Slashdot Mirror


Monster European Environmental Satellite

andygood writes: "Spaceflight Now has this article about the 'Mother of All Earth Observation Satellites' which will be launched by Europe in early 2002. This thing is the size of a juggernaut and 'every hour will gather as much data as can be stored on a dozen PC hard disks'. 'ENVISAT' (ENVIronmental SATellite) has been in the works for almost fourteen years with a price tag of 2.3 billion (Euro)."

252 comments

  1. Ouroboros Satellite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we have a satellite the size of Juggernaut, the Worm Ouroborous, or the walls of Gormenghast Castle, we can have verify any of this from above.

  2. at first glance... by thelaw · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    when i first saw the picture, i thought it was a giant football field with goalposts and everything... good thing they have sense.

    now, what i want to know is, if it's SO good at monitoring ice flows and mud slides, can it monitor THE BLOB?!?!?!?!?

    -j

    --
    -- http://www.cerastes.org
    1. Re:at first glance... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      "when i first saw the picture, i thought it was a giant football field with goalposts and everything"

      Were you looking at a different picture? Or are you just an idiot?

    2. Re:at first glance... by thelaw · · Score: 1

      obviously the latter...

      perhaps i should have said "upside-down football field."

      --
      -- http://www.cerastes.org
    3. Re:at first glance... by thelaw · · Score: 1

      hey moderators - mod this up. it's hilarious.

      -j

      --
      -- http://www.cerastes.org
    4. Re:at first glance... by trolley · · Score: 0

      You don't seem to realize how the Liberal media has dumbed down public education. That's why all these slashdotters are re-tarded.

  3. Any bets? by El_Nofx · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I give it a 1 in 4 chance of either flying right into a mountain on take off, the rocket not taking off at all or it not reaching the correct orbit. Not to be a pessamist but it seems like every other launch lately does one something wrong.

    --
    It's not the OS it's the user that sucks. If it's user friendly, you get stupider people. - clinko
    1. Re:Any bets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're thinking of American launches. Ariane is European and therefore significantly better.

    2. Re:Any bets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, we have the French to thank for providing a launch location far from a bunch of diaper wearing old people in Florida.

  4. Re:Does it use Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it uses Molson, and you can only sniff it.

  5. I wonder... by s390 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    how much data the European Space Agency thinks can be stored on a "PC Hard Disk" nowadays... 1 GB, 10 GB, 100 GB? They're a little short on meaningful statistics. But it's a press release - the only time the press does math is when one of them gets stuck with the bar tab and figures out a tip.

    It would also be interesting to hear what storage technology they're using. Surely they're not flying a Terabyte RAID5 array (what with launch vibration, etc.). More likely dense and hardened DRAM (and lots of it), I'd guess. It almost makes me want to go read the article to find this out.

    1. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you have preferred we use the archaic CmdrTaco method of evaluating size:

      "The satellite will collect as much data as 1 280 hours of OGG encoded VBR music each day it orbits Holland (Michigan, not Heinekin)."

    2. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They prolly just beam the data back to earth, where its recorded by scientists? :)

    3. Re:I wonder... by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 2

      I think solar radiation would be even more of a concern than launch vibration. Like the other poster said, it'll probably be broadcast and recorded by terrestrial scientists.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    4. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      What the hell is "the size of
      a juggernaut" I didn't think that a juggernaut had any meaning related to size, more a matter of relentlessness.

      juggernaut (jgr-nôt)
      n.
      Something, such as a belief or institution, that elicits blind and destructive devotion or to which people are ruthlessly sacrificed.
      An overwhelming, advancing force that crushes or seems to crush everything in its path: "It doesn't assume that people need necessarily remain passive when confronted by what appears to be the juggernaut of history" (Christopher Lehmann-Haupt). Juggernaut Used as a title for the Hindu deity Krishna.

    5. Re:I wonder... by deglr6328 · · Score: 4, Informative

      says here that:

      "The on-board recording system is composed of two solid state recorders (SSR) with 70 Gbits capacity each, and one tape recorder (TR), 30 Gbits capacity as back up for low rate data recording."

      It's about halfway down the page.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    6. Re:I wonder... by Capsaicin · · Score: 1
      I didn't think that a juggernaut had any meaning related to size

      Juggernaut is also used to describe really big trucks ... The original Jagannath, was a large idol of Krshna which was schleppt around Puri in on a big cart, big enough at least for devotees to be able to throw themselves under its wheels. Hence the 'blind devotion' meaning.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    7. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heineken is not a country and neither is Holland...

    8. Re:I wonder... by secolactico · · Score: 1

      Uh? Isn't Holland == The Netherlands??? If it isn't then I've been living a lie...

      --
      No sig
    9. Re:I wonder... by Jeffv323 · · Score: 1

      Hmm.. I wonder how they get up there to switch the tapes out....

      --
      I'm a minister!
    10. Re:I wonder... by squaretorus · · Score: 2

      how much data the European Space Agency thinks can be stored on a "PC Hard Disk" nowadays...

      Just be glad they didn't say:

      "Enough data to fill the Encyclopedia Brittanica 100 times over"

      "If the data were printed out on A4 paper the stack would be higher than Everest - every hour!"

      or other eighties versions of 'shitloads of data'

    11. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > ?It doesn't assume that people need necessarily
      > remain passive when confronted by what appears to
      > be the juggernaut of history? (Christopher
      > Lehmann-Haupt)

      Cartman, what the hell is that?

    12. Re:I wonder... by rnbc · · Score: 1

      FYI, about 6GBits per hour, IIRC :-)

      (or About 1GB for us, used to thinking in bytes)

      --
      You cannot proceed from the informal to formal by formal means
  6. Its Just Another Big Spy Satellite by Raven42rac · · Score: 0

    Is it me, or is the technology revolution slowly, but ever so surely raping our rights away from us, first the DMCA, then our government is going to tap attorney and clients phone conversations, and the launching of huge satellites such as these designed to watch our every move, its like a book i read 1984, hell we are even developing newspeak, and we just formed the miniluv, headed by Tommy Ridge, this nation is slowly sinking into a police state, and i for one cannot stand it any longer. I realize the need for security, but at what cost come security. For "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" Benjamin Franklin

    --
    I hate sigs.
    1. Re:Its Just Another Big Spy Satellite by Reikk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Blah blah blah. If you can't stand it any longer, do something about. Lobby the government, run for president, organize a protest, start a revolution, whatever.

      Whining on slashdot isn't going to help

    2. Re:Its Just Another Big Spy Satellite by toupsie · · Score: 5, Funny
      Maybe they take some of the tin foil they use to wrap around the satellite and make a new hat for you.

      And yes, we are all watching you! Its all about you. You are so amazingly interesting that we, as taxpayers, are funding programs and supporting political leaders that focus in on your every move.

      INSOC Forever!

      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    3. Re:Its Just Another Big Spy Satellite by HarrisonSilp · · Score: 1
      ... its like a book i read 1984, ...

      Sorry, but I can't help snickering at that.... It's like saying, "it reminds me of this website I frequent, slashdot.... you heard of it?"

    4. Re:Its Just Another Big Spy Satellite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No... only the US wastes its money on spy satellites, the rest of the world has better things to do

    5. Re:Its Just Another Big Spy Satellite by betis70 · · Score: 1

      >>only the US wastes its money on spy satellites, the rest of the world has better things to do

      Yeah whine to the US when they need help pulling their butts out of the fire and then whine ABOUT the US pulling their butts out of the fire.
      ..

      --
      I forget...are we at war with Eurasia or East Asia?
  7. A dozen hard disks by charon_on_acheron · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Sounds like a little too much hype. The article and write up say the thing collects enough info every hour to fill a dozen hard drives. But what size hard drives? The project started in 1988, so are we using 1988 hard drives? That should be about 50MB each, so a dozen totals a whopping 600MB of data. Wow.

    1. Re:A dozen hard disks by Computer+suck! · · Score: 0

      it does say send its sends gigabytes of data to ESA's ground station, so I'm guessing pritty new ones.

      What I want to know is how are they going to fly all the hard drives up & down each hour?

  8. Say what you want.. by supagoat · · Score: 0, Redundant

    But it's still looks like a bunch of aluminum foil and bowls put together by some second grader. I can't believe nasa put the brakes on the X11... We need a better way to get stuff into space! I want death star!

  9. Re:Wow!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We would run out of space.

  10. Hmm by NMerriam · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Y'know, if we got all these satellite guys together, the ones in the previous story could have helped the EU save a few billion by using parts from Radio Shack...

    --
    Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
  11. Are there FBI agents under every bed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Used to be commies, now there is a new frontier of international phobia. Better rip out those tooth fillings, the Sky Juggernaut will be able to read your mind through them. And by all means, for gods sake, get rid of that TV!

  12. Yes.... by BrianGa · · Score: 1

    Scary, yet extremely neat.

  13. Re:European Space Program is Better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least we make UTILE satellites. Not millions of dangerous military crap only usefull for take money from the goverment into private pockets...

  14. Fill a Dozen Hard Disks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "The article and write up say the thing collects enough info every hour to fill a dozen hard drives"


    The same can be accomplished by 8 college students using Gnutella every night.

    1. Re:Fill a Dozen Hard Disks by Computer+suck! · · Score: 0

      you need 8 college students to do that... wow, thats bad, you need to try much harder...

    2. Re:Fill a Dozen Hard Disks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it depends. Any chump can find a terabyte of boring pr0n to download. Maybe they're fine connoisseurs of a good, wet lesbian French kiss, which are much harder to find...

  15. Damn, that's cheap! by Pyromage · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now, I don't know the dollars->euro exchange rate, but whatever it is, that is still amazingly cheap for a satalite of that caliber. Contrast with hubble: the cost of that was in the trillions; an order of magnitude higher.

