Slashdot Mirror
Stellar Water Fountain
ktulu1115 writes "Space.com writes: An aging star that spits water into space could provide astronomers the clues they need to explain the formation of planetary nebulae, the cloudy remnants of a star's death."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Mmm-hmm, a bit of blues for y'all.
Hey, this is cool. Pretty entertaining, I'll grant you that. But aren't there more pressing issues that we should be devoting our resources to? AIDS? Cancer? Genital mutilation? In the grand scheme of things, how much do "space fountains" really matter?
I think the entire scientific community needs to take a step back and rethink their priorities. I like science as much as the next guy, provided that it is science that benefits humanity. This masturbatory gee-whiz hobbyist garbage is a shameful waste of precious resources.
I don't want to have to explain to my grandkids that the reason I'm dying of brain disease in the year 2075 is because we were too busy looking for space waterslides to find a cure.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
Water is blue. The stuff coming from that star is red. Perhaps those "scientists" should get their eyes checked before trying to identify stuff.
Nothing to see here, move along now.
Re,
... dying of brain disease in the year 2075 ... because we were too busy looking for space waterslides...
You want the money spent on medical science so you (and everybody else) can live longer. That's fine, except: Why? There is no point in mere continued metabolism without enjoyment or purpose, and a lot of people, including me, believe that learning is an excellent and enjoyable activity and a worthy goal. My life would be poorer without astronomical research and all I do is read about it on space.com. When I had cancer last year, yes, it would have been nice if they could have said "Here, take this, you're cured," but would I swap the Hubble telescope for it? No way. What is life without things like this in it?
You also want the money spent on reforming bad situations in the world, such as poverty and cruelty. Again, a very fine thing. But it is not possible, even if desirable, to focus entirely on reform and repair. There are two reasons:
- It won't work. People with a scientific bent WILL research, artists will create, comedians will perform, etc., even in the most puritanical society and even at the highest cost to themselves.
- It makes for a self-destructive society. Not the individuals, the culture itself. For instance, the French Revolution. "The revolution has no need of scientists," someone said when they cut off Lavoisier's head. Unbalanced (in the literal sense, not meaning deranged) societies don't last, can't last, and don't leave the world perceptibly better after they go.
I hadn't thought of it that way, but it is right. People basically stop being productive around 50 years old, to my knowledge. Furthermore, as you point out, the only people who miss them when they die are their family. At the age of 50, the elderly should be forced into retirement for 10 years, at which point they can be painlessly put to rest. Couples should be bound to whichever date comes first, so no one dies alone.
We should invest our money in scientists looking for better ways to accomplish this so that it remains as natural a process as possible. Once we have the human population problem under control, we can concentrate on the important things, like the Martian Colony.
I still don't think space fountains are helpful, though.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
Using patented "fusion" technology, the new Super Soaker 10000 will never leave you without ammo on those hot summer days.
If it's water, that means the stuff shooting out of that star is between 0 and 100 degrees celcius. Last time I checked, ambient space was well below 0 and most stars are more than a little above 100.
"Water jets" are what I got in my jacuzzi...now if they had said water vapor...
While I must admit that this discovery is not all that spectacular, I would like to address your point of view. First of all, what exactly is "science that benefits humanity"? How do you define something as nebulous as that? In my opinion, all science benefits humanity, though not all of it directly. Even this research benefits humanity by giving us insight into how traces of water that float through galaxies might have been formed. The thing about pure science is all about ideas and unlocking truths. For example, you could look at a huge amount of the pure mathematics out there and deem it totally useless... much of it seems to be so contained within the mathematics field that it could seem totally useless to the normal layperson. But then, a smart scientist sees a connection to this higher level mathematics and his or her problem, and makes the full connection. This scientist now has ALL the available tools that the generations of mathematicians have put into this previously "useless" field. Now, thanks to all those previous mathematicians and people who put everything together, the weather forecaster now has the tools to better improve their forecasts, giving you the time that you might not have had before to run to your basement before that tornado touches down a few hundred yards from your house, demolishing it. The point is that one cannot know how "useful" or beneficial pure scientific research really can be. Did you know that one of the most interesting results in early hurricane forecasting (Eliassen, 1951) was motivated not by hurricane applications, but by planetary-scale flow ideas? True, it is nice to focus on research that will directly influence humanity... but one quickly finds that by working on generalizations of their specific problems, they can contribute so much more to humanity since their work will end up being used not only in their own work, but in the works of others. It's this basic research, this pure science, that gives tools to so many people. Now, let's also not forget that, in science, one observation may lead to a hundred questions, and each question, once answered, can lead to a hundred more. And soon, you realize that different people are all asking the same questions, but from totally different sources... then you start putting resources and manpower together... So, while this observation may not seem too useful right off hand, allow yourself to ask the questions that might follow... like, "Where did this water come from? Did it come from the fusion within the star? And if so, how did it truly form?" Now, let's assume that the answer is that it did come from fusion within the star. Then, the people working on building fusion reactors ask, "Well, are we going to produce water in our reactors? And if so, what do we have to worry about with this incredibly important molecule floating around now?" This leads to design innovations that might not have been thought up before, which then leads to safer and more efficient fusion reactors. This is all entirely possible... and was first spurred on by this, as you call it, "masturbatory gee-whiz hobbyist garbage". Granted, yes, it would be nice to throw more money at those direct-application problems. But, we've spent billions of dollars already on heart disease alone, for example, and are we really anywhere closer to "curing" it? No, since we found out rather quickly that it's an environmental problem (i.e., diet, exercise, genetics) that each individual has to worry about for themselves, for the most part. Meanwhile, we throw a few tens of millions at some other sciences and get some amazing things in return, i.e. superconduction (which has yet to come fully to fruition). So, chill, man. Pure sciences are needed as much as their immediately beneficial counterparts. -Jellisky
You're right. It actually mentions that the work was done with the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) which is a radio telescope.
This post is strictly my own opinion and not necessarily that of my employer.
This is voyeurism at its worst? Can't an old star take a leace in peace without a bunch of sicko astranomers trying to get a picture?
Liberty uber alles.
... the "picture" is an artist's rendition