Slashdot Mirror

That UPI article is actually a 3-parter. Here are all three parts at spaceref.com:

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3 (the one linked in the story)

Also, here's the LiftWatch.org story.

That UPI article is actually a 3-parter. Here are all three parts at spaceref.com:

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3 (the one linked in the story)

Also, here's the LiftWatch.org story.

That UPI article is actually a 3-parter. Here are all three parts at spaceref.com:

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3 (the one linked in the story)

Also, here's the LiftWatch.org story.

However, in light of the Space Exploration Act of 2003 (H.R. 3057), I find this a little hard to swallow. We must ask if this was the same motivation of those 30 politicians.

Yes, laptops, they run Windows, and you can read about the scheduled reboots here in the status reports.

And check out the Quicktime VR. You can clearly see the walls of the set. Pretty small room too. Must be the budget cuts.

Quicktime VR available on SpaceRef here.

Here's another one.

With any luck we'll see regular manned access to space within the next ten years without a government involved. The X Prize and its follow-ons will be the equivalent of the barnstorming acts of yesteryear.

With any luck at least...

While the National Review article might be news to most Slashdotters, this is not news for those who have been following the ongoing space policy review by the Bush Administration. In late October SpaceRef.com first reported that a likely outcome of the policy review would be a call for resuming human flights to the Moon, with a Presidential statement on the issue coming as early as the Wright Brothers centennial speech at Kitty Hawk. On Monday SpaceRef.com followed up that original report with a new one, stating that "the return to the Moon by U.S. astronauts possibly by the end of the next decade" had become the "default" position of those planning the new policy. The National Review article doesn't add anything these two SpaceRef reports already provided.

There is no guarantee, though, that these reports are accurate. On Sunday the Orlando Sentinel reported (alternate link) that any new national space policy would differ little from current plans. This report was based on an analysis of internal NASA documents obtained by the newspaper along with interviews with those in the know. This report is actually not necessarily contradictory with the new SpaceRef report: if you're not planning to send people back to the Moon until the end of the next decade, there's little you need to do differently in the near term.

If you're curious about the current interest (or obsession) some have with crafting a new "vision" for NASA, I recommend the articles "The vision thing" and "Vision revision" at The Space Review. (Disclaimer: I'm the author. :-) This should give you an idea that while many in Washington believe there needs to be a new national space policy or vision, there is little consensus about what that should be. Thus, don't expect any major changes soon.

While the National Review article might be news to most Slashdotters, this is not news for those who have been following the ongoing space policy review by the Bush Administration. In late October SpaceRef.com first reported that a likely outcome of the policy review would be a call for resuming human flights to the Moon, with a Presidential statement on the issue coming as early as the Wright Brothers centennial speech at Kitty Hawk. On Monday SpaceRef.com followed up that original report with a new one, stating that "the return to the Moon by U.S. astronauts possibly by the end of the next decade" had become the "default" position of those planning the new policy. The National Review article doesn't add anything these two SpaceRef reports already provided.

There is no guarantee, though, that these reports are accurate. On Sunday the Orlando Sentinel reported (alternate link) that any new national space policy would differ little from current plans. This report was based on an analysis of internal NASA documents obtained by the newspaper along with interviews with those in the know. This report is actually not necessarily contradictory with the new SpaceRef report: if you're not planning to send people back to the Moon until the end of the next decade, there's little you need to do differently in the near term.

If you're curious about the current interest (or obsession) some have with crafting a new "vision" for NASA, I recommend the articles "The vision thing" and "Vision revision" at The Space Review. (Disclaimer: I'm the author. :-) This should give you an idea that while many in Washington believe there needs to be a new national space policy or vision, there is little consensus about what that should be. Thus, don't expect any major changes soon.

What I would like to know is why more research isn't being done on artificial gravity. So many of the health problems encountered in LEO gravity cound be sidestepped if you just spin the damn craft.

I would love to know why some of the effort being spent on watching things get sick in 0g isn't being directed to something as simple as spinning a glorified beer keg in orbit with some mice in it.

Check these links for more information;

• Centrifuge Accommodation Module
• Space Station Fundamental Biology Research Facility
• ISS Elements: Centrifuge Accommodation Module (CAM)

>Study geography before posting.