    Why can't NASA accomplish anything like this?

    1. Re:Damn, that's cheap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Euro approx 0.85 dollars. (It began at equal parity)

    2. Re:Damn, that's cheap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you could use this. A trillion is a a bigger number than you may realize. http://www.kokogiak.com/megapenny/default.asp "NASA has spent $3.8 billion on the Hubble program, including the cost of this shuttle mission, since the late 1970s. " cnn

    3. Re:Damn, that's cheap! by ender1598 · · Score: 1

      According to www.xe.com 2.3 billion Euros is equal to about 2.02 billion US dollars.

      --
      There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those that understand binary and those that do not.
    4. Re:Damn, that's cheap! by Erik+Hensema · · Score: 2

      You're probably confused. In most of Europe the quantity 'billion' or whatever it may be in some other language (biljoen in Dutch) is 10e12. In the USA a billion is 10e9. Similary, a trilion is 10e15 in Europe and 10e12 in the USA.

      10e9 is 'miljard' in Dutch (and sounds similar in most European languages, AFAIK).

      --

      This is your sig. There are thousands more, but this one is yours.

    5. Re:Damn, that's cheap! by ozbon · · Score: 1

      Is there such a thing as unequal parity? Sounds like a tautology to me...

      --
      I say we take off and nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...
    6. Re:Damn, that's cheap! by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 2

      No. That was the case 30 years ago- but the american usage has been universally adopted since then, atleast in all papers, government announcements and everyday usage; and the dictionaries indicate that also.

      In UK, europe:

      1 billion = 1e9
      1 trillion = 1e12

      Europe wouldn't make a satellite that cost 2e12 dollars!

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    7. Re:Damn, that's cheap! by alext · · Score: 1

      But, exasperated by constant confusion in the financial pages, the UK fell in with American practice, so now it's 10e9 in current usage.

      There's a similar problem with DDMMYY dates, but in this case we're sticking with the continentals. I think.

    8. Re:Damn, that's cheap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Is there such a thing as unequal parity?

      Yes, when the parity doesn't align with the parity bit, you know something's up.

    9. Re:Damn, that's cheap! by Bobo+the+Space+Chimp · · Score: 1

      I was in Europe watching when the BBC officially threw in the towel on the billion issue. Around 1991, John Major had been blabbing, using the US "billion" for some months, when the BBC just started using it that way, too. Oh, sometimes they slipped back into the x thousand millions speak, but they were using US-style billion.

      10 years ago, give it up, peeps. That trivia bit is now expired. Move along, nothing to see here. Move along.

      --
      I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
    10. Re:Damn, that's cheap! by WoOS · · Score: 2, Informative

      No. That was the case 30 years ago- but the american usage has been universally adopted since then, atleast in all papers, government announcements and everyday usage; and the dictionaries indicate that also.

      It's somewhat OT, but the american use of billion has not been adopted universially. Maybe in the english speaking countries but at least in Germany it's still the good old: Million (10e6) - Milliarde (10e9) - Billion (10e12) - Billiarde (10e15) - Trillion (10e18) - ... . This way you get much more bang for your -uhm- billion ;-)
      I guess that's what Erik meant.

    11. Re:Damn, that's cheap! by gorilla · · Score: 2

      Because NASA isn't the business of launching satellites, it's in the business of writing huge reports about how to launch satellites.

  16. The Europeans have tried this before. by Kinetic+Kit · · Score: 0, Troll

    That is, build the biggest "something" then launch it during the early part of the year. It was called the Titanic. Here's hoping there are no icebergs on the way up.

    --


    Can what is formed say to that who formed it, "Why have you made me thus?"
    1. Re:The Europeans have tried this before. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah and you americans built these big twin towers, similar thing happened there :)

    2. Re:The Europeans have tried this before. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > yeah and you americans built these big twin
      > towers, similar thing happened there :)

      Isn't :) it :) cool :) to :) watch :) a :) building :) with :) 4000+ :) people :) in :) it :) collaps :) and :) kill :) them :) all :) ? :) :D =-)

      Ass.

    3. Re:The Europeans have tried this before. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is cool. But it isn't funny.

  17. Re:Size of a Juggernaut by grammar+nazi · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    I don't remember the Behemoth from Magic the Gathering. Was it less powerful than the Leviation (10/10 Trample), but more powerful than the Juggernaut (5/3 First Attack)?

    Please clue me in!

    This Juggernaut will be unstoppable since it will orbit above the atmosphere, thus avoiding lightning bolts and their 3 points of damage.

    --

    Keeping /. free of grammatical errors for ~5 years.
  18. Umm, okay. by Man+of+E · · Score: 1
    So it turns out I am not an Environmental Engineer. This article just tells me that ESA is building a gigantic satellite, at a cost of 2.3 billion Euro. Then it lists some benefits:

    we want to retain an overview, for example, of ocean water quality, of greenhouse gases or temperature distribution in the atmosphere, and to be able to establish the extent to which tropical forests are being cut down
    I see statistics about this every day in the newspaper. Clearly, we can measure all these things from the ground - what does a satellite give us? Is it just there for the global view?

    SCIAMACHY shows the consequences of forest fires, industrial emissions, arctic haze, dust storms and volcanic eruptions.
    Whatever gases get released into the atmosphere, stay in the atmosphere. Big news.

    Once their presence is identified from space, poisonous algae can be prevented from spreading
    Help me understand why anyone cares enough about poisonous algae to send a satellite into space.

    So in order to get some answers, I went to the satellite's web page and found myself overwhelmed by the amount of incomprehensible information. The page is basically a sales portal for scientists who want to buy the data, but doesn't give any information comprehensible to a little layman like me.

    So, does anyone have a good source that will explain to me why I should care one snippet about this satellite, and not think that ESA just blew E2.3 billion on the world's biggest piece of space debris?

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une sig
    1. Re:Umm, okay. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And... please tell me, what is ISS for?
      You may think toxic algae is a silly thing to follow, but ALL the fishing in the world depends on it.
      I think its munch more better used money than in miltary trash.At least you know how this machine will be used.

    2. Re:Umm, okay. by ZPO · · Score: 1

      I'm still trying to decipher the doublespeak on the web page myself. In general the first question that comes to mind;

      If the citizens of Europe paid for this thing with their tax dollars then tell me again why they are paying for the data it gathers? Seems like they already own it to me.

      Is it going to have some downlinks in a format the a research institute without a 2M (euro or dollar) groundstation can copy directly from the bird?

      I'm just an amateur, but I've copied downlinks from the NOAA polar orbiters and talked to astronauts on the ISS with gear I put together out of spare parts in my office/shack/rats nest. Downloading data from an FTP server (even if it's free) just doesn't instill that sense of wonder that will excite the kids and create the next generation of scientists.

    3. Re:Umm, okay. by iso · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I've noticed that responses like this one have become very popular on slashdot recently. I can't think of a single word or soundbite to describe it, but it's something along the lines of "I have absolutely no knowledge of the subject at hand yet I feel qualified enough to state that it is of no value to anyone."

      We simply must come up with a catchy phrase to describe this kind of response. "Ignoramus" and "slashbot" are both too vague, and while "Troll" is probably the closest term, it doesn't capture the nuances of this common response. Any takers?

      - j

    4. Re:Umm, okay. by Warloch · · Score: 1
      From looking at the insturments descriptions from the satellite's web page there seem to be two or three groups of intsturments.

      1. Spectrometers - These are good for checking atmospheric content and content of the surface below. This is useful to see how much ozone is where, or if there is a lot of chemical x in the ocean, ground, or atmosphere. There is also a radar there to measure the water vapor in the atmosphere. This is useful to metorologists.

      2. Mapping - The SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar) can make 3-d topographic maps of the earth.

      3. Support - There is a laser altimeter and Radio Alitmeter used for ranging to further enhance the measurements from the first two categories.

    5. Re:Umm, okay. by Rasta+Prefect · · Score: 3, Informative

      we want to retain an overview, for example, of ocean water quality, of greenhouse gases or temperature distribution in the atmosphere, and to be able to establish the extent to which tropical forests are being cut down

      I see statistics about this every day in the newspaper. Clearly, we can measure all these things from the ground - what does a satellite give us? Is it just there for the global view?


      Actually, most of these things are already gathered from satellites in one form or another. This satellite gives more extensive, detailed data that many of the others that are already in existence. Nothing extremely groundbreaking but serious improvements in a number of areas.

      Whatever gases get released into the atmosphere, stay in the atmosphere. Big news.

      Actually, no, this is just plain wrong. Gases and materials are continually being added and removed from our atmosphere. Oxygen is removed by animal life and combustion. Carbon Dioxide is removed by plant life and the oceans, as well as various geological processes. Various emissions created by industrial processes are removed by rain (I.E, acid rain). CFC's work their way up into the upper atmosphere over time and destroy Ozone. Our understanding of all of these processes is incomplete. So we need more detailed data. This satellite gathers that data.

      Once their presence is identified from space, poisonous algae can be prevented from spreading

      Help me understand why anyone cares enough about poisonous algae to send a satellite into space.


      Hmmm. Gee, I can't imagine why anyone would care about huge masses of poisonous algae. It kills of fish, it kills off other aquatic life. It affects fishing, which for many people is an extremely important source of food. It effects the chemical composition the ocean, and in turn how the ocean interacts with the atmosphere.

      So in order to get some answers, I went to the satellite's web page [esa.int] and found myself overwhelmed by the amount of incomprehensible information. The page is basically a sales portal for scientists who want to buy the data, but doesn't give any information comprehensible to a little layman like me.

      Incomprehensible? To you maybe. If you really want to know go do a little research on google for some of the topics mentioned in the article. Yes, the site you linked to is in fact designed for scientists. Why should everything be spoon fed to your level of ignorance? If you want to know, go educate yourself.

