Slashdot Mirror


Farthest Human-Made Object: First Quarter Century

An anonymous reader writes "The NASA Astrobiology Magazine reports today the 25th anniversary of the Voyager I launch, now the farthest human-made object at 93 Sun-Earth distances (93 AU), or 12 light-hours away. Expected battery life to 2020. The fascinating part is that gold record of civilization, which is a strange audio mix of sentimental kisses [wav file, let ET phone home that way] and perhaps the most dated picture of DNA. Some progress there. Voy 1 will likely confuse even modern earthlings-- much less ET. Case in point: In 2002, can we understand that 70's show, when the Polish greeting memorialized as "Welcome, creatures from beyond the outer world"? Unlike those ET creatures we meet daily from the inner world?"

388 comments

  1. Battery life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought it used a miniture nuclear power source?

    1. Re:Battery life? by Fenresulven · · Score: 1

      So what, they still don't last forever.

    2. Re:Battery life? by Frank+of+Earth · · Score: 4, Informative

      Assessing their key radio-isotope generators that power the on-board battery, Massey evaluates: "We don't run out of electrical power until about 2020", or at least for Voyager I, around 43 years towards its lifetime of some communication with its originating star, Sol, and its home planet, the Earth.

      Looks like the isotope's power the battery.

    3. Re:Battery life? by Frank+of+Earth · · Score: 2

      I have a question, why didn't we power the Mars Pathfinder rover by nuclear? Were they afraid that if it crashed into the planet, it would cause some nuclear fall out?

      Looks like it was solar/battery http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/MPF/roverpwr/power.html

    4. Re:Battery life? by Space+cowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes. "The planet" in question being Earth. If a nuclear-powered device explodes on launch, or in low orbit, it's "not a good thing". At the very least you'll get radioactive debris spread over a wide area.

      Simon.

      --
      Physicists get Hadrons!
    5. Re:Battery life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      The power source on the Voyager I & II spacecrafts, like most other of the time, is called a PTG or plutonium thermoelectric generator. Basically you have a heat source (chunk of plutonium) surrounded by devices similar in construction to modern peltier coolers. The Seebeck effect (opposite of Peltier effect) allows electrical power to be generated by the temperature gradient across the device. Basically you have an electrical power source with no moving parts and a very long life (Plutonium has a decently large halflife). It's a shame that the environmentalists had a hissy fit in the 80's and 90's that blocked this very reliable technology from being used on modern spacecraft.

    6. Re:Battery life? by cyberlync · · Score: 1

      Time and time again it has been proven that the housing and framework around these nuclear containers can easly take the force of an explosion as well as the fall back to earth. The idea that it 'might' still rupture is just stupid. Its like saying that a big asteroid might hit the earth so I am going to hide under my bed for the rest of my life. Come on, this kind of attitude is holding us back!

      --
      I'm a programmer, I don't have to spell correctly; I just have to spell consistently
    7. Re:Battery life? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      Time and time again it has been proven that the housing and framework around these nuclear containers can easly take the force of an explosion as well as the fall back to earth.

      No. It hasn't been proven at all - there is entirely too little experimental and experiental data for any strong claims about the safety of RTG containment to be made.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    8. Re:Battery life? by operagost · · Score: 1
      The power source on the Voyager I & II spacecrafts, like most other of the time, is called a PTG or plutonium thermoelectric generator
      Didn't Marvin the Martian try to "blow up the eaaaaaaaaarth" with one of those?
      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    9. Re:Battery life? by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      (* I have a question, why didn't we power the Mars Pathfinder rover by nuclear? Were they afraid that if it crashed into the planet, it would cause some nuclear fall out? *)

      Probably because of fears of protests. The Mars Viking landers of the 1970's used the nuclear approach, and lasted years.

      The protests don't stop NASA from using nuke stuff, but it makes them hesitant, and Mars is a grey-area WRT solar-power.

      The Pathfinder mission was slated to only last a few weeks because it was experimental, so that is what the design was for. If they had a longer target, then there are probably ways to not have to rely on recharge-diminishing batteries as much as they did.

    10. Re:Battery life? by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      (* So what, they still don't last forever. *)

      My understanding is that the problem is not so much the half-life dwindling of radioactivity, but the connectors and/or gatherers of the energy within the power cells. They tend to corrode over time and diminish the power returned.

      Plus, as the probes get further and further the signal is also weaker and weaker. Thus, there are 3 factors diminishing communications power:

      1. Regular "half-life" diminishing of the radioactive material's power.

      2. Corrosion of the power-gathering terminals

      3. Increasing distance from Earth

      4. Alien babys playing with probe

      (Okay, #4 is a little speculative)

    11. Re:Battery life? by GypC · · Score: 2

      Looks like the isotope's power the battery.

      Bob would like a word with you, please.

    12. Re:Battery life? by Gogo+Dodo · · Score: 2
      I have a question, why didn't we power the Mars Pathfinder rover by nuclear? Were they afraid that if it crashed into the planet, it would cause some nuclear fall out?

      It's all about weight. Dragging around an RTG on wheels isn't exactly easy work. Remember that the Sojourner was carried on Pathfinder, which itself was carried another stage.

      What would have been a better question would be: Why wasn't the Pathfinder lander powered by an RTG and then Sojourner recharged via a docking station?

    13. Re:Battery life? by Frank+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      No possession to a verb. Thanks!

    14. Re:Battery life? by lepton+noodle · · Score: 1

      While the Mars rover itself didn't generate electricity from a nuclear source, there were some small radioisotope pieces onboard acting as heaters to provide thermal regulation. It's been awhile, but I recall that they produced on the order of a few watts of heat.

  2. We all know it comes back to destroy Earth soon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    We all know it comes back to destroy Earth soon!

    I saw it with my own eyes in Start Trek 1 movie. (based on a tv script as well).

    I say hit the self destruct button NOW before its too late!

  3. I don't what you're smoking, but, case... by Ser_Olmy · · Score: 1

    ...in point: I some want.

    That's gotta be one the more inarticulate(sp?) entries for a while, long time.

    -cheers!

  4. Deep Shi~H~H~HSpace by richie2000 · · Score: 2

    In slightly related news, NASA has lost contact with Contour, the Comet Nucleus Tour probe.

    --
    Money for nothing, pix for free
  5. Sending that record was a great idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    In about 300 years an advanced extraterrestrial civilization will come across it and think "Ha, what a primitive civilization, THIS is the extent of their technology... hey, they have lots of water and nitrogen, let's go conquer them." And when they get here they're met by the Global Planetary Defense System with its neutron shield and highly accurate laser weaponry instead, manned by fourth generation genetically-engineered Warrior Humans who kill without mercy but can be easily controlled.

    Wish I was gonna be around to watch all this.

    1. Re:Sending that record was a great idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they have lots of water and nitrogen, let's go conquer them

      Because nitrogen is SUCH a handy resource.

      Well, I guess maybe for their liquid nitrogen freeze rays.

    2. Re:Sending that record was a great idea by RatFink100 · · Score: 3, Funny
      Wish I was gonna be around to watch all this.

      I don't you need to be - because apparently this version of the future is based on a poor SciFi B-movie. They've probably got one a Blockbuster you can rent instead.

    3. Re:Sending that record was a great idea by swaic · · Score: 1


      Well when the capsule containing the record breaks apart upon entering their atmosphere, people on that planet may mistake the 12" record for a flying disc. Of course they'll swear to everyone that they saw a flying disc zooming across the sky. Naturally everyone will tell them that they are mental and to stop making up stories.

    4. Re:Sending that record was a great idea by HanzoSan · · Score: 1, Troll

      Actually no I'd expect aliens to be much smarter than that lol.

      In 300 years? They could already know about it via technology we cant even comprehend and could be conquering us right now.

      They could just hiijack our DNA which we gave to them and come to earth as human, and then because of democracy and their superior intelligence take over the world through technology and politics.

      Hell they could destroy us just by coming here and giving us more technology than our governments could handle, like the internet and nano technology!

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    5. Re:Sending that record was a great idea by operagost · · Score: 1

      It's unlikely they could clone one of us from THAT level of detail.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    6. Re:Sending that record was a great idea by HanzoSan · · Score: 2

      maybe not from that probe but theres newer probs which arent as deep in space which have perfect DNA samples.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    7. Re:Sending that record was a great idea by Svenne · · Score: 1

      And ofcourse, there will always be some idiot who could have sworn that they saw a missile...