EU and China are set to collaborate on GALILEO the European global system of satellite navigation


An agreement has been reached between the European Union and China on its participation in the GALILEO programme. This agreement was initialled in Beijing on 18 September 2003 by Mr F. Lamoureux, Director-General of Energy and Transport at the European Commission, and Mr Shi Dinghuan, Secretary General of China's Ministry of Science and Technology. ?China will help GALILEO to become the major world infrastructure for the growing market for location services,? said Loyola de Palacio, Vice-President of the European Commission, responsible for the GALILEO programme. Her counterpart in the negotiations, China's Science and Technology Minister Xu Guanhua highlighted that ?China supports GALILEO and plans to participate actively in its construction and application for mutual benefits?.

Any more advice?

1. 20TW is provided by 20 billion m^2.
   
2. 20 billion m^2 = 7,722.04317 miles^2.
   
3. 7,722 miles^2 is a square 88 miles on each side.
   

Read this article on the subject.

Besides testing for the impact, we ought to try to hang on to the resources we have to track these storms. I work in satellite ops, and one of the best resources I've got is The Space Environment Center, which was referenced in the story and provides real time solar monitoring and space weather predictions.

What wasn't mentioned in the story is that there is a move afoot in Congress to either drastically reduce it's funding or eliminate it altogether: U.S. Space Weather Service in Deep Trouble . All for a service that costs a measily $8 million bucks. Think about how much a "surprise" solar event costs. Since space weather can wreak havoc with high technology systems as well as a hurricane can, it's an appropriate thing for NOAA to be providing to the public, IMHO

Please mod parent up. That Centrifuge Module looks like very interesting research...

Here's something I wanted to bring up but didn't put in the original article (it's too editorial). Check out the email that SpaceRef received from the paper's author (in color on page 1). Here's an excerpt:

The opinions expressed in the leaked copy were solely that of the author prior to editing and feedback. Based on the feedback received in the intervening period since the first draft, several of the major concerns were addressed in subsequent drafts and others are in the process of being addressed. The author regrets the inadvertent leak of this document and disassociates himself from any interpretations related to this draft. The goal of this work was to take the devil's advocate position so crucial to the program following the STS-107 accident in order to improve life science research as a whole.

Perhaps the paper really is a "devil's advocate" position, purposefully exaggerating its arguments to elicit thought. But I have to wonder. I've worked at many places where management's desire to shape reality causes them to pressure authors to "reconsider," "take the broad view," "think of the big picture," or otherwise water down their statements. The Columbia Accident Investigation Board found plenty of evidence of management's desire to ignore reality; it's not a stretch to imagine the email being a direct result of management pressure upon the author (and perhaps a bit of a "I am so very doomed" feeling when he learned that his paper was on the web).

Here and here you can see the image taken on Oct. 4, in a more conventional format.

A cool brown dwarf was found nearby this year. It's a companion of Epsilon Indi Ba, another brown dwarf 11.8 light years away. See this:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=12596

So my guess it's entirely impossible that an even closer star will be found in the near future.

Dont think taxi, think 747 vs Freight train. When a freight train crashes, it usually doesnt make the news unless there was something toxic on board or somone gets hurt.

Anything bigger that a sub-compact re-entering the atmosphere makes the news. Over the last 20+ years, if it's been big and on its way down (Mir, SkyLab, Compton, Cosmos-954, etc) it sure as hell generated a lot of publicity.

What makes the news: Space shuttle blowing up or unmanned rocket blowing up?

Again, any time something CATOs on the pad it makes the news. For one thing, there really aren't that many launches. For another, rocket fuel tends to explode in dramatic fashion. Do manned launch failures stay in the news longer? Yes. But anything that goes ka-boom with a display on par with Vesuvius will grab the headlines.

The same story at Spaceref.

Indeed. How about this?

Well, this photo certainly looks like on of those frikking Intel bunny men escaped from their clean room, only to be crushed by the NOAA-N Prime... Maybe their caused the accident in the first place, dancing around in a lab and all...

This article from the same site has a few more details about the incident. The satellite was a polar-orbiting environmental satellite used to monitor weather and climate. It was upright when it fell.