      So, does anyone have a good source that will explain to me why I should care one snippet about this satellite, and not think that ESA just blew E2.3 billion on the world's biggest piece of space debris?

      Yes, now that you mention it Micheal kindly provided a link to it at the top of the page. This satellite is exceptional only in it's size. If you can't logically reason out why those sorts of data might be useful, well google is your friend.

      --
      Why?
    6. Re:Umm, okay. by trolley · · Score: 1

      "Sophomoric" is the word you're looking for, but most moderators would think it referred to high school. From the OED: sophomoric: Of or pertaining to, befitting or resembling, characteristic of, a sophomore; hence, pretentious, bombastic, inflated in style or manner; immature, crude, superficial. "Pretentious" and "pedantic" would be good, too.

    7. Re:Umm, okay. by trolley · · Score: 0

      We've got michael and timothy doing quite enough of that as it is!

    8. Re:Umm, okay. by el_mizmo · · Score: 1

      I see statistics about this every day in the newspaper. Clearly, we can measure all these things from the ground - what does a satellite give us? Is it just there for the global view?

      JUST global view ? Think about the huge advantage this gives compared to ground-based measurements. How many stations exist in the (ant-)arctic regions or on the oceans or in Africa ?

      --
      -- ?
    9. Re:Umm, okay. by el_mizmo · · Score: 1

      Is it going to have some downlinks in a format the a research institute without a 2M (euro or dollar) groundstation can copy directly from the bird?
      Yes, if you can cope with the amount of data, it is possible. If I'm right, there will be also be a subset of the data in BUFFR format.

      --
      -- ?
    10. Re:Umm, okay. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Most of the users will get the data for free, that's how ESA work. Comercial users pay for it (and cheap it ain't). And as to how much data it creates, well, I work at a distribution centre for Envisat; we only supply 1/3 of the data and 320 terabytes of online storage gives us 9 months worth of data. Users can order the data they want in the format they want (CR, tape, FTP). You could download directly from the bird, but you'd need some impressive kit (which we have), the bandwidth is HUGE.

    11. Re:Umm, okay. by iso · · Score: 2

      I don't think "pretentious" and "pedantic" are a good fit as while they're close, they don't specifically relate to the assumption that one knows everything. "Sophomoric" on the other hand is perfect. I completely forgot about that word! The OED definition is good, but Merriam-Webster's really shows how it relates to many recent slashdot posts:

      sophomoric, adj, 1 : conceited and overconfident of knowledge but poorly informed and immature ...

      I vote for a new moderation category: (-1, Sophomoric).

      - j

  19. Re:Nothing good ever came from europe, really! by Computer+suck! · · Score: 0

    Computers came from Europe (England).
    as did demorcosy (Greece)
    and keyless encryption (England again, ok she hid it under her pillow but thats not the point[1])
    ...

  20. Useful Military by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More like useful military satellites necessary for defense (the result of money taken from private pockets by the govenment... and put into space)

  21. Re:European Space Program is Better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Europeans can't even launch a man into orbit without the help of the Americans or Russians. Weak-ass Eurotrash.

  22. Juggernaut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Umm could someone tell me how big a juggernaut is?

    1. Re:Juggernaut? by CoffeeJedi · · Score: 1

      In the old comics, Juggernaught was the size of a bus (from the front), in the new cartoon series, he's much smaller, with skinnier legs, he can still throw Wolverine around pretty good though. (wasn't he Proffessor X's wimply little brother until he found some ancient egyptian jewel that was like, magical steroids or something?)

      --
      May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage. RAmen.
  23. Titanic in Space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Plenty of icebergs up there. You might know of a famous one called Halley....

  24. Re:European Space Program is Better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    How did you find out about the Mars colony?

  25. Cost of the HST by DAldredge · · Score: 3, Informative


    (HST), the first large orbital optical observatory. Built from 1978 to 1990 at a cost of $1.5 billion

    HST Programs & STS-82 Costs
    Servicing Mission Costs - HST
    NICMOS 105
    STIS 125
    GS 8
    Other Flight Hardware 35
    Simulators/Testing 46
    Ops/Software Development 28

    Total 347 Million

    Servicing Mission Costs - Shuttle
    Nominal Shuttle Flight Costs
    448 Million

    All the above are in USD

    Source - http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact _sheets/spacesci/hst-cost.htm

  26. Re:Size of a Juggernaut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've found 3 sizes of Juggernaut, other than this stuff from Magic the Gathering. One definition has a Juggernaut being the size of a truck. The X-Men's Juggernaut is the size of Hulk Hogan. Yet another definition equates it to Krishna, a sort of man-sized smurfcolored dude.

  27. Launch it for the CHILDREN! by Tsar · · Score: 1

    As someone else pointed out, this is a pretty touchy-feely press release, and it makes this Juggernaut of a satellite sound like one of Brautigan's "machines of loving grace." Everyone should be happy except for the "bad" algae, eh?

    The hyperbole surrounding its data gathering rate (a dozen PC hard disks per day? Whoa! Any particular PC?) seems to lay groundwork for justifying not releasing received data until it has been 'reduced' to datasets fit for public consumption, and flawed or unexpected data has been filtered out. I'd assume pretty rapid turnaround of at least some of the data, though, if they're going to be predicting avalanches and mudslides worldwide.

    Is my paranoia showing? Would you tell me if it were?

    1. Re:Launch it for the CHILDREN! by trolley · · Score: 0

      Are you some kind of goddamn communitarian? It's an anagram for PINKO FUCKING COMMIE! Just like the freshman Senator from New York and her "It takes a village!" Yeah, it takes a village to cover up Vince Foster's death and launder cattle-futures! It takes a village to fire the travel office staff and free the FALN terrorists! And she wondered why the AMERICAN HEROES, the NYPD and the FDNY booed her at Yankee stadium? The same person who was smooching Suha Arafat like they're best buddies? That woman has no goddamned soul whatsoever. Communitarian is just a codeword for corporatist. She'd sell us out to the IMF, the WTO and their Bilderberger buddies. And don't think miss "I've been a Yankee fan my whole life" won't run for Pres in 2004. The only driving force behind that witch is overwhelming ambition, and once she's in charge, nothing, but nothing will stop her.

  28. Re:European Space Program is Better by Computer+suck! · · Score: 0

    as was not aware the states have done any of that ;-)

    ok, so were behind, but atlest were doing something...

  29. Re:Nothing good ever came from europe, really! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Big Macs and Julia Roberts came from America.

  30. Spy capabilities by 3Suns · · Score: 1

    Let's see... a dozen "hard disks" of data per hour might be 100-150 GB of data on an extremely conservative estimate.

    This is a LOT of data. More data than (I would think at least) would be useful for environmental monitoring. Especially taking bandwidth into consideration for transmitting all or some of this data back to earth.

    I'm sure the designers have scientific uses in mind, but I'm wondering how powerful the spy capabilities of this beast would be... imagine how closely, for example, you could look on a 150 GB jpeg of the earth. (I know this figure doesn't apply to the jpeg images, but it's still the same order of magnitude of data resolution). And it supposedly takes 3 days of such data collection to make a map of the earth, so it's like an 11 terabyte map of the earth. I also wonder who is getting access to the information collected by it!

    -3Suns

    ~~~~
    The Revolution will be Slashdotted.

    --

    -3Suns

    ~~~~
    The Revolution will be Slashdotted
    1. Re:Spy capabilities by Spinality · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that watching tanks and license plates for intelligence purposes is more complex and data-intensive than (say) analyzing hurricanes and ocean current flow? We indeed have a long tradition of lofting satellites for military and intelligence purposes. But in the satellite game, I can think of more cases of scientists justifying their interesting legit experiments by making them sound like they have military applications, than I can of intelligence satellites masquerading as scientific platforms. (I recall a particularly nice astrophysics platform in the 70's that was justified as a way to detect nuclear explosions on the back of the moon. It was total bullshit: Nobody really cared about nuclear explosions on the back of the moon, except as a funding mechanism for pure physics. It provided some great gamma ray data.)

      We love conspiracy theories, but I'm not especially concerned about a pan-European military-industrial complex that may be lofting secret spy satellites. Besides, they can already do that without pretending, in this day of 'global reach terrorism.'

      --
      -- We all have enough strength to endure the misfortunes of other people. La Rochefoucauld
    2. Re:Spy capabilities by 3Suns · · Score: 1
      Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is being secretly developed as a spy satellite. I also understand the necessity of fine precision in spaceborne environmental study.

      All I'm saying is that at some t in the future we might have to take a look at the powers that be during t and wonder if they are using the "largest and most advanced Earth observation satellite ever built" to spy on people.

      I also might have misread the article, I still can't tell. Does
      Early in 2002 an Ariane 5 rocket will launch the largest and most advanced Earth observation satellite ever built in Europe from the European Spaceport at Kourou in French Guiana.

      mean it's the most advanced one ever or just of those built in Europe?

      Presumably if there are larger and more advanced ones launched by America/others, it would make more sense to worry about those, unless Europe turns into a police state.

      -3Suns

      ~~~~
      The Revolution will be Slashdotted
      --

      -3Suns

      ~~~~
      The Revolution will be Slashdotted
    3. Re:Spy capabilities by Ninja_Gaiden_III_cut · · Score: 1

      We know how governments love to spy anything, include the internet we're using.
      Please don't forget this SAT was endorsed by European governments ;)

    4. Re:Spy capabilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      First, JPEG is lossy - not good for scientific purposes.

      Also, 150GB isn't all that much for environmental data of the entire globe, probably down to the square mile. The Earth has ~200 million square miles of surface area. That leaves about 750KB of data per square mile. Let's round this up to a Megabyte.