      --

      Slagborr
    8. Re:Sending that record was a great idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fourth generation genetically-engineered Warrior Humans who kill without mercy but can be easily controlled.

      I don't want to be around for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd generations, then. Genetically-engineered Warrior Humans who kill without mercy but can't be controlled!

    9. Re:Sending that record was a great idea by AndroidCat · · Score: 5, Funny

      They won't get a chance to invade us. Starfighters from the RIAA will strike the moment they make a copy of that record.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    10. Re:Sending that record was a great idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh, PLANTS?!?

    11. Re:Sending that record was a great idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or once they realize they are the our building blocks for life and that humans built the probe they will probably start searching it for hair, skin, or anything else left accidentally that will tell them exactly how to do it.

    12. Re:Sending that record was a great idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HAhaah,
      The aliens will find small micororganisms or bacteria still on these. They will think these are the life forms that built the technology for space flight and worship them.

    13. Re:Sending that record was a great idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but will the fighters be dark green or grey? Makes a big difference, you know...

    14. Re:Sending that record was a great idea by ShavenYak · · Score: 1

      And explosives. I'm not really sure what advanced aliens would do with fertilizer bombs though.

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
    15. Re:Sending that record was a great idea by Yunzil · · Score: 3, Funny

      In about 300 years an advanced extraterrestrial civilization will come across it and think "Ha, what a primitive civilization, THIS is the extent of their technology...

      Nah, there's the old joke about how hundreds of years from now, Earth finally receives the long-awaited message from another civilization. The people wait anxiously while the scientists translate the message. Finally the results are announced. "We have found your artifact," the message says, "Send more Chuck Berry."

    16. Re:Sending that record was a great idea by JoeCommodore · · Score: 1
      Actually they'll be stopped at our systems' border just short of the content jamming sattilite field where they must agree to a Digital Rights agreement as drafted by the government, (now composed of the interplanetary Recording Artists and Motion Images guild and Microsoft Unlimited.)

      Failure to do so woould mean seisure of said craft for inspection for contiband material and installation of DRM devices and operating systems (plus being charged a nominal but mandatory processing/licensing fee). Acceptance would be the same thing.. but we would smile when we enforced it.

      --
      "Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
    17. Re:Sending that record was a great idea by geronimo87 · · Score: 1

      Record? I sure hope the RIAA doesn't hear about this.

    18. Re:Sending that record was a great idea by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 1

      Naw, by that time, we'll have warp drive capability and photon torpedos (shows you what Sci-Fi show I like!) And the Borg will probably assimilate them by then. Or maybe Microsoft will assimilate the Borg, who are then assimilated by the RIAA. :)

      --
      You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
    19. Re:Sending that record was a great idea by gsfprez · · Score: 2

      i think it was a terrible idea.

      I mean, imagine, when the aliens get here, and they show us copies of the pictures from the disk...

      http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/sceneeart h. html

      Well, if they've given those pictures to the others from their home - and presumably have sent those pictures digitally - they're in for a rude awakening when they get here...as they will have to be arrested for copyright infringement.

      From the NASA website.

      Voyager Record Photograph Index
      The following is a listing of pictures electronically placed on the phonograph records which are carried onboard the Voyager 1 and 2 spacecraft.
      Please note that these images are copyright protected. Reproduction without permission of the copyright holder is prohibited.

      good Lord, we suck...

      --
      guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
    20. Re:Sending that record was a great idea by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      And when they see the picture that goes with it, they'll conclude that we're all nudists...

      rj

    21. Re:Sending that record was a great idea by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      They already did, in a way...Carl Sagan wanted to release the record to the public but couldn't, because NASA wouldn't spring for the rights. They got to put it on the spacecraft for free, but some of the copyright holders wouldn't allow more than the single use.

      rj

    22. Re:Sending that record was a great idea by AndroidCat · · Score: 2
      Ha! And so we shall conquer space. Those alien scumbugglets will receive our transmissions, and if "Achy-Breaky Heart" doesn't kill them out-right, our copyright laws will! Bwahaha!

      Wait... Did anyone transmit "A Deepness in the Sky" to them? Yes? Hell.

      Never mind.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    23. Re:Sending that record was a great idea by Skevin · · Score: 2

      I think there's more detail than you give credit for...

      Engineers tend to be a lonely bunch. Ahem, a *very* lonely bunch. What rocket scientist would pass up the opportunity to uh, spread a little Seed into outer space, seeing how no female member of _his_own_species_ is interested in him? What better revenge than to have some advanced civilization clone the genetic material and produce legions of beings with my^H^H his sexually undesirable likeness in the centuries to come? (no pun intended)

      Okay, maybe I speak a little too much from personal experience, but I'd also like to be quick to point out - that's not *my* spooge on the Viking Lander... my coworkers beat me to the punch (by um, beating other things).

      Solomon

      --
      "Twice half-assed makes an ass whole." --Solomon K. Chang
  6. Audio encoding by fractalk · · Score: 1

    Get us thinking about the bandwidth of an inverted umbrella doesnit?

    But, what really makes me think is if only a race with wonderous healling powers can come with audio encoding in sawdisks, or is the healing powers were developed after they discovered that they can encode huge...I mean *HUGE* amounts of sounds in a sawdisk.

    Think about the ipods...

    1. Re:Audio encoding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fractalk, an appropriate handle. I think your speech has been fractally encoded. Please post RAW text next time so that someone can understand what you are saying.

  7. Sentimental Kisses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sorry, what? Is that audio clip really from the gold record?

    Okay, let's say this record hits a civilization advanced enough to play it. Wouldn't one suppose they're advanced enough to interpret our language as well? Maybe?

    I mean.. if WE found a record from outer space and heard nothing but squeeky noises - we would try and interpret it, right? We wouldn't assume that's one six-legged alien crying..

    $|{

    1. Re:Sentimental Kisses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't one suppose they're advanced enough to interpret our language as well? Maybe?

      I mean.. if WE found a record from outer space and heard nothing but squeeky noises - we would try and interpret it, right?


      I'm sure that "they" would try to interpret it, and more than likely would succeed. "Hey, that kid is hungry, and wants to drain the life out of his mother."

    2. Re:Sentimental Kisses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, when they were to record the kissing sound, they had strict orders from NASA to keep it heterosexual, probably as to show them how we work and reproduce, I guess.

      Yeah, that's good thinking. We want to make SURE they understand the recording. :-)

  8. Perspective by Andy+Smith · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The fact that Voyager is now 12 light *hours* away really puts things into perspective for me. I'm not much of a space nut but I know that the distance from earth to the nearest stars (apart from our sun) is measured in light *years* so it's humbling to realise that even our furthest reach is trivial in the grand scheme of things. We haven't even stepped out of the house yet, nevermind explored the neighbourhood. (That sounds a bit like a put-down but it isn't. I think Voyager is an awesome achievement.)

    1. Re:Perspective by rickthewizkid · · Score: 2, Funny

      Of course, by the time that this probe *gets* to our nearest neighbor in the galaxy, man will probably have discovered warp-drive, transporters, replicators, shuttlecraft, and expendable guys in red shirts...

      -Rick

    2. Re:Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We haven't even stepped out of the house yet, nevermind explored the neighbourhood.

      I'd say we haven't even pulled our head out of the fridge yet.

    3. Re:Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, we'll catch up to our old probes long before they get anywhere. Either that or destroy ourselves trying.

      Think of the possibilities. Once we get worm holes, we can use deep space as a long-term storage medium. Transmit signals (or stuff) into space, then warp out there and fetch it later. It's history and massive data storage all in one.

      Example: go out 40 light years and watch the TV shows from 1962, raw and uncut. You'll need a hell of an amplifier, but that's what modern technology is for.

    4. Re:Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      good point. we'll be able to get it back before it reaches the nearest ETs and embarasses us. /relief

    5. Re:Perspective by Fishstick · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh good. Then one of the first missions could be to go out an retreive voyager before it falls into the wrong hands and is used as blackmail.

      "Ha! Look at the cute little spacecraft the earthlings sent out thousands of years ago! How pitiful!"

      "Shut up, give it back!"

      "Oooh, I bet the guys on Gallus V will really get a kick out of this. The Big Bad Earthers and their cute little tin-foil spacecraft!"