According to this there have been well over 1600 successful Soyuz flights. Two fatal flights in 1600+ attempts is a lot better than 2/100. Plus, it is a lot cheaper.

The US should just pay the Russians to ferry astronauts into space...

Take a look at the Shuttle stack and what do you see? A fragile spaceplane sitting on the back of a huge propellant tank between two massive solid rocket boosters. The tank holds liquid oxygen and hydrogen and towers above the spaceplane. It is the foam off this tank that hit Columbia and knocked a hole in her wing. But why is there foam at all? Because without it, ice would form on the super-cooled tank and hit the spaceplane. But why would ice or foam hit it in the first place? Because of where the spaceplane sits. But why does it sit there? Because the Shuttle Main Engines (SME's) need to come back to Earth and therefore must be attached to the spaceplane to be returned. And why do the SME's need to be returned? So that they can be reused. And why do they have to be reused? Because, theoretically, it's cheaper to refurbish them than build new ones. Therefore, the spaceplane we think of as the Shuttle has to sit right in the middle of all the turmoil of launch because we once believed it would be cheaper to bring back those engines and rebuild them than to build new ones. That has not proved to be the case-far from it-but it has left us with a crew sitting in the most vulnerable position possible in terms of engineering design and safety.

That sounds like a relatively small improvement in the odds.

I'm also dubious about anything nearby the Challenger explosion surviving. However, there are some helpful factors.

If two pounds of foam can make such a big hole, imagine what a chunk of metal shrapnel from an exploding rocket would do.

But the damage from the foam only became dangerous in the high-stress environment of atmospheric re-entry. After a booster explosion, you'd only have to glide down from 3000m or so. You could do this with parachutes (either a large one for the whole craft, or even individual ejection-seats).

Other design improvements could've helped survivablity in that accident:
If the vehicle had been designed as a traditional nosecone capsule rather than a spaceplane, it's default tumbling behavior might've been to

If the boosters had used a stabler fuel than hydrogen, then the explosion would've been weaker, or might not even have happened at all. (The rockets could've been smaller if the military hadn't thought they'd need the shuttle to lift spy satellites. (They wouldn't have thought that if the Nixon administration hadn't passed down a mandate that all US satellites would be launched by shuttle (He wouldn't have done that if he didn't need a circle argument to justify Pentagon support for a shuttle (Nixon wouldn't have needed a shuttle at all if he hadn't been trying to be a greater President than JFK))))

Disregarding the two catastrophes which were attributed to mismanagement, the system is 105 for 105.

That's misattribution... or at least not hitting the root cause.

It's acceptable (for some purposes) to disregard the fatalities during the 1960s ELV (expendable launch vehicle) space research- they were due to design errors that were corrected. But you can't similarly discount the shuttle accidents from its safety record.

The reason "mismanagement" killed two shuttles is because the shuttle is a too complex design, especially since one stated goal of the shuttle program was "reduced launch cost". You can't repeat something complicated and do it correctly each time, while under constant pressure to reduce cost. But that pressure is unavoidable- partly because most shuttle missions are meaningless to begin with.

So if you want to call it mismanagement, it can only be due to the administrative decision to fly Space Shuttles at all.

For more info, read Hickam's full editorial, which the NYTimes abridged in their printing. Easterbrook's article is also excellent (written as it was before Challenger even lifted off). As were the slashdot threads from the 72 hours following the Columbia destruction.

• Simply put, had that spaceplane been on top of the stack, the destruction of Columbia would not have occurred because its wings would have been out of the line of fire. Challenger would probably not have happened, either. Had the spaceplane been above the explosion, it likely would have been able to punch out and glide back home.

How could a helicopter replace the SR-71?

Most likely, as was proven during the secrecy of the Stealth program (Have Blue) in the late 70's - early 80's, this project was the source of rumors for the Aurora Spyplane.

Well, considering that Hubble has been boosted to higher orbits in the past (several times!), I suppose the term "idiot" is more eloquent than you realize.

You're right. It wasn't an orbiter. It flew by a handful of times. NASA is working on a new Mercury Orbiter though. IIRC, through the Discovery Program and called Messenger.

I'll keep looking for a reference on the solar panel bit.