      Monitoring environmental data also isn't just about taking pictures of cloud conditions. There are several types of imagery that they might record: weather patterns, air temperature, sea temperature, ozone levels, etc.

      If you can fit a square mile of this kind of information into a megabyte, I'd be very, very impressed. Oh, wait - make that 750K.

    5. Re:Spy capabilities by Spruitje · · Score: 2


      We know how governments love to spy anything, include the internet we're using.
      Please don't forget this SAT was endorsed by European governments ;)


      Which doesn't spent a dime on spying.
      Why should they.
      The biggest difference between the US and the EC is that we don't waste as much money on the military as the US.
      Healthcare, education and work are more important than wasting money on military crap.

    6. Re:Spy capabilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if may day in london did not qualify as police state type of action what does ?

    7. Re:Spy capabilities by TA · · Score: 1

      1) This satellite does not have enough resolution on any of the instruments (including the SAR) to serve as a spy satellite, in any sense of the word. There are lots of satellites out there that are "better" in this respect.

      2) It is the most advanced environmental satellite "everywhere", not only most advanced European satellite. In fact nothing like this will be built again, it's just too huge and expensive and there are too many eggs in one basket. It is how far anyone will go out on that particular limb, in the future smaller, cheaper and more specialised/limited satellites will be used.

      TA

      (Disclaimer: I work with the ground segment (that is, the acquisition and processing) of this satellite.

    8. Re:Spy capabilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      License plates, other bullshit.

      What I wanna know is can it discern the araeolar wrinklage on the beaches of Europe.

    9. Re:Spy capabilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see, very roughly, using 1 meg per square mile, you'r roughly get a 3-1 non-lossy compressed 1024x1024 picture at 24 bits/pixel.

      At 5280 feet per mile, you're roughly 5 feet per pixel resolution.

      So, no, you couldn't discern the nipples and kooter of Posh Spice, Jennifer Aniston, or Liz Hurley.

    10. Re:Spy capabilities by farnham · · Score: 1

      Clearly the instruments on the bird are not only optical. Of course if you were getting this kind of data rate on a camera it might be taking high resoloutin images. Let's look at what's flying.

      Spectrophotometers. Um, not going to read the paper over your shoulder with one. _Might_ catch the gas flowing out of your bedroom though.

      Radars. Could see objects, make accurate maps, but I swear the militaries of the world have better hardware. Plus this thing is orbiting. makes tracking discrete targets a pain.

      Remember this is scientific data on a planetary scale. It needs gobs of data to get to truth. It's not some guy looking at a kmart thermometer and deciding that it's a cold winter this year so global warming is false. I takes a lot of data to beat back the money coming at our politicians from oil companies. Even if they weren't bought and paid for before the election.

      Other have posted accurately about how much data is required. Hell, if you want to spy on something just call up space imaging. They'll do a better job for ya.

      --
      pending committee review
  31. well, it's the Europeans... by AntonVoyl · · Score: 0, Troll
    ... so I guess the name "ENVYSAT" makes sense.

    Are Americans supposed to envy this "juggernaut" or is it the product of somebody covetingly looking at somebody else's manned space program?


    I kid because I love... the acronym for the American missile shield will probably be just a couple of letters away from spelling "arrogance". It's all very unfortunate...

    --

    sig semper tyrannis!
  32. don't use Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google is second rate; logically incapable of an exact phrase search.

    1. Re:don't use Google by reflector · · Score: 1

      Google is second rate; logically incapable of an exact phrase search.

      If google is second rate, what is first rate?

    2. Re:don't use Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "try using quotes next time"

    3. Re:don't use Google by Godwin+O'Hitler · · Score: 1
      --
      No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
  33. SCIAMACHY by dackroyd · · Score: 1, Troll
    The Germans are particularly proud of SCIAMACHY on board Envisat: the SCanning and Imaging Absorption spectroMeter for Atmospheric CartograpHY.

    Only the Germans would come up with an acronym of nine letters. And it looks liks they'll be the only people able to pronounce it ;)

    Ski-A-Marquis ?

    --
    "Free software as in beer, copy protection as in racket" - Telsa Gwynne
    1. Re:SCIAMACHY by trolley · · Score: 0

      No, that'd be "Itbah al Yahud."

    2. Re:SCIAMACHY by Talaran · · Score: 1

      Basically ... Ski-A-Macky

    3. Re:SCIAMACHY by mykdavies · · Score: 1

      And why not SIASAC?
      The only dictionary reference I can find to a word sciamachy defines it as an alternative spelling for sciomachy, which means "A fighting with a shadow; a mock contest; an imaginary or futile combat."

      --
      The world has changed and we all have become metal men.
    4. Re:SCIAMACHY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it is easy to pronounce,
      See R(R without the rrrr at the end)m(like at the beginning of a word) R(R without the rrrr at the end) "ch"(like the voice of the aliens in Movies called ALIEN) E

      SeeR ...short pause... mRchE

      speak See of SeeR loud and speak R of mRchE loud

      U see it is very simple.

      btw.: I am german.

  34. Will this be available to the public? by ChristianBeliever346 · · Score: 1

    Will all the information that this is collecting be available to the public through a website? I'm sure many Universities and public schools would love to have this information and I am sure a lot of the general public would be interested as well.

    1. Re:Will this be available to the public? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're looking at it.

      Props to JC ! Keeping it real with the kind bud.

  35. Likely Outcome by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Satellite: Transmits data showing clear signs of changes in earth's environment


    Scientists: Analyze data


    Special Interest Lobbyists: Point out that at least one scientist somewhere thinks that the changes may not be due to human activity


    Politicians: Heeding lobbyists, maintain status quo


    Net Results: Nothing

    1. Re:Likely Outcome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The earths climate is changing, just as it has for as long as we can tell. Human activity has had only a minor effect on the climate. Look at the trends over the last 500 or 1000 years.

      Or you could just be a sheep.

    2. Re:Likely Outcome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it is a commonly accepted fact that there is no statement or position so wild and outrageous that there are not at least ten professors willing to stand behind it.

    3. Re:Likely Outcome by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 1

      s/politicians/US politicians/g

      Thank you.

    4. Re:Likely Outcome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you are a very pesimistic person

      By the way, are you a (north, but not completely north) american? Are you being jealous?

      Those heeding lobbyists will probably be american to, trying to walk out of kyoto etc.

    5. Re:Likely Outcome by O2n · · Score: 1

      Satellite:Transmits data showing clear signs of changes in earth's environment, or just tons and tons of bullshit.

      Echelon:Analyze data. Due to the high rate, it stops intercepting anything else.

      Special Interest Lobbyists: Point out that at least one scientist somewhere thinks that the changes may not be due to human activity

      Politicians: Heeding lobbyists, maintain status quo by financing a better Echelon and a better StarWars defense system

      Net Results: Nothing, but much more expensive.

    6. Re:Likely Outcome by SPrintF · · Score: 1
      From the article:

      Michael Rast... calls Envisat "our Cassandra in Space".

      And, as we all recall from the Illiad, Cassandra's curse was to not be believed.

      --

      Honesty. Loyalty. Kindness. Laughter. Generosity. Magic!

    7. Re:Likely Outcome by OldAndSlow · · Score: 0

      I think you are expecting the Europeans to behave like Americans.

      In the case of NASA, there was a plan to have huge (school bus size) satellites with 18 (or 23, I've forgotten) instruments on them. The reason for having so many instruments on one bird was to gather sychronous (some time, same place) data, making corelations much easier to establish, and allowing bettter science.
      Unfortunately, from '92 to '94 the budget got cut from $15 billion to (IIRC) $4 billion. This is when NASA's PR flacks started the "smaller is better" campaign.
      I always suspected that the budget was cut to keep the project from discovering anything that would support the hypothesis that human activity is causing global warming. Keep the project alive but crippled so the pols can say "We need better science," and the project isn't capable of doing better science.

      Satellite: Shows possibility to discover clear signs of changes in earth's environment.

      Politicians: Knowing who their contributors are, guts sattelite project.

      Net Results: Nothing

      It is sad to see NASA give up its palce as the premier place for space science. I'm glad the ESA is taking up the slack.

      PS The NASA project soldiers on. See http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/

    8. Re:Likely Outcome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously ave never been outside the US before.

  36. and that's not all by hackman · · Score: 2

    It can see which newspaper you're reading when you are sitting on the toilet. It can examine the contents of your hard drive from miles out in space, and re-arrange your files so you can't find anything. Oh yeah, and it can shoot down nuclear warheads and probably play a mean game of CS.

    I've never heard of so many diverse sensors placed in the same package, it seems somewhat ridiculous at first glance. I'm sure there is a scientific reason for it, but launching that big boy isn't going to be easy I'm sure.

    --
    __ No registration required to read this message. They did it in the Matrix.
    1. Re:and that's not all by Talaran · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that you put so many sensors on the same satellite so that you can acquire data from multiple instruments at the same time. Then you can combine the data to extract interesting information that you couldn't get from a single instrument.

      Of course, there are power and storage limitations, so you can't have all the sensors on all the time.

    2. Re:and that's not all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It can see which newspaper you're reading when you are sitting on the toilet.

      No. My bathroom/reading room is in a Faraday cage. I painted the room with 6 coats of lead paint obtained from a friend who smuggles CFCs from Mexico. You people are scientifically naive or paranoid if you think that satellites can see everything.

  37. An excellent outcome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Your scenario is an excellent outcome. If it is anything like "global warming", you have scientists representing "special interests" presenting sensationalist and logically flawed ideas, and politicians ignoring the silliness and listening instead to better-informed scientists.


    We had this same sort of baloney going on in the 1970s, but then the latest fad was global COOLING.


    Net results: nothing. Sure beats wasting time to alter something no one knows anything about. We should point this thing upward to find more faces on Mars or something.

