Slashdot Mirror

The test firing (it was about this time last year I think) must have been important because all sorts of VIPs from NASA and the Air Force showed up, which didn't normally happen.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Test firings are cool! The shockwave hitting you is really a unique experience.

I'm tired of the $2 billion/year ego project that the ISS is.

The goal for ISS is to "conduct the most balanced, efficient, and effective space program". Moreover, it provides unprecendented breakthroughs in research. I think the price tag is worth it.

Others: For more info, read here:

• Spaceviews
• Russian Space Web
• Space.com

Technically, one could claim that the first commercial or private lunar mission was the Asiasat-3 flyby (although it is pushing it a bit, since there was no science involved)
The story is that the rocket launching the communication satellite had a problem, and left the payload in a lower, usless orbit. But, by using the satellite's own, limited fuel reserves the ground controllers were able to swing it around the moon and back into a semi-useful orbit.
Some more details are here and here

I thought Slashdot had discussed this satellite, and the major points were that it would need an 8-inch telescope due to the distance, and existing weather satellites already give a better 24-hour view of weather patterns. Triana would have to be 1.6 million kilometers from Earth, rather than the 36,000 kilometers of a weather satellite's Clarke orbit. A 24-hour sunlit view could be created from the existing satellite images, as was mentioned in the link in the parent article.

I may be an idiot, but what about the scientists behind the announcement that Astronomers Discover Planet Around Binary Star

CLATHRATES AND CARBON DIOXIDE ON A DRY COLD MARS

I can't believe it's not water (spaceviews.com)

1. rocket 2. camel 3. bring water

The whole RadarSat-2 spat hadn't registered at all with me at the time, but your comment prompted me to hit Google and find the following, which seems to be the latest word on the topic: http://www.spaceviews.com/2000/06/29a.html. Seems like our (Canadian) government has contracted an Italian launching agency (having its own trouble with U.S. export restrictions, incidentally) to conduct the launch since NASA backed out. Good thing we have lots of friends...

Let's see. Mass of EROS = 7.2 million billion kilograms. Mass of NEAR = 805 kg (includes propellant). Propulsion capabilities of NEAR = 100-lb thruster. Speed of impact = 4 mph (1.9 meters per second).

So. A 4mph collision between a big thing, and a thing with a mass of 0.00000000001118% or less of the big thing. Total effect: somewhat slight.

Risk assessment: "We might get some asshole debating whether the impact might throw EROS off course ... other than that, seems safe enough"

You can pack alot of communications gear into a 10cm cube. Provide propulsion with ion engines. With ~16 of these cubes, you could cover most of earth. Run your own spy network. Put harddisks on them and run GNUtella over the amature satellite band. With 64+ you can be a force in the satellite communications industry (beware the FCC). Cost: 64*50K = $3,200,000. Add 10 million more for R & D and ground stations. Everyone else in satellite communications paid billions and must charge high prices to get any ROI.

Those persons afraid of 'space junk' give Nerds a bad name. People on the ground are more likely to be hit by a meteor than by space junk. The dangerous (to spacecraft) junk is the stuff too small to detect on radar. Larger objects (such as the cube) can be detected and either avoided, deflected or destroyed as needed. See http://www.spaceviews.com/2000/08/20a.html for NASA's answer to space junk. I'm sure you can come up with something better, and mount it in a 10cm cube.

After building your cube empire in space, send up a 2 KW laser and carve your initials on the ISS!

Finally a space article that didn't come from cnn...

Kudo's

To bad Space Elevators are the Super Dense Optical Storage Devices of Space Industry. A Red Herring.

suggested Space News Site's spaceflightnow
SpaceDaily
NasaWatch
SpaceWeather
Nasa
It's ashame that SpaceOnline bit the dust and was absorbed by space.com, along with SpaceViews

If you want some real action become a Nasa click worker at http://clickworkers.arc.nasa.gov/top
Maybe Slashdot will even do a story on it...

I wait with herring baited breath

You do not need much processing power to run UAV -- Progress spacecraft is a pretty advanced UAV -- can dock automatically for instance, and it's computer probably has just a few megs of core memory.

"Applications for this system are potentially frightening," said an intelligence source. "One expert I spoke with estimated that an integrated bundle of 12-15 PlayStations could provide enough computer power to control an Iraqi unmanned aerial vehicle, or UAV -- a pilotless aircraft."

Hairy Potter, woefully clueless American, wrote:
Looking at the equatorial slice, you have Central and the northern part of South America. That's close to the US, but the only country in that area that sounds somewhat reasaonable is Venezuela. I think they're stable, and at least somewhat technically clueful.