      Kind of like when your big brother finds a picture of you in the bathtub at age 9 months and threatens to show it to your friends.

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    6. Re:Perspective by little1973 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You are quite right. The problem is that even the speed of light is snail-pace compared to the vast distances in the universe, let alone the speed of Voyager.

      This problem really annoys me, because it seems nobody gives a thought about how we will communicate or travel in space. It takes from 3 to 20 minutes for radio waves to cover the distance between the Earth and Mars depending their position around the Sun. Which means you can never phone to Mars from Earth, because you get an answer for your question in about 6-40 minutes. In our rushing world thats a lot of time.

      As for travelling in space the twin paradox poses another problem. If we can reach almost the speed of light by some method we have to face this relativity problem. If you step in your space ship and after 1 hour you step out on Alpha Centauri you will have to face with the fact in the "real" world 4 years passed. Communication with Earth is quite futile also, because they get your message in 4 years.

      In short, if Einstein is right we are in a dead end. So, I want to beleive there is worm hole or hyperspace or whatever which makes space travel possible otherwise humanity will stuck to this planet forever.

      Or, as I hope, Einstein is not right. I hope a genius in the future will invalidate Einstein theory as Einstein invalidated Newton theory. It is interesting that nobody dares to say, but Newton theory about gravity and his equations were completely shattered by Einstein on the theoretical level. On the practical level we use them, because they are not so complex as Einstein's and provide us with the neccessary precision, but this does not do anything with the fact that Newton's theory is wrong.

      --
      Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer. - Ludwig von Mises
    7. Re:Perspective by mrobinso · · Score: 1

      What put things in perpective for me was a book
      by Martin J. Rees called "Just Six Numbers : The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe".

      We, as a race, have a lot of work to do.

      --
      -- Karma whore? You betcha. --
    8. Re:Perspective by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Funny

      While you're in there, could you get me a beer?

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    9. Re:Perspective by Zathruss · · Score: 1, Funny
      Example: go out 40 light years and watch the TV shows from 1962, raw and uncut.


      Yes, but would it be legal?
    10. Re:Perspective by Sabalon · · Score: 2

      Easy - subspace beacons :)

      And if you step out on Alpha Centauri itself, I think what's going on at home will be the least of your problems.

      Anyway, I hope you are right about Einstein not being right. I really need to try to understand relativity sometimes - to me if you go at the speed of light for 4.2 years to Alpha Centauri, then 4.2 years should have passed - both for you and at home.

      I guess I just refused to accept that the speed of light is the limiting factor....kinda like saying that time goes backwards if you go over 55mph on the highway.

      All we really need to do is find a huge pocket of melange though and all our problems are answered. :)

    11. Re:Perspective by Loligo · · Score: 1

      >Example: go out 40 light years and watch the TV
      >shows from 1962, raw and uncut. You'll need a
      >hell of an amplifier, but that's what modern
      >technology is for.

      Modern technology is for watching old TV shows?

      I'm suddenly very depressed.

      "Sorry, Anne, I can't be bothered to fix your Oracle stuff right now... I'm more concerned about the I Love Lucy problem."

      -l

    12. Re:Perspective by Sloppy · · Score: 2
      This problem really annoys me, because it seems nobody gives a thought about how we will communicate or travel in space.
      Lots of people have given it thought; it's just that no one has come up with a satisfying solution, because there isn't any. No wonder you're annoyed. Who wouldn't be? :-)
      you can never phone to Mars from Earth, because you get an answer for your question in about 6-40 minutes. In our rushing world thats a lot of time.
      Nah. In the time of phones, that was a lot of time. Now in the time of email, 40 minutes is no big deal. The "rushing world" ain't what it used to be; we slowed down.
      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    13. Re:Perspective by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2
      Example: go out 40 light years and watch the TV shows from 1962, raw and uncut.
      Ah, yes, shows like " Single Female Lawyer "...
    14. Re:Perspective by little1973 · · Score: 1

      >Anyway, I hope you are right about Einstein not
      >being right. I really need to try to understand
      >relativity sometimes - to me if you go at the speed
      >of light for 4.2 years to Alpha Centauri, then 4.2
      >years should have passed - both for you and at home.

      This is a common misconception. If you travel at the speed of light 1 second for you is the same as 1 second on Earth. So, the time on the space ship and the time on Earth is the same. This is because from your frame of reference the Earth is moving away from you at the speed of light and from the Earth's frame of reference you are moving away at the speed of light. So, what is the difference?

      The difference is that you have to accelerate to reach the speed of light while the Earth moves linear. Acceleration is not linear. This causes the slowing down of time in your frame of reference. Photons always travel at the speed of light, so for them 1 sec is the same as on Earth.

      --
      Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer. - Ludwig von Mises
    15. Re:Perspective by Sabalon · · Score: 2

      Thanks I think (my brain hurts). I guess I'm just too dumb to get it.

      If I'm accelerating to the speed of light, at various points I'll be travelling at various speeds - 5mph, 10mph, 10000mph, etc... At 5mph going up to 50mph, a second is still a second right and if it takes me 30 seconds to go from 5mph to 50mph, it takes me 30 seconds, my vehicle 30seconds and the earth 30 seconds.

      So if it takes me 1 day to accelerate to the speed of light (cause of the new spoiler on the back of my honda spaceship :) a day has passed for me and the earth no? I guess that's where I get confused.

      Do you know of a good web site or book on this - I'd really like to understand it.

      Lightspeed travel for dummies perhaps? :)

    16. Re:Perspective by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 2

      In short, if Einstein is right we are in a dead end. So, I want to beleive there is worm hole or hyperspace or whatever which makes space travel possible otherwise humanity will stuck to this planet forever.

      Or, as I hope, Einstein is not right. I hope a genius in the future will invalidate Einstein theory as Einstein invalidated Newton theory. It is interesting that nobody dares to say, but Newton theory about gravity and his equations were completely shattered by Einstein on the theoretical level.

      Newton's physics is "good enough", except at very high speeds or very dense gravitational gradients. Experiments have confirmed those subtle discrepencies between reality and the predictions of the theory. Einstein's physics is "good enough" in those cases... Feel free to study Einstein's theories, and figure out an experiment to perform to show that he was wrong.

      We shall see whether humanity is stuck on this planet forever (errr. for mumble billion years before the sun swells to its red-giant phase and vaporizes the planet...) or we make it out to the solar system, or even the stars.

      It may take hundreds or thousands of years before we have the wealth and the ability and the desire to create a civilization off of this planet.
    17. Re:Perspective by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 2

      This is a common misconception. If you travel at the speed of light 1 second for you is the same as 1 second on Earth.

      No. If you were going away from the earth at half the speed of light, in one second of your time, 1.15 seconds would go by on earth 1/sqrt( 1 - (v/c)^2). From the other perspective, in one second on earth, 1.15 seconds would elapse on your spacecraft. The paradox is left to students of the Lorentz Transformation.

      If you were travelling at the speed of light, in one second of your time, not-a-number seconds would pass back on earth. As you get closer and closer to the speed of light, clocks on earth go slower and slower.
    18. Re:Perspective by little1973 · · Score: 2

      No. When you accelerate from 5 mph to 50 mph and a predestrian measures that it took 30 seconds, you will measure eg. 29.999999999999 second. But at such a low speed the difference is negligable. The general rule is that you can use the Newtonian physics for speeds less than 60% of c. Above that you have to use Einstein's equations.

      Try goole with words "usenet physics faq".

      --
      Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer. - Ludwig von Mises
    19. Re:Perspective by little1973 · · Score: 1

      Of course you are right according to the equation, but I stated that speed on its own does nothing to do with this time difference. Acceleration is the cause. And it does not matter if you reach half the speed of light in one day or in one year. You accelerated, so your time will be different to the time on Earth. If somehow, like a photon, you can reach half the speed of light instantly (which is impossible) you would measure the same time as on Earth.

      --
      Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer. - Ludwig von Mises
    20. Re:Perspective by juhaz · · Score: 1

      We have the wealth right now. We have the ability (technology) right now. And we've had those for decades now. That is, for off this planet stuff, though maybe not off of solar system.

      What we don't have, is will, and so we end up using that ability and wealth to other things. Like perfecting devices for killing each other. Well... shit happens.