With shock absorbing crash couches and a reclined position, higher vales should be possible. The issue is failed parachute depolyment. Single parachutes may deploy incorrectly or not at all increasing the G load. Normally a cluster of parachutes are used hence the margin needed for error. Without access to the web site, I can't see how many chutes were being used.

Keith Cowing of NasaWatch weblog is one of the Americans doing research at 'Mars Summer Camp' on Devon Island. Illustrated journals are available for last year and for the season just starting: [example and links]

I'm so glad I have a huge email archive

See the article here. Called "2001: A Space Laptop", they discuss what's involved in using computers in space. It's a little dated, and we can hope they're using better computers as the spec at that time (2000) was a IBM 166MHz Pentium MMX Thinkpad.

03.25.02.shenzhou.ctv.104.jpg

03.25.02.shenzhou.ctv.105.jpg

shenzhou-control.jpg

Looks pretty nice :)

03.25.02.shenzhou.ctv.104.jpg

03.25.02.shenzhou.ctv.105.jpg

shenzhou-control.jpg

Looks pretty nice :)

They said they would put "over 1 billion euros" on that. What about some prospective? ESA's budget for 2002 was around 2,8 bn euros. With this sort of money for last four years they were able to put together a mission to Mars - and that's about it. NASA's budget is around 15 bn Euros and it is barely enough to keep the Shuttle fleet flying and make around two scientific missions a year (look for example at the state US Mars exploration is in). And that is not all the money US spends on space - there is also DoD budget.

A single Ariane 5 launch costs around $150 M which is roughly $140 MEuros, so this is good for around ten launches. Proton and Soyuz are cheaper - $80M and $40M respectively. (a table of launch vehicles costs). But of course this money won't be spent directly on launches, you have to have something to launch first.

Europe's space program has been so far driven mostly by France and to some extent Britain. Others were just interested, but with no real substance. All projects of manned missions were dropped along the way (and there were a few - a small shuttle designed by French that was supposed to be Ariane's payload - I forgot the name, German SSTO Sanger plane and similar British project). As a result Europe has no experience in building manned spacecraft - unless they would get it from Russians. I'm afraid that 1 bn Euros won't be enough to put together a manned mission unless it would be just flying Russian spacecrafts with Europe's yellow stars logo painted on them.

If Europe would spend this money on building a GPS-like system, then 1 bn Euros is a significant amount, however again not enough to build the system - and keep it running (Russians build one to guide their warheads but couldn't afford to keep it up).

What is most likely however is that this money won't be spent on a single mission or project. As the article says this money would be "pumped into the sector to overhaul its manufacturing and marketing programmes". It means that it would be divided into many small donations to various projects just to keep the industry afloat. So it is nice, but is far from enough if Europe really wants to be a player in the Space Race.

And - BTW - Deutsche Telekom's loss for 2002 was "over" 24 billion euros.

Pics are here:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/05 22_030522_earthmars.html

Here:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=62 4&ncid=753&e=10&u=/ap/20030522/ap_on_sc/earth_from _mars

Here:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=11583

Here:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/030 522/168/45jfk.html

Here:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/05/22/earth.mar s.ap/

And Here:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/World/viewo fearth030522.html

Here is a pic of earth taken by the Voyager 1 spacecraft in 1991 from more than 4 billion miles away (showing only a dot):
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/to p10_images_010925-11.html

Posting as AC, I don't seek any karma. Mod up if you want to

Pics are here:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/05 22_030522_earthmars.html

Here:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=62 4&ncid=753&e=10&u=/ap/20030522/ap_on_sc/earth_from _mars

Here:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=11583

Here:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/030 522/168/45jfk.html

Here:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/05/22/earth.mar s.ap/

And Here:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/World/viewo fearth030522.html

Here is a pic of earth taken by the Voyager 1 spacecraft in 1991 from more than 4 billion miles away (showing only a dot):
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/to p10_images_010925-11.html

Posting as AC, I don't seek any karma. Mod up if you want to

If they are worried about foam, why don't they use Aerogel instead? It's lighter, heat resistant and transparent.

I don't understand why we aren't taking the Gemini and Apollo and Agena systems, retrofitting the designs with modern electronics and using those for trips to ISS or for supply up there.