    1. Re:An excellent outcome by toupsie · · Score: 2

      Speaking of the 70s, what ever happened to the Population Bomb?

      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    2. Re:An excellent outcome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      (a) It is still happening
      (b) Men are becoming impotent
      (c) As society becomes increasingly 'self' oriented, we don't want kids

    3. Re:An excellent outcome by LS · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Idiots:

      The fact that AMERICAN politicians do nothing about SCIENTIFIC DATA from satellites and other sources is a travesty. Global warming DOES exist. I trust the opinions of over 90 Nobel Laureats over at FAS and the over than 150 countries signing the Kyoto protocol (the US being the only country to back out) than your pig-headed "patriotic" asses.

      About the population situation:

      A bomb is an inadequate metaphor for the population crisis. Basically it boils down to this: recent population expansion is a result of oil, and when the oil runs out (predicted mid-21st century), then the energy wont be there to support the civilization it fostered. Humanity will then regress in what will probably be a messy scramble for resources.

      You can see that commercial oil usage and mining began in the mid 19th century, approximately when the population started booming. Oil is the foundation for mechanical and electrical energy necessary for industry, farming, and communication, which creates a positive feedback loop with science and medicine, thus progressing population growth through lower mortality, higher birth rate, and more food.

      The special thing about oil is that the payoff in energy is so much higher than the amount you put in to harvest it, unlike most other renewable sources.

      A good analogy for our present situation: Imagine humans are extinct through some virus. Somewhere in mid-california there are huge werehouses of packaged food. A small pack of bears, say 50, finds this werehouse and begins to sustain themselves on it. After a few generations, there are 5000 bears. Then the food runs out. What happens to the bears?

      We are the bears, and the the food is oil. But we are different. We have brains and can figure out how to lower our energy usage and/or find new sources. But we only have 50 years.

      LS

      --
      There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
    4. Re:An excellent outcome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be the type of person who will believe anything certain, non expert people say. Your population analogy is awful. First the world has more than 50 years of useful oil products, second we can survive without them. As it becomes an actual problem there will be actual motivation to fix the problem.

      About global warming. Nobody is claiming that the climate isn't changing, it has been changing for as long as we can tell, but only a small fraction of that is humans, completely eclipsed by the natural cycles. If you were to double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it would change the temperature by no more than half a degree. Looking back, the temperature changes by several degrees every few hundred years.

      The kyoto accord is an easy way for densely populated countries to inprove their local environment without falling behind countries like Canada, the US and Austrailia. You also have to take issue with the use of 1991 levels giving post soviet central europe a distinct advantage. I'll assume the developing countries were given exemptions so that they could get an impressive number of signatures on it.

    5. Re:An excellent outcome by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 0

      You seem to be the type of person who will believe anything certain, non expert people say. Your population analogy is awful. First the world has more than 50 years of useful oil products, second we can survive without them. As it becomes an actual problem there will be actual motivation to fix the problem.

      The issue of oil running out is not as trivial as you seem to think. For one thing 50 years is not a s much time as you seem to think when it comes to fundamentally changing the infrastructures that service hundreds of millions of Americans and Europeans to new power sources. Just building up Eastern Germay is a burden to the German Economy that is still dragging it down today, imagine the cost of recostructing your entire infrastructure entirely. Even 50 years is a not much time for that. We have perhaps 25 years to prepare our selves for the 25 years before the Oil begins to run out. That means perfecting and putting into general use Hydrogen fuel cells which will probably become the dominant technology for automobile propulsion. It will also mean Coming up with an efficient technology for the energy intensive process of producing hydrogen fuel and a practical method for shipping the stuff in same HUGE quantities we ship oil today. All these undertakings will be fought every step of the way by the Oil lobbys. Hydrogen production will also require a slew of new powerplants that we do not need today because the oil mining and refining is considerably less energy intensive. This increase in power consumption will require us to build even more coal fired and nuclear fueled power plants which will cause political unrest and aggrivate the CO2 problem. This could of course be minimized by developing localised supplementary solutions for energy production such as Wind energy Solar energy and burning locally available biomass or using it to generate methane for energy production. Finally it will also be necesary to sharply increase energy efficiency starting with a ban on the use of the incandessent lightbulb and replacing it with the 5-6 times more efficient alternatives allready available. With a president in office in the US that seems singularly unconcerned about the fact that the average american consumes twice the amount of energy per annum than the average European, who seems totally unconcerned about creating an energy policy commonto all US states and does not see any need to promote energy efficiency in the US nor any reason to minimize the use of coal and oil in US powerplants I would say the USA for one will be in a world of shit 30 years from now. And 30 years pass by faster than you think.

      About global warming. Nobody is claiming that the climate isn't changing, it has been changing for as long as we can tell, but only a small fraction of that is humans, completely eclipsed by the natural cycles. If you were to double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it would change the temperature by no more than half a degree. Looking back, the temperature changes by several degrees every few hundred years.

      For starters no one has to my knowledge even come close to proving that only a small fraction of the current buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere is human generated. It is true however that there are indications that this is a to a large extent a natural process. But there are also indications that human generated CO2 emissions are siginficantly accelerating the process of Global warming which may it self be the trigger for even more catastrophic and unpredictable climate change. Especially if the melting of Polar ice (Which recentyl progressed from being a theory to being a proven fact) will cause a shift in the Gulf current or even a disruption of the so called "conveyor belt" current. Another issue with climatic change is mass extinction. Climatic change will also disrupt food production and there by cause famine whcih leads to population migratins and war. Personally I would rather be safe than sorry.

      The kyoto accord is an easy way for densely populated countries to inprove their local environment without falling behind countries like Canada, the US and Austrailia. You also have to take issue with the use of 1991 levels giving post soviet central europe a distinct advantage. I'll assume the developing countries were given exemptions so that they could get an impressive number of signatures on it.

      What should we do? Require the Russins and EU to use pre 1991 emissions as a reference? That would have the effect of the EU and Russia basically having to do nothing to reduce emissions since they have not raised their emission levels significanly above the pre 1991 levels and it would reward the USA for its proud tratition of complete disintrest in maintaining anything like a semblance of control over the nations excessive energy consumption.

      Considering its goals the Kyoto protocol is an incredible acievement despite its numerous faults. Especially if it remains even half way functional after all the various interests and political and monetary agendas have been serviced by making this that or the other clause more vague and fuzzy. It may not be perfect but then nobody ever said it was. It is as good a starting point as any. The Kyoto protocol is a beginning that can be built upon as time passed and situations change. I see these shortcomings just as well as you but unlike you I do not aboandon a system just because it does not work at the moment I improve it. The only reason that the USA bowed out of Kyoto is that they thought it would be one of these one sided affairs that everybody would sign and no one would observe. Kind of like the ban on landmines and an ancient international law that bans bombing civillians with aircraft.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    6. Re:An excellent outcome by tbone1 · · Score: 1
      The fact that AMERICAN politicians do nothing about SCIENTIFIC DATA from satellites and other sources is a travesty.

      Look, we've seen what happens when American politicians try to do something; better that they do nothing. Government is like an appendix: wasteful when idle, fatal when active. Pray to your god(s) that they stay idle.

      --

      The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
    7. Re:An excellent outcome by tbone1 · · Score: 1
      Speaking of the 70s, what ever happened to the Population Bomb?

      Ask Al Gore. He claimed to be an expert on the dangers of overpopulation in Earth in the Balance. Of course, Gore has four kids, so I guess he would know.

      --

      The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
    8. Re:An excellent outcome by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      The world population grew from 3.7 billion in 1970 to 6 billion in 2000. All that despite famine, Chinas one child policy and diseases like AIDS.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    9. Re:An excellent outcome by Galvatron · · Score: 2, Informative
      Good point. Same thing that happened to Malthas: technology keeps improving. Malthas claimed (in the 1800's! Remember Scrooge's quip about "surplus population?") that while our ability to grow food grows linearly, population grows exponentially. Hence, we will soon run out of food. Of course, technology continued to outstrip population growth, resulting in present day farm subsidies, because food is "too abundant."


      Another historical note. Ever heard of the "London fog?" Wonder why it doesn't get mentioned anymore? Because it was actually smog. The earth is tremendously cleaner today, compared to 100 years ago, and gets more so all the time.

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    10. Re:An excellent outcome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are overlooking the financial motive for change. Most oil companies have long range planning, and will know when they must begin to change. That will be the main driving force. As we are able to recove less petroleum, the cost will rise, and the consumer will have more motivating to buy cheeper means. The remaining petroleum will strech out far longer for those unable to.

      Howerver more importantly a new way to generate electricity will need to be found. And without gas, a new clean way will be required.

      The amount of energy used is a function of the availibility, there is nothing wrong with americans using more energy, their culture and lifestyle is based around it, and it is easily availible. Look at how they were able to change during the fuel crisis, it can happen again if necessary. And i prefer using an incandescent bulb that produces a much nicer light.

      >For starters no one has to my knowledge even come
      >close to proving that only a small fraction of
      >the current buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere is
      >human generated.

      Well i hope you're not talking about all of the atmosphere. While not nearly as abundant as N2 or O2, carbon monoxide makes up nearly 1% of the atmosphere. We also must note that CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas, vater vapour, which can vary from almost nil to 4% of the atmosphere is several times stronger. Most results taken between the 1800s and now suggest that we have nearly doubled the amount of C02 in the atmosphere, however naturally occuring evens such as volcanos and ocean vents spewing methane ecclipse the affect by several times as well.

      With regards to the kyoto agreenment, using 1996 levels would have given Germany less of an advanage, however the fact that over half of the countries signing it are covered by some sort of exemption shows that it is little more than a farce. Giving an advanage to one group, punishing another, while doing almost nothing cannot be called an incredible achievement. The US is not the only country with major problems with the treaty. Other large, oil producing sparsly populated countries such as Canada and Austrialia are starting to realize that they are being screwed over for nothing.