    21. Re:Perspective by SilkBD · · Score: 0
      I guess I'm just too dumb to get it.

      Not at all... this is one of those topics that our brains have difficulty comprehendin because it's not a natural situation in our immediate environment.

      I Guarantee you, when traveling at relativistic speeds becomes a common mode of travel, it will be increasingly easier to understand because we will be exposed to it naturally.

      --
      00101010
    22. Re:Perspective by cheese_wallet · · Score: 2

      if you are really interested in this, pick up a book. I really liked this one: "Relativity: The Special and General Theory", written by the man himself, Albert Einstein. The ISBN 0-517-88441-0.

      The wording is a little strange in places, because I think it was written originally in german. It's a great book. Very easy to understand, given the subject matter. The theories are explained through a narrative, and the math and derivations are left out when practical.

      Amazon has 34 sample pages.

      --Cheese

    23. Re:Perspective by KenSeymour · · Score: 1

      You get time dilation with the Lorentz transformations and special relativity.
      Those depend only on velocty and not acceleration.

      --
      "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert Einstein
    24. Re:Perspective by Cyno · · Score: 1

      This is better than I ever expected from mankind. We've really outdone ourselves this time. *pat on the back*

    25. Re:Perspective by plugger · · Score: 1

      The wealth (energy) we have is limited by this planet's resources. There may not be enough to get us to the stars, especially if we keep burning it at the present rate.

    26. Re:Perspective by susano_otter · · Score: 2

      Reminds me of a Larry Niven short story. It's set in mission control room (KSC, if I remember right), where a bunch of technicians, administrators, and VIPs are watching the telemetry from their latest unmanned probe. The first bit of weirdness is that the probe is in orbit around a planet in another star system, transmitting its readings from there to earth. The second bit of weirdness is that half the people in mission control are aliens, from the world the probe has reached. The third bit of weirdness is the aliens have donated their advanced FTL travel technology to the project, making a rapid travel time and realtime communication with the probe possible. The kicker is that the aliens are amazed by the humans' success with robotic and teleoperation technology--to throw an unmanned device across lightyears of space into orbit around a distant body with pinpoint precision, and have all its instruments work and return accurate readings upon arrival, is far beyond the aliens' own capabilities. The mission is a demonstration of human precision engineering and automation technology, prior to an exchange of tech: human robotics for alien FTL. Both parties believe they are getting the better end of the deal.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    27. Re:Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, 1 second to a person going 99.99999% of the speed of light would be enough to circle the universe.

    28. Re:Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before we slap Isaac around, keep in mind that Newton's theory is incomplete, not wrong. One of the checks on Einstein's theory is that it reduces to Newton's in the weak-field, low-velocity limit. Since Einstein's theory doesn't include quantum mechanics, it can't be the whole story. That doesn't mean it's crap - no matter what theory of quantum gravity is ever proven to be real, Newton's mechanics will be good enough for many purposes.

  9. Voy 1 will likely confuse even modern earthlings?? by jukal · · Score: 1

    Why? I still believe it's a rather good road-show. It could be much more outdated. All the information containted there is still very much valid. Breast-feeding is still normal practise :) Maybe seeing a breast just scares the nerds and that's why it confused you? :) *no offense*

  10. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who cares about buying records when you can download them for free?

    He he..

    $|{

  11. What has changed since 1970's? by Goldmember · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I wouldn't worry about ETs not understanding us, looking at the pictures from the 70's. Our world hasn't changed that much really, from an outsider point of view. If the ETs can figure out what the dna picture means, I bet it doesn't matter if it represents our knowledge from 1970's or 2020's.

    Why is the probe running on batteries? Is it even possible to use solar power that far from the sun? What does it use energy for anyway? Is it transmitting something back to earth?

    1. Re:What has changed since 1970's? by sirinek · · Score: 1

      Yes, it still sends data back to earth. Here is a evry short blurb confirming this. :)

      siri

    2. Re:What has changed since 1970's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is the probe running on batteries?

      Snot. That's Slashdot editors at work for you. I believe it's running on RTGs, radioactive thermal generators. Takes the heat from radioactive decay and converts it to electricity. Still runs out of power after a while.

    3. Re:What has changed since 1970's? by jukal · · Score: 2

      Nothing has changed really. If you put this 25 years in perspective, we have not even invented anything important. A couple of wars fought, a few new ways to use old inventions created, escape from trousers that kills your genitals completed (although there are signs of this behaviour is in the air again said MTV when I last watched it a year or so ago). 25 years is nothing.

    4. Re:What has changed since 1970's? by Sircus · · Score: 2

      It's got its own radiation source which is used for power generation (ditto the Pioneer craft). Since this is doubtless running continually whether we want it to or not, it's running out. So it's not batteries per se, but a question of the half life of the element in question. Solar power's out of the question at these distances, hence the need for this power source.

      --
      PenguiNet: the (shareware) Windows SSH client
    5. Re:What has changed since 1970's? by Sircus · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ok, I got off (actually, stayed on) my butt and found this:

      Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTG's)
      Three RTG's provide electric power to Voyager. The generators produce about 1800 watts of heat by the radioactive decay of plutonium. The heat is then converted to about 400 watts of electric power by thermocouplers. The RTG's are mounted on a boom to protect the scientific instruments from excess heat and radioactivity.


      and this, which discusses RTGs in the context of Cassini and safety.

      --
      PenguiNet: the (shareware) Windows SSH client
    6. Re:What has changed since 1970's? by Hard_Code · · Score: 2

      Bellbottoms are coming back. 'Nuff said.

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    7. Re:What has changed since 1970's? by p3d0 · · Score: 1
      "Coming back?" Where have you been for the last 5 years?

      As far as I can tell, they're on their way back out again. I think we're on schedule for the Miami Vice/Flock of Seaguls look again.

      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    8. Re:What has changed since 1970's? by psxndc · · Score: 2

      It was best said on "Jackie Chan Adventures" when Jade got sucked through a time warp. She gets sent back to 1976: Jade: "Where am I?" "What is going on?" "BellBottoms?! That is soooo 90's"

      --

      The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.

    9. Re:What has changed since 1970's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Quantum computing. Genetic Engineering. Cloning.

      There. Three things we have invented or perfected in 25 years.

    10. Re:What has changed since 1970's? by LedZeplin · · Score: 1

      From what I've read in the past about RTG's it's not the radioactive decay of the material, but the condition of the thermocouples, they go bad long before the RTG is cool.

    11. Re:What has changed since 1970's? by Ioldanach · · Score: 2
      Since this is doubtless running continually whether we want it to or not, it's running out. So it's not batteries per se, but a question of the half life of the element in question.

      I'm sure it must be mentioned elsewhere, but I don't see it... It isn't an issue of the half life of the element, but rather the lifespan of the thermocouples. The half life of plutonium could probably power this craft for quite a few years past 2020. The thermocouples, however, have a known degradation rate and therefore their failure rate (or point at which their power production falls below that required to run the craft) is known and can be fixed at 2020. (Roughly, at least.)

    12. Re:What has changed since 1970's? by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > Why is the probe running on batteries? Is it even possible to use solar power that far from the sun? What does it use energy for anyway? Is it transmitting something back to earth?

      1) Radiothermoelectric Generators - RTGs. A chunk of plutonium is warm, like a puppy. Space is cold, like a puppy dipped in liquid nitrogen.

      A Peltier-effect CPU cooler exploits a difference in electrical potential (power to the cooler) to create a temperature gradient (hot fins, cool CPU). The effect works in reverse -- Voyager uses the temperature gradient between cold space and warm radioactives to generate an electrical current. No moving parts, so you have 100% reliability, and it can last as long as the radioactives are sufficiently "hot" -- which is often decades.

      2) No. Solar is pretty impractical at Jupiter-range distances, and you can forget about Saturn and beyond. That's why Cassini used RTGs. That's why if you want to get to the outer planets quickly, an ion engine plus an RTG is a really cool idea. (That's why I hate enviro-nuts who go apeshit at anything with the word "nukular", but that's another /. thread.)

      4) Yes :)

      3) To transmit the signals in #4. (And to run the computers to receive signals from Earth.) It's mainly a "where are you now?" and "what's it like out there?" kind of conversation, but there's still some useful data coming back. These long-range probes are how we'll find out if our theories of gravitation are OK or not, and once past the heliopause, give us an idea of what near-interstellar space is like.