Ahem.That's what NASA are doing. They've been evaluating bringing back Apollo capsules, firstly a modified version to act as a lifeboat for the ISS, but then going on to use them to deliver astronauts to the ISS.
A panel investigated this in March and decided the idea had several merits, being cheaper than developing a new winged vehicle, and using tried and tested design.

(Not to mention I submitted this very news story to Slashdot a few days ago and it was rejected...)

The microwave systems that SSI have studied are basically like a UHF tv station transmitter (sans Weird Al).

Birds don't cook, people don't mutate, airplanes won't crash from this. Since this is a line of sight system, the range is probably less than 20 miles. Even so, it will make a terrific demo that proves the practicality of powering cities from SPS.

That is assuming the folks at Lockhead and Boeing can stick to metric.

Man, if I screw up a client's computer, I don't get hired back. Hell, they will usually go so far as to tell their friends and peers not to use me.

If you are a miliary^H^H^H^H^H^Haerospace contractor and you screw something up you get bonuses and additional contracts.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=8061 claims that much of the space shuttle is based on obsolete technology. I've also read a couple articles recently about how much of the US space program is using technology from the 70's, hardly the fanciest best equipment. Considering how tight they claim the budget is at NASA how do you figure they're dumping money into the fanciest, best equipment? Other than that I agree with you that sending robots/probes there is much cheaper and safer than sending people.

It seems is not to go where no man has gone before but

1) To get proper pictures of pluto (it seems telescopes are not good enuff
and 2) to get a view of outer space unhindered by the space dust of the solar system ....
Some links
here and here

Apparently the idea of the mission is not just ot go where no man has gone before , but

1) Find out about the planet since telescopic pictures are not good enuff..

2)Look out from the near-zero atmosphere of pluto out into space, unhindered but particles of the solar system

Some links here and here about these..... (Rudimentary googling, I am no expert)

Enough has been spoken about the guidance computers aboard Shuttles and their special differences and requirements.

This article talks about the necessary preparations to take laptops to space. You can't just use one from the box--our PCs need gravity or convection to continue working.

This is just a small example of why things must be complex when going to space.

My $0.02, especially with the USAF's new pictures: Columbia collided with that foam much harder and in a more sensitive spot than engineers could determine. Or, something smacked the ship in-orbit (unlikely since the astronauts, MSCS, Miss Cleo, the bunions on your dad's feet, and your sleeping cat would've noticed and recorded the event).

Another possibility is structural failure on liftoff--after the foam hit, the slipstream weakened the affected part, but the part stayed in place since the Shuttle was moving upward and out of atmospheric drag. Reentry tore it off altogether.

You can use telepresence to control the robots when necessary. You can also design stuff for maintainability.

I don't mind people risking their life - that's their choice. I do mind spending $0.5B every time a shuttle goes for a little trip, and other billions when one blows up. The high cost is attributable to the need to reduce the failure rate well below the 1-5% commercial launch failure rates, plus the reusability requirement. And with all that cost and effort, they still have a 1% failure rate.

The hubble cost $1.5 billion. It would be cheaper to send another one up rather than waste many more billions on the shuttle program.

For reference, the annual shuttle cost is $3.8B.

The Space Exploration Act of 2002 seemed a great first step, but received very little backing. NASA's NExT group plans look very promising - but do they have any money, even in this year's budget? The goal should be human exploration, development, and settlement of the solar system. The National Space Society has a clear roadmap for space development, and a vision of people living and working in thriving communities in space - but membership there has been dropping for years. The goals actually are pretty obvious - what's needed is for the public to get behind them. Go join these organizations, write your senators and congressman! If you care about space, do something about it!

However AIDS is real and the sooner it can be controlled the better. 25 billion seems a reasonable number for AIDS.

But 15 billion is a freaken LOT of MONEY!. I think that 15 billion is a reasonable number for space exploration.

• Nasa spends:
• Space Science ( probes/telescopes etc ) : 3.414 billion
• Space Flight ( Shuttle + ISS ) : 6.130 billion ( 3.208 shuttle, 1.492 ISS ) the remainder is 'overhead' for the shuttle and ISS not directly attributed to either one.
• Astrobiology etc: 360 million
• Earth science: 1.628 billion
• Aerospace Technology ( R&D for new ways to get to space and enhance air travel ) : 2.815 billion