      The landmine treaty was nothing more that a group of people with their eyes on a nobel prize, willing to sacrifice the effectiveness of the treaty by excluding the most powerful country in the world because a minor exemption would not be given. I guess exemptions are only bad when its the US that needs them.

      Anyways, its good to see that mindless american bashing is back in fashion.

  38. english to american translation by morcheeba · · Score: 1

    dictionary entry:

    Main Entry: juggernaut
    Pronunciation: 'j&-g&r-"not, -"nät
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Hindi JagannAth, literally, lord of the world, title of Vishnu
    Date: 1841
    1 chiefly British : a large heavy truck
    2 : a massive inexorable force, campaign, movement, or object that crushes whatever is in its path

  39. Visibility by thetechweenie · · Score: 1

    With a thing of this size, it should be visible by the naked eye, right? I really like astronomy, but I've never gotton too much into it. Could I spot this thing with binoculars if that thing makes it into space?

    --


    Um, this is my sig.
    1. Re:Visibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could easily see it with a naked eye. But only just after sunset or before sunrise. With bernoculars, you mighe even be able to see some shape detail.

      The Keplor forumlas (orbital info) will be available, which will be very easy to help you predict exactly where and when to look in the sky. They are amazingly accurate (within a second of time, or less then a degree of arc).

      Don't ask me where! I just know they exist. At least for the KH-11 spy satellites, and just about every piece of junk in orbit thats larger then a baseball. There might be tools and shit floating out there. But you won't be able to see them with a naked eye.

    2. Re:Visibility by Bradee-oh! · · Score: 1

      With a thing of this size, it should be visible by the naked eye, right?

      Errr, probably not (though that'd be cool).

      From the second paragraph of the article - "...the size of an articulated lorry..."

      For those non-Brits out there (like myself), a quick Google search explains that this sucker is the size of your standard highway-going semi. Big? Yeah. Naked-eye visible? Probably not, and CERTAINLY not in bright daylight.

      Could I spot this thing with binoculars if that thing makes it into space?

      I dunno - try it and tell me if it works. ;-)

      --
      "This is Zombo Com, and welcome to you who have come to Zombo Com" - www.zombo.com
  40. This sounds great but... by LibertarianCrackSmok · · Score: 1

    ...what do they plan to do with this data? Where are they going to store it all at, it also seems to me that this is way to much data for scientists to process in detail in any resonable amount of time.

    1. Re:This sounds great but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder what the resolution of the images will be? Surely they will prolly keep the exact resultion a secret, and only release intentionally blurry pictures so the "enemy" can't use them against us. So I doubt if any "useful" images would be available. Or they will be obfusgated to the point where you can only see things like "water deposits" - which of course is useful to those kinds of people.

    2. Re:This sounds great but... by T-Punkt · · Score: 1

      I think most of the date will in fact just be stored in some archive in case it might be usefull later or analysed with better software etc.

      Say an earthquake happens or a vulcan errupts somewhere. Scientists will then dig the archive for older data of that region to see if and what has happend before that event and if that can be used to make predictions of the behaviour of other vulcans/geological instable regions.

  41. What's the euro these days? by toupsie · · Score: 3, Funny
    ENVISAT' (ENVIronmental SATellite) has been in the works for almost fourteen years with a price tag of 2.3 billion (Euro).

    Are Euro at the same exchange rate as Canadian money? If so thats like three fiddy these days. What a bargain!

    --
    Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    1. Re:What's the euro these days? by Ninja_Gaiden_III_cut · · Score: 1

      I hope it doesn't wreck...I wonder if the sattelite has a pane it could be recalled or if they hold a suplementar. Thus, they'd spend more bucks than that's been reported ;)

    2. Re:What's the euro these days? by vrt3 · · Score: 1

      1 Euro = 0.88129 US Dollar
      1 Canadian Dollar = 0.62751 US Dollar

      --
      This sig under construction. Please check back later.
  42. ENVISAT Website by LibertarianCrackSmok · · Score: 1

    This is the link to the ENVISAT website

  43. Re: ha the british by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    most americans know what a juggernaut is but this one I really had to look up.

    Main Entry: lorry
    Pronunciation: 'lor-E, 'lär-
    Function: noun
    Inflected Form(s): plural lorries
    Etymology: origin unknown
    Date: 1908
    chiefly British : MOTORTRUCK

  44. Re:European Space Program is Better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ... why the European Mars colony already has 300 inhabitants.

    What utter tripe!! At last count there were a mere 25 people on Euromars. BTW Just how big is a juggernaut anyway?

  45. the size of a juggernaut by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 1

    the size of a juggernaut

    Is that an African or a European juggernaut?

    How big is a juggernaut anyways? Is it bigger or smaller then a cosmonaut? How about an astronaut?

    --
    "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    1. Re:the size of a juggernaut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always thought Raquel Welch had a nice pair of juggernauts.

  46. Yeah but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much damage is this 'monster satellite' going to do when it finally dies and comes crashing down to earth?

    "And in the afternoon, light showers of plutonium followed by rain.."

  47. Godzilla by simetra · · Score: 3, Funny

    Perhaps the Monster Satellite should keep watch over Japan, since that's where Godzilla attacks most. I haven't heard of European monsters; none visible from space anyway.

    --

    "Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
    1. Re:Godzilla by trolley · · Score: 0

      We need to keep a close eye on the Nip. Behind all their "mooshiwake gozaimasen" and "sitsuree itashimasu" lurks the same evil soul that raped Nanking. Just remind them that "Amerika wa Nippon o miru."

    2. Re:Godzilla by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 1

      You've obviously never heard of my mother.

      --
      We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
    3. Re:Godzilla by smaughster · · Score: 2

      Well, it could be the first opportunity to settle the Loch Ness mystery :)

      --
      I intend to live forever, so far so good.
  48. Risky practices by KingPrad · · Score: 1

    Isn't it a bit risky to put all their eggs in one basket? What happens when a micrometeorite punctures a few instruments and renders an important part useless and the satellite nonfunctional? Scary thought. KingPrad

    --
    Stop the Slashdot Effect! Don't read the articles!
    1. Re:Risky practices by Talaran · · Score: 1

      Forget space junk ... ENVISAT is being launched on an Ariane 5 rocket (one of the only rockets large enough to carry this beast of a satellite), and the last Ariane 5 launch had problems with its last stage. Of the two satellites it carried, one ended up a writeoff, and the other (another ESA satellite, meant to relay data from ENVISAT, called Artemis - here's a report of the recovery operation) will have to use most of its fuel just to reach the proper orbit, greatly reducing its operational life.

      They've been investigating the problem since July, and that's the reason ENVISAT's launch has been delayed until 2002. It's all very scary, having so much riding on that one launch.

    2. Re:Risky practices by el_mizmo · · Score: 1

      You're right about the risks, But putting different instruments on one platform also allows co-located measurements (same time, same location) which can be very important when monitoring e.g. chemical reactions.

      --
      -- ?
  49. The size of a dreadnought? by K8Fan · · Score: 2
    the size of a juggernaut

    Uh, maybe you mean "the size of a dreadnaught". A juggernaut is a force, not a unit of size. A dreadnaut is a type of battleship, a thing that is very large indeed. I don't normally get into dictionary nitpicking, but this isn't a misspelling...it's a completely wrong word.

    juggernaut (jgr-nôt)
    n.
    Something, such as a belief or institution, that elicits blind and destructive devotion or to which people are ruthlessly sacrificed.

    An overwhelming, advancing force that crushes or seems to crush everything in its path: "It doesn't assume that people need necessarily remain passive when confronted by what appears to be the juggernaut of history" (Christopher Lehmann-Haupt).

    Juggernaut Used as a title for the Hindu deity Krishna.

    dreadnought (drdnôt)
    n. A battleship armed with six or more guns having calibers of 12 inches or more.

    --
    "How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
    1. Re:The size of a dreadnought? by SQL+Error · · Score: 1

      I think what they're referring to is the 16-wheeled cart upon which the idol containing the bones of Krishna is drawn during the Rathayatra.

      HTH, HAND, SQL Error

    2. Re:The size of a dreadnought? by ctid · · Score: 1

      In England at least, a juggernaut is a term for any large truck, especially if you are complaining
      about the noise it makes or the speed it is going etc.

      --
      Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
    3. Re:The size of a dreadnought? by spankfish · · Score: 1
      jug*ger*naut (jgr-nôt) n. Something, such as a belief or institution, that elicits blind and destructive devotion or to which people are ruthlessly sacrificed.

      Oh, you mean like Microsoft, right? Won't somebody think of the (sacrificed) CPU availability!!!

      --

      NO TOUCH MONKEY!
  50. Just going out on a limb here; by uradu · · Score: 2

    but if its real purpose is spying, would they really let on about its true bandwidth capabilities? Methinks not.

  51. [...scenes] They have to let us amazed! by Ninja_Gaiden_III_cut · · Score: 1

    And of course if they lie, simply while the true flourishes they would be in threat.

    (reporter) Q: Why the real data storage capability of ENVISAT has been hindered?

    (minister) A: Some transcriptions of measuring calculations hadn't correct.

    Q: Who's the responsible or responsibles by this error?

    A: We believe that the miscorrect information came from a typo, combined with additional errors doing the calculations, and thus, the mistaken result.

  52. Again? by Dunall · · Score: 1

    I thought the days of the volkswagon sized scientific satellite was a thing of the past.

    With the price-tag that this thing has, I hope it doesn't become another reason to launch multiple, cheaper/smaller sattelites to do the same thing.

    With the track record of launch vehicles lately, I'd be a bit apprehensive to put that much money on the end of a roman candle.