    13. Re:What has changed since 1970's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those three really aren't all that important, from a historical perspective. Quantum computing is really just an extension of regular computing, at a very small scale. The discovery of Quantum Mechanics, on the other hand is enormous in comparison.

      Genetic engineering and cloning are both just technologies derived from the theory of Genetics, which has been around a while.

      Refinements of technology, yes... but not exactly anything new there. Important events are things like the formation of Speech, Writing, Mathematics, and discoveries of the physical properties of nature such as Mechanics (classical/relativistic/quantum) and Electro-Magnetism. I suppose next to these you might be able to throw in the whole field of computer science as a minor achievement.

    14. Re:What has changed since 1970's? by coastwalker · · Score: 1

      End of the Economic philosophy conflict i.e. Victory of Capitalism over Communism

      Rise of the Culture philosophy conflict i.e. War on Terror, Anti globalisation

      Next step in the democratisation of information (Illuminated manuscript, Printed book, Radio, Television, Internet...)

      Widespread acceptance that environmental damage should be limited or even reversed

      The rise of China

      Loss of adherence to the nuclear family in the west

      Rap music and the return of dance music designed for and suitable for dancing to for the first time since Rock and Roll.

      Global cusine

      Baby boomers become grey power

      The end of space exploration

      Genetic medicine arrives

      Otherwise nothing much has changed, come to think of it all of the above is detail anyway as the Romans had flushing toilets and running water....

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
  12. Well, when it does run out.... by The+Analog+Kid · · Score: 1

    It will drift into space, silent, waiting for someone to pick it up, hopefully it won't burn into the atmosphere of other planets.

    1. Re:Well, when it does run out.... by e-gold · · Score: 1

      I suppose you're too young to have watched the Star Trek ("V'ger" -- an alien modification of Voyager & another alien spacecraft, tries to exterminate everything it can find) or you'd have probably made a joke about it here. I haven't read this thread carefully, but someone else surely has mentioned it by now.

      I was lucky enough to watch both Voyager launches that summer in the '70s, from the Canaveral National Seashore, while surf-fishing. They've both been a testament to what robots can do for space exploration, but as a politician once said, "No Buck Rogers, no bucks."

      I think, for cost reasons, that the first non-robotic missions to Mars should be one-way, and made by people who plan to die out there. The resources for trying to return someone to earth can better be spent on other things, heartless as that sounds.
      JMR

      Speaking only for myself (as always).

      --
      Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
    2. Re:Well, when it does run out.... by wuHoncho · · Score: 1

      hopefully it won't burn into the atmosphere of other planets

      Or be gobbled up by a giant intergalactic space dog. arf!

      --


      Just another freak in the freak kingdom.
    3. Re:Well, when it does run out.... by wiremind · · Score: 1
      I think, for cost reasons, that the first non-robotic missions to Mars should be one-way, and made by people who plan to die out there. The resources for trying to return someone to earth can better be spent on other things, heartless as that sounds.

      I dont know about the rest of you, but if i was given the chance to go to mars, with the knowledge i would never come back, I would take that offer.

      LET ME REPEAT:
      I Kyle Lanser would be willing to go to Mars, and never come back.

    4. Re:Well, when it does run out.... by e-gold · · Score: 1

      (I think I would NOT take the same offer, but...) do you think the choice will be presented? Clearly they'll have limited payload, and propulsion+life-support for a return will cost a LOT more than the same thing from the moon, and IMO will take up space needed for scientific stuff.
      JMR

      --
      Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
    5. Re:Well, when it does run out.... by jcast · · Score: 1

      Doesn't one of those probes get blasted by Klingons at one point?

      --
      There are reasons why democracy does not work nearly as well as capitalism.
      -- David D. Friedman
  13. You know, I think its irresponsible of us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    To send this thing out into the galaxy.


    What if it lands on an inhabited planet and kills everyone there because they don't have immunity to Earth diseases ? Yet again, NASA astrologers have not thought it through.

    1. Re:You know, I think its irresponsible of us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would imagine most bacteria or viruses would be killed in the extremes of space. Saying that they might of mutated :)

    2. Re:You know, I think its irresponsible of us by magicalyak · · Score: 1

      Honestly, there are not many things that survive in space, even bacteria have a temperature/atmosphere range, along with a virus which will denature at a certain temp/pressure.

  14. That's Light Hours, not Light Years by Frodo420024 · · Score: 2, Informative
    One massive typo here. 12 light years is 3X the distance of Alpha Centauri...

    12 light years would require it to fly at ½ the speed of light, which is not technichally feasible (unfortunately!)

    --
    I'm in a Unix state of mind.
    1. Re:That's Light Hours, not Light Years by srn_test · · Score: 1

      Err, either the /. editor bozos are getting naughty and editing "silently", or you misread.

      I hope it's the latter; however with the way /. has been going over the last year or so, the former seems much more likely.

    2. Re:That's Light Hours, not Light Years by p3d0 · · Score: 2

      Did this story really ever say "light-years"? Because when I read it, it said "light-hours".

      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
  15. Which is odd by wiredog · · Score: 2

    considering it was going nowhere near Mars.

    1. Re:Which is odd by richie2000 · · Score: 2

      Well, maybe it is now. :-)

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
    2. Re:Which is odd by Sloppy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Clearly, the martian gunners' capabilities have been misunderestimated.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    3. Re:Which is odd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i can bet its powered by windoze ;)

    4. Re:Which is odd by plugger · · Score: 1

      Misunderestimated? Your surname wouldn't be Bush by any chance, would it? :-)

  16. Not News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Space LITTER is not news, nor does it matter. Save this space for things like working penis enlargers. Aluminium foil deflector beanies, etc.

  17. Microwave oven..? by dubstop · · Score: 1, Interesting

    On August 20, 1977, the compact disk, the microwave oven, and the fax machine were communication tools that could only be glimpsed on the technological horizon.

    I'm probably going to regret asking this, but how can a microwave oven be used as a communication tool?

    1. Re:Microwave oven..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I bought a microwave for sixty quid a couple of months ago, and it works fine.

      Funny thing is though, when I tried to type microwave I typed microsoft.

    2. Re:Microwave oven..? by CarrionBird · · Score: 1

      I suppose he meant microwave transmitters, which use the same kind of energy as an microwave oven (just more of it).

      --
      Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
    3. Re:Microwave oven..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well the Microwave Ovens of the 70's certainly broadcast microwave radiation over a wide frequency. Cheap Taiwanese manufacturing that is.

    4. Re:Microwave oven..? by bwohlgemuth · · Score: 1

      On August 20, 1977, the compact disk, the microwave oven, and the fax machine were communication tools that could only be glimpsed on the technological horizon.

      I'm probably going to regret asking this, but how can a microwave oven be used as a communication tool?


      Drop a compact disc in the microwave. It's an advanced form of plasma communication.

      B

      --
      Flamebait .sig for sale, low mileage, one owner only.
      Serious inquiries only.
    5. Re:Microwave oven..? by ChaoticLimbs · · Score: 1

      Step One: defeat all pertinent safety interlocks (they're for dweebs). Step Two: Turn on microwave at HIGH power. Set timer for at least ten minutes. Step Three: Open Door of Microwave. Step Four: Learn Morse code. Study in the kitchen. Step Five: Reset timer for thirty minutes. Step Six: Aim microwave oven at space aliens and open and close the microwave rapidly according to your encoded message pattern. Step Seven: Turn off microwave oven as the aliens arrive. Do this before they breach the six-foot safety perimeter. Did I forget to tell you about that? Oh yeah, keep your kids and loved ones at least six feet away from the oven. If you fail to heed this they'll end up rubbery but moist like a microwaved danish. Okay if your kids ARE loved ones, then they are in BOTH categories in step seven. Yes, they should keep well away from it, too.

    6. Re:Microwave oven..? by rcw-home · · Score: 2
      I'm probably going to regret asking this, but how can a microwave oven be used as a communication tool?

      "Some disassembly required"

      The magnetron is an extremely high-power wideband 2.4GHz RF transmitter, whose waveguide can be routed to something like a parabolic dish instead of the customary faraday cage with food inside. This is how radar works.

      Magnetrons and Klystrons scale to hundreds of kilowatts. For some interesting reading, do a google search on it.

  18. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are some you can't download for free, and besides, vinyl is a much purer sound.