Hairy, you may want to read the newspapers once in a freaking while.

First of all, you're completely wrong about South America, which has come a long way in the last twenty years. Not only have most countries turned from military dictatorships or nationalistic juntas toward multiparty democracies, most are fully industrialized and modern. Brazil even has its own nascent space industry with a launch site at Alcantara, and an aeronautical industrial center calling itself Space Valley.

Brazil has skyscrapers, subways, and even computers. (What, did you think they lived in mud huts?!)

Venezuela, on the other hand, has recently turned into as close to a rogue state as you can get and not actually be one. The President has endured the censure of the United Nations, the Organziation of American States, and others, and has deliberately met with pariah leaders like Moammar Khadafy and Saddam Hussein. Venezuela is heavily Western-invested due to its oil industry, but many companies are reconsidering its long-term political stability.

A shame there aren't more, as close to the US is a major plus, since American will probablly pay for most of it.

Why would you assume that Americans will pay for most of it? Why would you assume that taxpayers will pay for most of it? More likely it will be built by an international consortium supported by investors and ultimately funded by the companies that buy its services. (Look at the Chunnel, or any modern major toll bridge, for examples.) Of course, that's assuming that stick-in-the-mud American industry is interested, which they may not be. (Our economy goes through phases during which it will throw money any and all innovation, no matter how inane, and during which the very word innovation is considered poison. Look at high-tech from 1999 to 2000 for an example.)

Going East, we get to Africa. Enough said there, I wouldn't invest a significant amount in Africa until it gets more stable.

Africa's a pretty big place, kiddo. Some parts are stable, others are not. That said, the industrialization there in 2000 isn't that convenient for a space industry. That could change, though.

Further East is India and Sri Lanka. India would certainly be a possibility, they have high tech, they speak English.

What kind of incompetent school did you go to, that you believe speaking English is a pre-requisite for mastering high technology? India is not only a land of breathtaking scenery mixed with breathtaking poverty, it is also a land that has made a leap to the cutting edge of high technology. The computer industry is supplied by a steady stream of incredibly smart and motivated people from India, many of which I've been proud to work with.

While Singapore has a harsh dictatorship, it is stable and high tech. Indonesia and the Phillipines have too many trouble.

Singapore's Asian-style strongman semi-democracy isn't what I would call open and free, but I wouldn't call it a dictatorship either.

Basically, I think you have a view of the world that is informed mainly by 30-second sound bites on CNN Headline News. Get out of the house once in a while. Talk to people who look different from you. Read a book or a newspaper. The rest of the world is a little more interesting and capable than you think -- and not all decisions about the future are made in the United States.

Good grief.
----

Here are more Internet resources on this topic:

Check out NASA's webpage about the mission:
Pluto-Kuiper Express Homepage

The Planetary Society is organizing a campaign to make sure the mission doesn't get cancelled:
Planeta ry Society News Release

Here are other news sites covering the story:
CNN Space
MSNBC
SpaceViews

And, of course, my own coverage at Universe Today.

Fraser Cain

Here's a list of all space news sites talking about this story. Compare and contrast the coverage.

And, of course, my own at Universe Today

About a year ago I found an even better picture of the space shuttle with all sorts of other American megacorporations, but I cannot seem to find that one again...

The more we find out about IO the more I'm sure that some primitive life exists there.

I'd say Europa is more likely, as it is the only other body in the solar system known to have liquid oceans.

Or actually, it's possible Callisto does, too.

It costs Iridium LLC $10Million dollars per month to keep the satellites whizzing around the Earth. According to stories like this one it is going to cost $30-50Million for them to even de-orbit the satellites.

Bottom line: Maintaining a constellation of satellites is VERY VERY VERY expensive. To think that a group of people could raise $10 million a month for basically useless satellites for a non-profit purpose is just pure insanity or idiocy, whichever you prefer.

Yeah...that probably IS the reason NASA doesn't want to crash Galileo on Europa...they fear retribution! I did a research paper on Europa not too long ago and I have some links about Europa if anyone is interested.

here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
and here!
sorry if this drags on...some links may not be that great.

• news.com
• spaceviews
• EETimes
• FiringSquad
• Ace's Hardware
• The Register

And if that post is worth Score:2 what is this post worth? Anyway, if this WAS a big story like the TPC stuff someone mentioned above that would be a newsworthy item (or a 2.4preXX release for that matter), but this isn't! This is another X-Box hype like trash! Why don't you post stuff about the Glaze3D Hemos if you really want vapourware and not-yet-maybe-never-out trash?