    1. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is probably one of those "Think Big, Launch Big" leftoverprojects from the 1980's that had gotten too much investment for it to be practical to ditch it by the time the smaller probes became fashonable. The NASA has or had a few similar hangovers.

    2. Re:Again? by TA · · Score: 1

      It is a thing of the past. This satellite was designed many years ago, it is only now that it is finished and ready for launch. And looking at the site of this satellite (around 8000 kilos) is exactly one of the reasons that "now" we think they are too big and this approach should not be repeated for the future.

  53. Hmmm... 2.3 billion Euro Weather Sattelite? by ikkyikkyikkypikang · · Score: 1

    *puts on lead underwear*

    --
    -- This post (c) 2003, Knights who say Ni, LTD.
  54. I remember this by Jeffv323 · · Score: 1

    A few weeks ago I was talking to one of the techies responsible for the database control and he said everything is stored on 1TB of solid state space. Apparantly part of the backup system was coded by (you guessed it) Micro$oft!

    Any bets on when this $2.3 billion satelite's computer system crashes, taking down guidance with it and sending the whole thing into a free fall to plummet down to earth? Hey, maybe it will hit Redmond... ;)

    --
    I'm a minister!
    1. Re:I remember this by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 1

      Hmm ... I wonder if MS got away with putting a clause in the contract, stating that they have no responsibility for any kind of software malfunction.

      --
      We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
    2. Re:I remember this by __4096 · · Score: 0

      I can't see that happening, like, i mean, micro$oft programs are always so rock-solid reliable.

  55. troll pix here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    click here for troll pix!

  56. Too many eggs in one basket by kingdon · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Instead of putting 10 instruments on one satellite they should put two instruments one each of 5 satellites (or 3.33 instruments on each of 3). That way if one blows up on launch you haven't lost 2.3 billion euros (about 2 billion US dollars, compared with say $200-300 million or so for NASA's recent science missions, e.g. to Mars).

    1. Re:Too many eggs in one basket by el_mizmo · · Score: 1

      You're right about the risks, But putting different instruments on one platform also allows co-located measurements (same time, same location) which can be very important when monitoring e.g. chemical reactions.

      --
      -- ?
    2. Re:Too many eggs in one basket by nicklott · · Score: 1

      but if I remember my u/g space science course correctly, the launch costs are a significant percentage of the total costs (like 40-50%)..

  57. First-hand information by Pascal+Sartoretti · · Score: 5, Informative
    I was the project manager for the ground-level processor of one of the instrument (AATSR if you really want to know which one), so I think that I can provide first-hand information:
    • The data volume for our instrument was a mere 5 GB per 100 minutes orbit, hence approx. 3 GB/hour. This instrument is considered as low-volume for data size, the bigger instrument having approx. two orders of magnitude more data!
    • The design of a satellite such as ENVISAT takes years. It is true that today, one would probably design things differently. Ah, how easy it would be to know 5 years in advance how a system should be designed...
    • This satellite is purely for civilian usage, no spying or whatever. All results will be available to buy (or download for low-resolution images). If ENVISAT would have military aspects, I would certainly not be allowed to talk about it freely on /.
    • All data analysis software was developed in C++. It runs on IBM AIX clusters, but with the goal of being UNIX platform agnostic. No Linux (yet?), sorry, but many open source components were used. ESA is paranoid about vendor lock-up.
    Must I add that it was fun to work on such a project?
    1. Re:First-hand information by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 1

      Does that mean, that this post was wrong in stating that MS did part of the backup system?

      --
      We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
    2. Re:First-hand information by Pascal+Sartoretti · · Score: 1

      I would be very, very surprised that MS would have done anything on the project. For obvious reasons, ESA subcontracts job only to ESA-members (european countries + Canada).

      As far as I know, the only use of MS technologies in the ENVISAT project is limited to MS Word and Excel...

    3. Re:First-hand information by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 1

      Not bad. Of course, using Open Office would have been better (and probably cheaper), but it's somewhat to be expected, that they'd use MS Office programs.

      --
      We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
    4. Re:First-hand information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Eric Chaisson said it best in the "Hubble Wars". These expensive big science projects are a mistake that shows the ESA did not learn from NASA.

      The slowness of deploying these giant boondoggles and the observation that it would have been designed differently is telling.

      Ten 200 million euro instruments would have been much better.

    5. Re:First-hand information by Satellite+Designer · · Score: 1
      The design of a satellite such as ENVISAT takes years. It is true that today, one would probably design things differently. Ah, how easy it would be to know 5 years in advance how a system should be designed.

      The standard official excuse. There's some truth here, of course, but it fails to address the real issue. The technology in the Apollo moon missions was genuinely advanced for its time, but space technology has fallen steadily behind other technical endeavors ever since. I think the main reason is that Apollo had a powerful informal support system behind it: a tremendously vital program that included balloons, rockets, and spacecraft on a wide variety of scales. Experience gained in low cost missions was rapidly incorporated into the big missions.

      We've largely destroyed this system. The result is that space exploration is no longer truly a high tech endeavor.

      Must I add that it was fun to work on such a project?

      Big projects are organized around the emotional needs of managers and the technical capabilities of specialists. For generalists and inventors, small projects are more fun. Neither is better, both kinds are needed for progess in space.

    6. Re:First-hand information by Pascal+Sartoretti · · Score: 1

      Big projects are organized around the emotional needs of managers and the technical capabilities of specialists. For generalists and inventors, small projects are more fun

      For our company, the project was only 5 persons, so I didn't have the drawbacks of a big project.

      What made the project interesting is the required robustness of the code: you have to do it cleanly, there is simply no other way. You know in advance that your code will have to be modified after the satellite is launched and the first telemetry results are available.

      This is in contrast with other projects I took part to since then, especially in web development: your project is expected to have a lifetime of 2 years, hence nobody really cares about the quality of the code, you don't have time to cleanly design the architecture, etc.

  58. that's not a moon.. by radja · · Score: 2

    it's a weather satellite. cool stuff.

    //rdj

    --

    No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
    --Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
  59. Not just a question of HD space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Natural data also tends to compress quite well due to natural gradients rather than random fluctutations. It wouldn't surprise me if a quick, lossless, on-the-fly compression scheme would crunch the data to 1/10 to 1/100 the original size (LZW would probably work perfectly well).

    So, I'll bet it would be pretty easy to fit an hour of data into 1 "hard drive" (whatever they mean by that).

    Oh, I should also mention that we're not told of the format that they store the data. For all we know, they are storing all their images as 32-bit text PPM (horribly inefficient).

  60. Data rates by Caid+Raspa · · Score: 3, Interesting
    This is a LOT of data. More data than (I would think at least) would be useful for environmental monitoring. Especially taking bandwidth into consideration for transmitting all or some of this data back to earth.

    I assume this data rate is decoded, not the raw telemetry, which is quite useless. Lets see.

    The 'housekeeping data' of a satellite contains thousands of satellite parameters, e.g. orbital position, currents, voltages, radiation level, temperatures, what is on/off, status of each instrument. On many scientific satellites, all this affects the performance of all instruments. Often the HK data is recorded once per a few seconds.

    This is because when voltage across some critical part is raising, you have to shut the satellite down. Then, from the last set of HK data, you have to fig out what is wrong, and correct or shut down the dangerous part, and still have a 90% functional satellite.

    Lets assume you have of the order 10000 parameters to monitor, and the values are recorded 15 times/minute. Assume each values takes five bytes when decoded (including a STRING for parameter name. The raw telemetry will of course be more compact). This gives 10000x15x60x24x5 bytes/day, or about 1 GB/day, just to know the satellite is OK.

    Now, add the HK, calibration and science data for each instrument. I have analyzed some data from satellite X-ray instruments, so I use it as a crude estimate. (This is very crude, other instruments may be completely different) A modern X-ray instrument produces about 1GB/hour in decoded data (instrumental HK, calibration, science). Thus,we have about 20 GB/day/instrument. I haven't bothered to read the article, but I assume the satellite contains about half a dozen instruments.

    This would produce about 100 GB/day. Problem solved.

    1. Re:Data rates by 3Suns · · Score: 1

      Interesting info Caid. I had underestimated how much storage it takes to run a scientific satellite.

      However, the data rate for the satellite is "a dozen computer hard drives" per hour, which I estimated at 100-150 GB/hour, conservatively. That's 1.2-1.8 terabytes per day. 100 GB/day housekeeping/calibration is chump change, esp. considering you could throw some of it out as soon as you decide that nothing is wrong.

      NASA has lots of satellite images on the web that are helpful in getting an idea of image size. Unfortunately many of the images themselves are offline due to server renovations until Nov. 27, but there's this one. This is a 13 MB lossless TIFF image of Los Angeles. Pretty poor resolution for spy satellite purposes. But let's say that we can double the resolution and quadruple the file size. This means we could double the resolution four times and the resulting image would be less than a gigabyte. The data capture rate for this satellite would allow for ~100 high-resolution land shots per hour, even factoring in the whole instrumentation/HK dealie.

      Like I said before, I know this isn't a spy satellite. If it were, though, it'd make a damn good one!

      --

      -3Suns

      ~~~~
      The Revolution will be Slashdotted
  61. Satellite the size of a Juggernaut? by goodEvans · · Score: 1

    A clear sign of penis envi...

  62. Holland (Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have been living a lie: Holland is a province in the Netherlands. Most people around the world use it incorrectly: it's a bit like people saying "England" and meaning "Great Britain".

    1. Re:Holland (Offtopic) by Spruitje · · Score: 2


      You have been living a lie: Holland is a province in the Netherlands.


      Not quite.
      Actually it is two provinces :
      north- and south holland.
      But there is a plan to put the two provinces together.
      And then there is only Holland.
      This doesn't have any effect on the other 10 provinces.