  19. 2012-ish marks next 'landmark' event for Voyager.. by upstateguy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As BBC reported yesterday, in 2012 or so, Voyager 1 is predicted to cross the heliopause, the boundry at which time it *really* will leave our solar system.

    Pretty neat for a piece of 1970's technology.

  20. Re:2012-ish marks next 'landmark' event for Voyage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is that 'pretty neat'? They haven't touched the damn thing for thirty years!

  21. It's a sad thing this Voyager thing really by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 0, Troll

    Gee, a giant hunk of metal with a computer that makes my palm pilot look fantastic is dominating all our later efforts 25 years ago.

    No, I'm not poo-pooing on Voyager, you go lil guy.

    But, I want to take a crap all over NASA and the utter inability to best Voyager in the 25 years of innovation since. Is it just me or is the space industry in a completely different reality than the rest of our technology sectors?
    I mean really though, think... the space shuttle was in the 80's, 20 years ago and we're still there!

    We need to get Gordon Moore in here to help figure out a quantitative method to determine just when I can vacation on Mars thank you very much.

    1. Re:It's a sad thing this Voyager thing really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope buddy... we have moved on in one respect at least - space is becoming totally commercialised, just like the rest of the tech sectors. Look at the speace tourist phenomenon - the american, the south african, and now a #$%@'n backstreet boy....

    2. Re:It's a sad thing this Voyager thing really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they did land a rover on Mars in the 90's... and as one of the millions in front of CNN at the time, I think that was pretty extraordinary to see a (kinda) live picture from Mars appearing on my TV screen... (!)

    3. Re:It's a sad thing this Voyager thing really by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      But, I want to take a crap all over NASA and the utter inability to best Voyager in the 25 years of innovation since. Is it just me or is the space industry in a completely different reality than the rest of our technology sectors?

      What exactly are you expecting?

      Note that the radiation of space limits the miniturization of many electronic parts. Thus, things can only be shrank so much up there.

      I mean really though, think... the space shuttle was in the 80's, 20 years ago and we're still there!

      Well, chemical propellants are still the most viable launch technology, so the shuttles still do what they do. It would be nice if there were better/cheaper ways to get into space and move fast, but nobody has found the magic formula for that. Trek's Cockrin has not been born yet :-)

  22. The music on there by IainHere · · Score: 3, Funny

    When eminent biologist and author Lewis Thomas was asked what message he would choose to send from Earth into outer space in the Voyager spacecraft, he answered, "I would send the complete works of Johann Sebastian Bach." After a pause, he added, "But that would be boasting."

    1. Re:The music on there by Simon+Garlick · · Score: 2

      Correction. After postulating that music would be the most appropriate medium by which to communicate with extraterrestrial life, Lewis continued,

      "Bach, all of Bach, streamed out into space, over and over again." He added, "We would be bragging, of course."

      ObRef: Thomas, L. Ceti. in Lives of a Cell: Notes of a Biology Watcher, Viking Press, New York, 1974, 42-46

    2. Re:The music on there by Observer · · Score: 2
      Concerning J.S.Bach:

      There's an info page on the message to the universe here.

      Bach has 3 pieces on the record, compared to 2 by Beethoven and 1 each by Mozart, Stravinsky, Chuck Berry, and Blind Willie Johnson. I'd say the selectors did a pretty good job as far as the classical western genres are concerned.

      (2 by Beethoven is over-representation? Possibly, but one is from one of the sublime late string quartets.)

    3. Re:The music on there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought Crum's Ancient Voices of Children was on there as well. I can't think of anything better...

    4. Re:The music on there by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 2

      "But that would be boasting."

      Yeah, that's the only thing I am disappointed about. Sure B,B&M were great composers. But they don't really represent me. It's great they included Chuck Berry, but would it have hurt to throw on the theme song for say "Hawaii Five-O" or "Bonanza"? And what about the trek theme?

      Aliens are gonna come to Earth thinking we're all these Lincoln Center types- what are they gonna do when they find us listening to Linkin Park?

      --
      -- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
    5. Re:The music on there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully, wipe us out. As they should.

    6. Re:The music on there by Art+Tatum · · Score: 2

      You listen to Linkin Park?!

    7. Re:The music on there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever since then, the RIAA has been silently sending coded messages from a base in South America to disable voyager, in case it falls into the hands of an alien civilization and cause massive loss of revenue. Simultanously, the RIAA head WASP/VAMP/(Um Lawyer) filed suite against all American Tax payers alive during the 70's for their contributions that caused the launch of this craft with digital music on it.

      HelloWorld.

    8. Re:The music on there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tehehehe.... RIAA vs Everyone else..... Also, it was found that RIAA's suite included even employees at RIAA, from janitor up to the suprime exective bunch that smoked havanas and only used eight track music.

    9. Re:The music on there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For listening to Linkin Park? Yes. It would be well deserved.

    10. Re:The music on there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any idiot could write that crap. Bach represents our genius.

  23. DNA is still DNA by oingoboingo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...and perhaps the most dated picture of DNA

    Huh? Unless something changed recently, all the details illustrated in the DNA diagram are still as valid now as they were in the 70s. Is the story submitter upset because the double helix isn't animated, spinning slowly around, backlit by an offscreen purple fluorescent light source with meaningless reams of genetic code flashing past in the background like in a million bad sci-fi movies?

    You'll still find a very similar style of diagram in any molecular biology textbook.

    1. Re:DNA is still DNA by magicalyak · · Score: 1

      Is this someone in particular's DNA, or is the "snippet" a very common segment? I wouldn't want aliens cloning whoever dipped their stick in the DNA pool that day. (like Venter and Celera's Genome project).

    2. Re:DNA is still DNA by nanoakron · · Score: 1

      Probably because it's not a big spinning helix made of M&M's a la 'Mission to Mars'...

      As for you guys who believe that including 20 base pairs of our genetic information will somehow lead to our downfall...let me remind you that our genome contains 3,000,000,000 base pairs of information in total. 20bp is just a piss in the ocean, and tells you *nothing* near the amount of information you need to know to kill the organism based on it.

      I mean, they won't even be able to decode P=phosphorus atom and O=oxygen atom

      -Nano.

    3. Re:DNA is still DNA by Skyshadow · · Score: 2
      If you want to know how to *kill* humans, wouldn't it be much easier just to decode our TV signals?

      Alien 1: Let's kill their President!
      Alien 2: How?
      Alien 1: Let's frame him for murder in Texas!

      --
      Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    4. Re:DNA is still DNA by reverseengineer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Does anyone know why the diagram uses S to represent the base cytosine in the DNA diagram rather than C? Is it simply to avoid confusion with the c they use for carbon in outlining the structure of the bases, or is it part of an outdated labeling convention?

      --
      "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
    5. Re:DNA is still DNA by juhaz · · Score: 1

      Did they really just use letters to mark atoms?

      Or is there a "dictionary", copy of periodic table, with atom weights and other relevant information, for example. And maybe some illustrations of most common molecules for "tip".

    6. Re:DNA is still DNA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, this is funny. Virtual +1 Funny mod point to you.

    7. Re:DNA is still DNA by vrmlguy · · Score: 3, Informative
      Your guess is exactly correct. Sagan published a coffe-table book ( Murmurs of Earth: The Voyager Interstellar Record ) about the gold record, containing all the images encoded on the disk and text explainations. As I recall, he noted the use of S rather than C to avoid confusion.

      I used to own the hardcover, but it disappeared one day, along with my copy of A House in Space , the story of the first space station, Skylab.

      --
      Nothing for 6-digit uids?
    8. Re:DNA is still DNA by gene_tailor · · Score: 1

      Jeez, when they said "dated picture" I thought they meant Rosalind Franklin's X-ray diffraction image, shown at:

      --
      It also occurs to me that if one was drowning, yelling "Help! I'm drowning and I lost my bikini top" would probably be m
  24. (c) Jon Lomberg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if the "(c) Jon Lomberg" copyright on the photo of the DNA sketch is also on Voyager!?

    1. Re:(c) Jon Lomberg by Bohnanza · · Score: 1

      Absolutely - you don't want those damned aliens pirating his work, do you?

      --

      -----

      Sorry, I'm only a 1336 h4x0r.

  25. DNA looks o.k. to me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, I don't want to add to the criticism of Hemos' writeup...but what's wrong with the DNA? I have a Ph. D. (yes, in biology) and it looks fine to me. Maybe it's still too early in the morning for me to see clearly.