I did, however find: "Glenn Dropped From Shuttle Experiment"

The reports that China will launch a human into space in the immediate future -- the February 5 date being quoted by some sources -- is almost certainly wrong. China has a fleet of 3-4 ships (Yuan Wang) that would serve as tracking and ground stations for such a flight. (China, unlike the US, lacks a worldwide network of permanent ground stations or communications satellites that would serve that purpose.) Those ships were deployed worldwide in advance of the November launch of Shenzhou, a prototype of a Chinese manned spacecraft. Those ships have since returned to port in China and have not been redeployed, according to various sources.

China will likely attempt a manned launch as soon as the second half of this year, but claims of a February 5 manned launch should be treated very skeptically.

Jeff Foust
jeff@spaceviews.com

Chandra's first pictures appeared on the net about a week ago at NASA's news site

Actually, the first Chandra images (of supernova remnant Cassiopeia A and a distant quasar) were released to the public during a press conference August 26. Read the NASA press release from that day as well as a related article.

Artemis is not the only effort devoted to going to the Moon and making money, although their plan is arguably the boldest. Some other companies with lunar projects:

• LunaCorp has been working for several years on developing rovers to traverse the lunar surface, which could be controlled on Earth (by paying customers, of course). Originally they were planning a long journey across the Moon, visiting several Apollo and other landing sites, but their focus is now on a mission to the lunar poles to look for water ice believed to exist there. (LunaCorp's server appears to be offline at the present time, unfortunately.)
• Applied Space Resources (ASR) is working on a spacecraft mission to go to the Moon and return several kilograms of rock and soil samples to be sold on the open market. They believe they can accomplish their initial mission for a cost on the order of NASA's Lunar Prospector mission ($60-70 million).
• TransOrbital, which seems at least loosely affiliated with Artemis, is planning a spacecraft mission to go into lunar orbit and return high-resolution images and video to be sold.

These and some other commercial lunar projects were discussed at the first Commercial Lunar Base Symposium in Houston in July. This article has some more details about the conference. Those in the Los Angeles area might want to check out the Space Frontier Conference, Sept. 23-26, where commercial lunar efforts will be one of the topics.

Yes, and your statement is essentially correct. There is a band in the 1.6GHz range that is very popular for radio astronomy use, and the Iridium phones are transmitting right next to it. This adjacent signal can overwhelm the extremely sensitive receivers used in radio astronomy. They can't really filter Iridium out because the filter circuits reduce the sensitivity in the band they are interested in.

There have been some agreements between astronomers and satellite telephone providers; take a look here.


...phil

A 10% budget cut should not cause the loss of every space science program, period.

Nearly half of the cuts ($640 million of $1.3+ billion) are in NASA's space sciences programs, which account for only about $2 billion of its $13.6 billion budget before the cuts. With those kinds of cuts, a lot of missions will fall by the wayside, especially those missions still in the early planning stages (which can be cut with a minimum amount of money "wasted".) Anything planned for launch in the next couple of years, including the Mars 2001 missions, should be okay, but beyond that it looks grim.

Jeff Foust
jeff@spaceviews.com

It appears as if the article from SpaceViews was a little slanted.

Well, I don't write for AntiSpaceViews, you know. :-)

In reality do you really think all the programs will be cut that they say will be cut?

It's important to note that this is only the decision of a single subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. The decision still requires full committee approval as well as a floor vote by the whole House, not to mention the Senate version as well (which, of course, will be different than the House version, requiring a conference committee to hammer out the differences...)

However, the forces at work here that led to the House subcommittee's severe cuts are also at play in the Senate, namely the 1997 Clinton-Congress agreement on spending caps to cut the deficit. The deficit has been cut, but the agreement is in effect and neither side wants to be the first to openly want to break it. So you end up with the subcommittee cutting funding in the one place it could: NASA, specifically its space science projects (as opposed to the more politically sensitive shuttle and station efforts.) It's a more politically-expedient move on the committee's part than cutting, say, veterans affairs.

It's possible that Congress will eventually break the caps and return money to NASA. Or, it may approve "emergency" funding that doesn't count towards the spending caps for NASA. (The House approved such emergency funds to conduct the 2000 Census... as if this suddenly came up and didn't take place every 10 years! :-) A final decision liekly won't be made until after the August recess.

The article from SpaceViews claims that we got so much surplus that we don't even know what to do with it!

No, that wasn't my intent, and I apologize if it could be misconstrued that way. The point was that additional spending cuts are being made in the name of deficit reduction, even though the deficit has become a surplus (depending on your accounting methods, a discussion I won't get into here.)

Jeff Foust
jeff@spaceviews.com