  63. Great Britain (Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and of course, I can correct my own post immediately because one shoudn't say "Great Britain", but the correct name nowadays is "United Kingdom". My excuses to all inhabitants of the UK :-)

    1. Re:Great Britain (Offtopic) by cymru1 · · Score: 1

      You can say either depending on what you mean. Great Britain is England, Wales and Scotland. United Kingdom is England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland

    2. Re:Great Britain (Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which one is all that plus the Isle of Mann? Like UK-in-the-UN or sumptin'.

  64. Scary or am I just Paranoid? by The_True_Human · · Score: 1
    I don't know, a big observations satellite, puming gigs of data every hour down to its base stations, with the ability to monitor slight movements, sounds slightly suspect to me. Not just observing the environment me thinks.

    They know where you live there is no escape evryone in Europe give a wave up at the sky, your masters are watching you.

  65. Re: ha the british by Godwin+O'Hitler · · Score: 1

    We invented the word in 1908 to respond to the world shortage of tongue-twisters there was at the time.
    (Red lorry, yellow lorry) * 10

    --
    No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
  66. Re:Nothing good ever came from europe, really! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is demorcosy?

  67. Re:Wow!!! by T-Punkt · · Score: 1

    It's not beowulf and not of these satellites
    but it's a cluster:

    http://sci.esa.int/cluster/

    SCNR :-)

  68. North/South Holland (Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Welja, dat komt ervan als je aardrijkskunde wat verroest is :-) Ik zal m'n boeken van 't lager middelbaar nog eens moeten uitgraven om de provincies nog eens te na te zien, want afgezien van Friesland, Brabant en misschien Limburg weet ik er al geen meer. Welja, mag ook wel als Belg :-) (niet dat ik de Belgische provincies ken).

  69. Poisonous Algae by Jonathan+Byron · · Score: 1

    Help me understand why anyone cares enough about poisonous algae to send a satellite into space.

    I live a few miles from the ocean. The last red tide we had was fairly severe. People would drive to the beach communities and start coughing and hacking as soon as they got out of their cars. A few friends went surfing before anyone knew it was a red tide, and had severe symptoms, including bleeding eyes and sinuses.

    With a birds eye view, it is possible not only to get early warning of these events, but to figure out what causes them - are they linked to temperature, sediment loads, particular nutrients, or what?? Anyone like seafood?? Knowing more about the where and when of algae will improve the safety and quality of fish in your local market.

  70. Re:Nothing good ever came from europe, really! by El+Prebso · · Score: 1

    How about the USA, we kinda created that.

    --
    I didn't say it was your fault. I said I was going to blame it on you.
  71. Re:Nothing good ever came from europe, really! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about the USA, we kinda created that.

    Yes, and that was one of our biggest mistakes. Just take a look what it has developed to.

  72. Careful where you put the decimal point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that American standard billion 1*10^9 or is it British Billion 1*10^12 ? Those little zeros mean more than you think when they start holding places. (Kinda like George W.B.)

  73. +1 Insightful on the MQR standard by MarkusQ · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Your scenario is an excellent outcome. If it is anything like "global warming", you have scientists representing "special interests" presenting sensationalist and logically flawed ideas, and politicians ignoring the silliness and listening instead to better-informed scientists.

    I can not understand why so many people continue to be taken in by the global warming/cooling scam. My only supposition is that, faced with the realization that man has essentially no impact on the universe at large, it become vitally important for them to believe that at least they are having a major impact on the earth. The fact that we are still minor players in the biosphere (there are, for example, well over a metric ton of termites per human, and termites are minor players among the insects. The insects, in turn, are dwarfed by the plant kingdom,...) is evidently so scary to them that they simply can't accept it.

    -- MarkusQ

    1. Re:+1 Insightful on the MQR standard by Fuzzums · · Score: 1

      Scam? Just what IF a thing like global warming exist? Just what IF phenomenons like el nino are influenced by global warming?

      It doesn't hurt to produce less exhaust from cars, planes and factories. it just might save some trees.

      "The fact that we are still minor players in the biosphere" is a reason to ignore the effect?

      If you're not sure, better play safe, or are you willing, if the scientists ARE right about global warming, to risk my life too?

      --
      Privacy is terrorism.
    2. Re:+1 Insightful on the MQR standard by Flambergius · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly confident that we (the humans) could level and burn all the forests in the world in, say, a decade. Not quite sure what the exact effect on the global warming/cooling would be, but I can imagine it would be a noticable. So I don't think it's just our biological functions that we have to be worried about.

      --Flam

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers - Pablo Picasso
  74. What goes up... by MarkusQ · · Score: 2
    I wonder: do you suppose they've they assessed the environmental impact of bringing this thing down?

    -- MarkusQ

  75. How much fuel did they burn getting this up? by beenay · · Score: 1

    Is rocket fuel suddenly good for the environment? Aren't they concerned about congestion around our planet? Can't they get all of this information from the ground? The tree-huggers who put this thing up probably drove to the launch site in their SUV's! You can bet this satellite will be used to spy on corporations and individuals. Before too long we will be getting notices in the mail saying we are using too much lighter fluid on our backyard barbeques!!!

    --
    ~ The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.
  76. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  77. Re:European Space Program is Better by Computer+suck! · · Score: 0

    > Landing men on the moon
    Faked

  78. Some actual _evidence_ for the skeptics by T.Hobbes · · Score: 2

    Since, every time this is mentioned, independent thinkers here a slashdot crow about how foolish the concept of global warming is, here are some posts of mine from kuro5hin awhile ago on the same topic, with several pertient links to actual, real, evidence for the matter at hand. Enjoy, sand-heads:

    --

    Stating that long-term climate change can't be known from short-term calculations is dosen't prove or disprove anything. If you are going to try and disprove climate change, look at all the evidence that's been collected first, and look at the theoretical side of the argument. I'll give a short summery of what I know of each now; I'll try and get some links to back myself up by tonight and post them as a reply to this.

    Areas of Evidence for climate change:
    The general areas of evidence for climate change, as I know them, are
    • Ground-based temperature measurment
    • Balloon-based temperature measurment
    • Sattelite-based temperature measurment
    • Permaice-based atmospheric chemical content measurment

    It's the last one, measurment of atmosphereic chemical content through drill-cores of permanent ice (in areas having very long term ice formations - Greenland, the Antarctic region, and so forth) which you have failed to mention, and which give some of the most compelling evidence yet - due to the informaiton's long-term charecteristics - of global climate change. What is derived from such measurments (as I said, I'll post some links tonight) is that the CO2 content in the atmosphere is now - i.e. in the last 100 or so years - increasing at a rate not seen since the last major global temperature change. What gives this evidence it's added weight is both the fact that it isn't limited to the last 100, 50, or 20 years; rather, the body of informaiton extends over thousands, tens of thousand, or more years. The other methods of measurment, too, give some proof of short-term temerpature change; further, their body of evidence, though short-term, does demonstrate three things which are not of negligable importance. First, that the temperatures measured are fluctuating, though in which direction I (under the assumption that what you have written is mostly truthful) cannot say. Second, that there that these fluctuations are occuring on a global scale. Their global scale, and their simple fluctuation - with the best sensors we have - demonstrate that there is someting happening, though exactly what cannot be known from that. Thirdly, the changes occuring are demonstrating a pattern to their change, and have been for as long as measurments have been taken. These last ten years, keep in mind, have been the warmest past ten years on record (or so I've been told more than once, though I will - as I said - get some links to back this up); further, each of these past ten years has been warmer than the previous year.

    The theory of global warming

    Despite the number and the justification of the questions concerning the current consensus on global warming, these arguments given have rested on questioning the evidence of the warming. What hasn't yet been addressed is the theory behind global warming. Just as CFCs were considered to be dangerous because of a theory which saw them as such, there is a method to the (to some, apparent) madness of the people who see warming as a threat. That is that C02 is a greehouse gas - i.e. the level of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is corelated to the amount of solar radiation kept within the atmosphere of a given planet. Given this, and given that there is ample evidence that humans have been releasing - through the conversion of petrochemicals into mechanical energy - the dormant CO2 from the earth's crust into the earth's atmosphere - leads to the contention that humans are having some effect on the environment through the activites of our civilization. The only thing left to question, so long as the theory of CO2 being a greehouse gas and the contention that humans have been releasing it into the earth's atmosphere are not disproven by some unaccounted for or unmeasured piece of evidence, is the scale of the change. Given what I stated above (i.e. that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has been seen to be increasing at it's greatest level, year over year, in an extremely long time, leads one to conclude that there is a significant possibility that humans have, or will have, some direct influence on the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere and surface. Given that a large proportion of the accessable petrochemicals have already been used, and thus that a significant proprtion of the dormant CO2 in the earth has been released into the atmosphere, I would then put forth that there is at least some cause for concern around this issue. Given, further, that there are methods by which we can now reduce, if we so desired as a population, our CO2 output, I see no compelling reason why we should not do that.

    ----
    Links to sources w/ comment: http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2001/3/2/03449/27 856/131#131; more comment here
  79. Why they can't just measure this from the ground. by rosssw · · Score: 1

    The reason why they can't just measure this from the ground is simple. You can't put a measuring station everywhere. This thing can look over the whole planet and get data. I work on a project that is involved in the global change of ozone. We use balloon flights, ground based instruments (Dobsons, Lidars etc) and TOMS on Satellites. Dobsons give us the best data, but they can only measure it in a vertical column above us, with satellites, we can get the data for the whole globe (excluding areas of polar darkness). That can be much more useful that point based satellites, and it also gives us a much better picture of the ozone hole. We couldn't do that with ground-based instruments.

  80. Can Anyone say TITANIC?? by xarsis · · Score: 1

    Does anyone else think this bad boy is going to crash and burn somewhere in the atlantic?

    --
    "Inside every short man is a tall amn doubled over in extreme pain.."