_001002.html

- James

Are you thinking of the X33 spaceplane? It was cancelled in 2001.

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/x33_ cancel_010301.html

A article from a year earlier.
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology /x33_newlease_001002.html

- James

Did they ever come up with a replacement for the old Elektron oxygen generators? I mean something as good or better than those old Soviet relics, not just burning oxygen candles for air? I heard the only guy who could properly tune the Elektrons died with his tricks. Hence, the need for new tech.

Try a Magnetic Torque Bar

The engine burns, each scheduled to run 11 minutes and 40 seconds, were slated for 5:09 p.m. EDT (2109 GMT) and 6:33 p.m. EDT (2233 GMT), and were expected to raise the ISS into an orbit that hits 224 statute miles (360 kilometers) at its highest point, a bit higher that the station's current orbital peak of 220 statute miles (354 kilometers), NASA officials said Tuesday.

But the Progress engines switched off less than two minutes into the first burn, NASA officials said, adding that there appeared to be a communications problem between the spacecraft's thrusters and Russian navigation computers, which shut down the engines as designed due to the data dropout.

The brief engine burn did accelerate the ISS by about 1.04 feet per second (0.31 meters per second) and raised the lowest point of the station's orbit - 211 miles (339 kilometers) - by about 0.7 miles (1.1 kilometers), according to NASA officials.

Other engines could be used to boost the space station's orbit, but Russian space officials are still evaluating the glitch, the Federal Space Agency said.

I hadn't considered any interstellar slow-down, dark matter you mean?

The simple fix is to beam more energy at the craft.

I'm not a rocket scientist either, but I tend to think of GIANT spacecraft when you are trying to get going really fast using propellant, the solar sails would either have to be GIANT as well in order for it to be worth the effort.

When you talk about nuclear rockets you are talking kilotons, a solar sail powered interstellar spacecraft could be 1 or 2 tons.

...and you didn't provide a single source for all of your claims. Don't get mad at the uninformed world when you're uninformed yourself. I posted this as an AC earlier, but it needs repeating.

The NASA bugdet has been increasing pretty steadily under Bush, and Bush just passed a 6% funding increase for 2005 and a 2.4% funding increase for 2006.

These current layoffs are just from shifting priorities. Which means that in the end with all these budget increases, there is a net gain of jobs towards science.

...and you didn't provide a single source for all of your claims. Don't get mad at the uninformed world when you're uninformed yourself. I posted this as an AC earlier, but it needs repeating.

The NASA bugdet has been increasing pretty steadily under Bush, and Bush just passed a 6% funding increase for 2005 and a 2.4% funding increase for 2006.

These current layoffs are just from shifting priorities. Which means that in the end with all these budget increases, there is a net gain of jobs towards science.

The cuts reflect the tremendous cost of warmongering around the world...

No, they just reflect a change of priorities.

Besides, it's hard to argue that the Iraq war affects NASA's budget when the NASA bugdet has been increasing pretty steadily under Bush and that Bush just passed a 6% funding increase in 2005 and a 2.4% funding increase in 2006.

The war budget and the NASA budget have no relationship with each other. Both are paid on deficit spending.

The cuts reflect the tremendous cost of warmongering around the world...

No, they just reflect a change of priorities.

Besides, it's hard to argue that the Iraq war affects NASA's budget when the NASA bugdet has been increasing pretty steadily under Bush and that Bush just passed a 6% funding increase in 2005 and a 2.4% funding increase in 2006.

The war budget and the NASA budget have no relationship with each other. Both are paid on deficit spending.

With each damning new report and every shred if indicting evidence that indeed the earth is entering into massive warming because of human activity So you now have proof that's it's HUMAN (code word for U.S.A.) it doing it? Then how do you explain the warming that is also taking place on MARS?? http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age _031208.html [space.com]

I explain it as people looking for any excuse to justify their wasteful SUV.

As to the science, there is no evidence to warrant the conclusion there is global warming on Mars.

Sorry for the second post, but just noticed one other thing you said.

If mars is getting warmer, then we lack enough variables to understand the equation.

The Suns energy output has been increasing over at least the past 30 years.
By 0.05% per decade. Referencing an earlier slashdot post
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=162466 &cid=13578513
The output from the sun that hits the earth is 170,000 TW. Given that that has increased by 85TW/decade, that should be the explanation for at least part of the earths warming, and why mars is getting warmer as well. More heat into the system will result in the system getting warmer.

One final thing, global warming is supposed to lead to weaker/fewer hurricanes. Katrina was hardly a strong storm. It was only a category 4 when it hit. Also, if it gets too strong it will tear itself apart. I think there is an actuall uper limit to the strength of a hurricane.

Then how do you explain the warming that is also taking place on MARS?? http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age _031208.html

Oh Christ, don't start that. There was a thread a couple weeks ago where someone found a way to blame the US and George Bush for global warming on Mars. They are also blaming the hurricanes on global warming, even though any meteorologist will tell you that global warming will create LESS hurricanes, not more.

I am firmly of the belief that we don't know because we don't have long enough records, and frankly, humans are just not as smart or powerful as we like to think we are. The planet has withstood a lot more than we are throwing at it, so I have my doubts.

I like lower emissions so the air doesn't make me barf. I like increased fuel efficiency because I am tired of giving money to terrorist nations. What I don't like is people who really don't care about the environment, but are just using it as a political tool because they hate capitalism. And the suckers who believe them because they are too lazy to do a little homework.

Record highs?

Hmm. I don't think so.

After all, they're still finding Viking farms under the ice in Greenland.
I suspect that we have people looking at short term changes and ignoring the geological evidence about cyclic changes in world temperatures.

As another data point look at: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html

Somehow, I don't think what man is doing on Earth has much of an effect on Mars.

With each damning new report and every shred if indicting evidence that indeed the earth is entering into massive warming because of human activity So you now have proof that's it's HUMAN (code word for U.S.A.) it doing it? Then how do you explain the warming that is also taking place on MARS?? http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age _031208.html

There has been some discussion on this already from the 50's. I asume creating a magnetic field is somewhat simulare to creating a charged( i guess charged is redundant) ion field. I have seen drawings of what it might look like but fail to find references to them at the moment. The references i have seen were based on the moon but apear as they should be capable of working on a ship or space station.

Hereis a site explaining somethign simular to what i have read. Maybe i'm think of two different things. Maybe i'm confusing somethign form a scifi movie too?

Right on. I always install Adblock with Firefox or Mozilla. I haven't seen a pop-up or flash advertisement for months. They all seem to come from a few advertisers. Here is my adblock list:

http://.mediaplex.com/* http://.tribalfusion.com/*
http://.doubleclick.net/* http://.adbureau.net/*
http://.atdmt.com/* http://.emode.com/*
http://.advertising.com/* http://.tickle.com/*
http://.fastclick.net/* http://.falkag.net/*
http://.e.akamai.net/* http://.yieldmanager.com/*
http://.casalemedia.com/* http://.serving-sys.com/*
http://.pointroll.com/* http://.thinktarget.com/*
http://.zedo.com/* http://.com.com/cnwk.*/Ads/*
http://.qnsr.com/* http://ar.atwola.com/*
http://ads.guardian.co.uk/* http://rss.slashdot.org/~a/*
http://.starwave.com/* http://ads.ign.com/advertisers/*
http://ads.space.com/RealMedia/ads/* http://gfx.dvlabs.com/*