    1. Re:DNA looks o.k. to me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't illustrated using all that great Linux graphics software.

    2. Re:DNA looks o.k. to me... by hey! · · Score: 2

      I agree.

      This would be an interesting experiment to try. Replace the symbols with a consistent set of otherwise meaningless glyphs -- a kind of substitution cipher. Then hand it to a competent biologist and see how long it takes him to come up with a correct interpretation -- probably not more than a few minutes.

      You can make it progressively harder, by eliminating certain assumptions about how to represent certain things. For example, you could replace the lines used to indicate chemical bonds with dots; 1 dot for a single bond, 2 for a double, three for a tripple. Also, the alternating 1/2 bond representation of carbon rings is a bit arbitrary; another symbol might be better to represent the nature of the bonds within the ring.

      Nonetheless, when looked at by a person who studies organic chemistry, I don't think it would take long for him to figure out.

      I think it is very likely that any intelligent life form which encounters Voyager is going to be carbon based; if the civilization has the technology to recover Voyager, it will no doubt have organic chemists. What it will tell them is that we, like they, are carbon based life forms. The exact function of DNA may take them some time to work out, and they may never be sure, but there is a good chance that somebody will conjecture that this is the mechanism by which our genetic inheritance is transferred (assuming they die and leave offspring!). It's a plausible guess, given that if you wanted to give a chemical picture of yourself, the mechanism of genetics would be a high priority.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:DNA looks o.k. to me... by hyacinthus · · Score: 2

      "Also, the alternating 1/2 bond representation of carbon rings is a bit arbitrary; another symbol might be better to represent the nature of the bonds within the ring."

      It is a bit arbitrary, but it would be difficult accurately to depict the real nature of the bonding in a fused heterocyclic aromatic system in any simple way. A common convention is to draw a six-electron aromatic ring (e.g. benzene, thiophene, tropylium) with a circle in the center. One organic chemistry text, March's _Advanced Organic Chemistry_, adopts this convention for single rings but does _not_ use it for fused systems, for a good reason: if you drew (say) naphthalene with a circle in the center of each ring, you would inaccurately give the impression that napthalene was a system of two independent six-electron rings, and not a fused system of ten electrons with a certain amount of bond fixation.

      hyacinthus.

  26. They've found it now by Space+cowboy · · Score: 2

    The BBC are reporting that they've found the probe orbiting the sun... No comets then ...

    Simon

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
    1. Re:They've found it now by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      (* The BBC [bbc.co.uk] are reporting that they've found the probe orbiting the sun... No comets then ... *)

      Most comets also orbit the Sun.

      Anyhow, they still have not made contact with it.

      Further, the BBC version said nothing about the "second piece" they spotted, implying that it split in two. Other accounts that I have read said they found two peices.

    2. Re:They've found it now by ELCarlsson · · Score: 1

      Here's the article from CNN. They say that they can't contact it but they will try again in december. So much for the rendevous with those comets.

    3. Re:They've found it now by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      They say that they can't contact it but they will try again in december.

      Um, it is now a "them", not an "it". I call them "Con" and "Tour". (Or was that "Tour" and "Con"?)

      It would be interesting to send up a mission to rendevooz with it, I mean them, to find out what went wrong. Otherwise, they may spend yet more money down the road if they make the same mistake on the next probe.

      Such a probe could not be that expensive, could it? Basically communication, camera, and some directional propellant. 60 million including launch?

  27. Re:Voy 1 will likely confuse even modern earthling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like you're confused. The 'confuse' link points to a silhouette of a fetus, not the breastfeeding pic.

    The silhouette *would* be very confusing, unless there's a solid reference between it and a human baby. Just by itself it could be anything. Keep in mind that the chances of non-terrestrial life looking anything like us is slim to laughable.

  28. why give them our DNA? by tps12 · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one who thinks it's a bad idea to give aliens our DNA? Surely any civilization capable of interstellar travel would also be able to use our "blueprints," as it were, to quickly whip up a few fake humans, or even develop biological or genetic weaponry. Even if they don't use it against us (at first), they come into the relationship knowing tons more about us than we do about them. That initial inequity of information could set the tone for the duration of our contact with another species, making us little better than slaves of a race that is only superior because of the data we gave them.

    --

    Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
    1. Re:why give them our DNA? by Scoria · · Score: 1

      You are an astoundingly brilliant troll, tps12. :) Out of respect for you, I'll bite. ;)

      Since we already emit significant amounts of radio signals (among other things) into space, discerning our location would be rather trivial for a technologically advanced (or equal) race. Provided they possessed sufficient technology to travel here, abducting and studying human specimens would provide an infinite amount of knowledge in comparison to what is presented by the NASA probes.

      --
      Do you like German cars?
    2. Re:why give them our DNA? by shd99004 · · Score: 2

      I don't think they will get so much info from that simple picture. No reason to be worried there. If they would figure out *what* it is, they have to figure out *where* in our DNA it is, and even then they have no clue about nearly anything regarding our DNA... let alone creating humans.

      --
      Will work for bandwidth
    3. Re:why give them our DNA? by tps12 · · Score: 0

      But we have no idea how similar ETs would be to us, nor how advanced their technology might be. Here on Earth we are seeing the transition to information-based society. Information warfare is trumping nuclear weapons as information industries push out manufacturing. Information is valuable, and anything we give aliens with unknown abilities could prove too much. It isn't worth the risk.

      --

      Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
    4. Re:why give them our DNA? by shd99004 · · Score: 2

      We're giving out thousands of times more info through Discovery and other such channels and so on. The difference is, though it's difficult, it's possible to stop this probe. Our radio and TV transmissions are impossible to stop. Should we stop this too and use only wiretechnology for information exchange? For how long have we had TV broadcasting, like 60 years or so? By now there's a lot of information for anyone within a 60 light year radius from us, even further if they pick up our radio signals. If they can understand our TV programmes, they should know by now that we can't even unite as a species but instead we choose to kill each other every now and then. They also know some of our technology; if they are 30 lightyears ago they're aware that we have the ability of interplanetary travel. Will they be worried about this? Or will we be considered too primitive for them to establish contact? Are we a threat to others? Or will they realize that we have many good sides too, and that that would make them think we're worthy of contact with them?

      Whether it is right or wrong to give out information about us, I don't know. There is a possibility someone will try to benefit from this, in one way or another. In case of contact, it could give them an unfair advantage.

      However, I don't think we should stay quiet all the time. Actually I think we should more actively send out radiomessages for *their* SETI-scientists to detect and maybe send back an answer to us. As I see it, if we establish contact by the means of radio signals, the chance is great that they are more advanced than us. Why? Becuase basically, we discovered radio yesterday. We might find civilizations that are new to radio too, but chances are they have advanced much more than that. Somehow I like to think that they would therefor be peaceful, because they have survived longer than we as a technological civilization, and therefor would pose no threat to us.

      --
      Will work for bandwidth
    5. Re:why give them our DNA? by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      (* Am I the only one who thinks it's a bad idea to give aliens our DNA? Surely any civilization capable of interstellar travel would also be able to use our "blueprints," as it were, to quickly whip up a few fake humans, or even develop biological or genetic weaponry. *)

      The Voyager version was only an example, not the complete DNA. Besides, I don't think the entire genetic code is enough to make a person without references to how Earth biology works. It would be like giving machine code of a program. Without knowing the OS and the chip's language/archetecture, it may be nearly useless.

  29. From the article by Mirk · · Score: 0, Troll
    ... Expected battery life to 2020 ...

    (Not supplied.) :-)

    --

    --
    What short sigs we have -
    One hundred and twenty chars!
    Too short for haiku.
  30. Welcome Who? by ppluta · · Score: 1

    Do you all there know languages like the one who put there the voice of woman speaking Polish? She greeted, in perfectly pronounced Polish, the creatures that live after death, like ghosts, spectres and other Nazguls. Polish language difficult is, heh? Or the translation expensive too much?

    1. Re:Welcome Who? by WebMasterJoe · · Score: 2
      Do you all there know languages like the one who put there the voice of woman speaking Polish? She greeted, in perfectly pronounced Polish, the creatures that live after death, like ghosts, spectres and other Nazguls. Polish language difficult is, heh? Or the translation expensive too much?
      English too language difficult is :)
      --
      I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
    2. Re:Welcome Who? by BitHive · · Score: 1
      English too language difficult is :)

      Don't quit the ol' day job, Webmaster Joe.

  31. The one problem I have... by swaic · · Score: 1

    Well actually one of the problems I have is the ridiculous distance for an AU. I'd think it would have made more sense to make an AU 100 Millions miles or 1 billion miles so as to make calculations easier. Then they can simply say Earth is 0.93 AU or 0.093 AU. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the current choice for the distance is kinda dumb.

    1. Re:The one problem I have... by Sircus · · Score: 2

      In what way do you perceive some dodgy, non-metric unit like miles as making calculations easier? Why not define it as 319.1 billion rods?

      I guess part of the reason for AU is to give the man in the street something to understand in news stories (since so many people *don't* understand light years). I doubt anyone really does any calculation with it.

      --
      PenguiNet: the (shareware) Windows SSH client
    2. Re:The one problem I have... by bovril · · Score: 1
      Yeah, because a mile is a much better unit... =P

      Units of measurement are always going to be somewhat arbitrary and dependent upon what we humans have to use as a point of reference. The distance from Earth to the Sun is as reasonable a unit of measurement as the distance between some aristocrat's nose and his forefinger or whatever. Same goes for metres, kilograms and seconds...

      Maybe when the aliens drop by they can tell us what the really sensible units are.

      --

      ---
      Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
    3. Re:The one problem I have... by p3d0 · · Score: 1

      Sure they do. AU are used by astronomers all the time. Why not?

      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    4. Re:The one problem I have... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [see http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/glossary/au.html, http://physics.ucsd.edu/students/courses/spring200 2/physics5/notes/lecture2/tsld018.htm]

      the Astronomical unit is a standard measure for distance to objects within the solar system, being the mean orbital displacement of the Earth relative to the sun.

      makes perfect sense, and is no less arbitrary than assigning the distance 100 million km, which is merely the distance light travels in approximately 333.56 seconds, or the definition of the Parsec [1 Parsec (Parallax arc-sec) is defined as the distance to a star which exhibits a parallax angle of 1 arc-second]

      these units make perfect sense to the people who use them.

    5. Re:The one problem I have... by aurelian · · Score: 1
      The AU is actually a useful unit if you're talking about planetary systems in general and are interested in making comparisons with our own. Giving orbital distances in AU means you can convert directly to orbital periods in years for Solar mass stars:

      period(yrs) = distance(AU)^(3/2).

      That said, many astronomers give distances in cm!

    6. Re:The one problem I have... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And a mile is any better? 5280 feet... A foot is any better? It's the size of someones foot for godsake... I see no worse problem in making one AU the distance between the sun and the earth.

      If we were to revise it, at least base it on a meter.

    7. Re:The one problem I have... by jaoswald · · Score: 2

      The point is that parallax measurements of distances to stellar or planetary objects are based on the Earth's motion around the sun. The measurements *inherently* give you an answer in AU.

      1) Why apply a conversion factor just to express it in meters?

      2) The proper conversion factor depends on other measurements (I'm actually not sure how the mean earth-solar distance would be measured), so it can't be defined arbitrarily. If you made the Earth 0.93 AU, you'd have to multiply all your parallax measurements by 0.93 to get the distance in your "new AU" anyway. Pointless effort for no gain.

      There is a reason for proliferation of auxiliary units. The interatomic spacing of Si atoms in a crystal is used as a basis for diffraction measurements; the "amu" is the basis for atomic mass measurements; the "mol" is used as a measure of quantity, etc.

      In all of these cases, the measurements based on the unit are more (or just slightly less) precise than the basic unit can be measured by other techniques. It is most convenient to express your results that best preserves the original accuracy.

  32. Re:2012-ish marks next 'landmark' event for Voyage by Goldmember · · Score: 1

    I agree that the voyager is a nice thing to be there, but even a brick (4000 bc technology...:) would fly to alpha centauri if given enough time. What would be really neat is that if it would still actually do something.

  33. Re:Voy 1 will likely confuse even modern earthling by jukal · · Score: 2
    > Looks like you're confused. The 'confuse' link points to a silhouette of a fetus, not the breastfeeding pic.

    Ohh, that's what it means. I understood the whole sentence as the origin of this confusion. IMHO, the whole article was confusing, not the data in voyager.

  34. Re:2012-ish marks next 'landmark' event for Voyage by HiQ · · Score: 2

    Pretty neat for a piece of 1970's technology.
    Not really. I mean, the journey it made, the navigation around the planets to gain more speed was pretty impressive, but in my view it is not impressive to leave to solar system. You see, on the next Shuttle flight they could bring a 16th century vase, and hurl it into space. Give it a few years, and it will too leave the solar system, but is that neat, or impressive?

  35. What is the heliopause? by Mirk · · Score: 1
    The BBC news article that the parent cited sort of defines the heliopause as ``the boundary between the Sun's influence and interstellar space''. That doesn't sound to me like it's something you could put a label on -- much as you can't really say where the ``upper boundary'' of the atmosphere is. You just pick an air pressure which you think is ``close enough to zero'' and define the outer atmosphere as the place where air pressure is that low.

    But is seems as though this heliopause is something more concrete. The article goes on to say:

    Voyager 1 has already discovered that the outbound solar wind around it is slowing from effects of inbound interstellar particles leaking through the boundary.

    A much better prediction of the boundary's location will come when the spacecraft encounters the termination shock, the zone where the solar wind begins piling up against the heliopause. That encounter may come within the next three years.

    Weird. Is it just me, or does this sound suspiciously like an old Star Trek script?

    --

    --
    What short sigs we have -
    One hundred and twenty chars!
    Too short for haiku.
    1. Re:What is the heliopause? by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      Maybe it is an exact barrier. Probably where the gravity of the sun is exactly canceled out by the combined gravity of all the other stars. Obviously it would be a very jagged circle around the sun, but most likly something we define by looking at comets and such and say to ourselves, "Hmm once it passes this point nomatter how slow its going at the far end of its orbit, it will not come back unless it stops before this line."

    2. Re:What is the heliopause? by Fishstick · · Score: 1

      >Is it just me, or does this sound suspiciously like an old Star Trek script?

      Sure does. That was the first thing that came to mind, the "energy barrier" at the edge of the galaxy. I'm trying to remember which episode that was. Was that the one where the aliens took over the ship and turned everyone into little styrofoam blocks?

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    3. Re:What is the heliopause? by jaoswald · · Score: 3, Informative

      The heliopause is not a gravitational feature. It is a feature of matter.

      The sun emits a flood of mostly-charged particles that make up the "solar wind." The earth is shielded by its magnetic fields, but the interplanetary environment is quite harsh.

      The heliopause is where this outward flow of solar matter becomes less than the general flow of matter through the galaxy. There isn't any good way to observe this from earth, which is why having a Voyager pass through the area is a good thing. Our current picture of the heliopause is based on physical modeling and simulation. Having any observational data to check these models against would be a major step forward.

    4. Re:What is the heliopause? by Mirk · · Score: 1
      I'm trying to remember which episode that was. Was that the one where the aliens took over the ship and turned everyone into little styrofoam blocks?

      Huh. That happened in every episode :-)

      --

      --
      What short sigs we have -
      One hundred and twenty chars!
      Too short for haiku.
    5. Re:What is the heliopause? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it was a movie. the final frontier, i think it was. spok's brother kidnaps the crew and makes em' cross the great barrier to go find "god".

    6. Re:What is the heliopause? by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
      "Where No Man has Gone Before".

      That's where Kirk's best friend gains god-like powers, and a complete inability to remember Kirk's middle name. "James R. Kirk" on the headstone.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    7. Re:What is the heliopause? by Yunzil · · Score: 2

      As I understand it, the heliopause is the point at which the solar wind (particles coming from the sun) can no longer expand due to the pressure of particles coming the other way.

      Think of it like this: Say you have a very large fan blowing air in one direction, and a long way away you have a lot of small fans blowing the opposite way. At some point, the wind from the large fan will exactly balance the wind from the small fans. That would be the... aeropause, or something. :)

    8. Re:What is the heliopause? by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      (* The heliopause is where this outward flow of solar matter becomes less than the general flow of matter through the galaxy. *)

      "It is where the nuclear farts of the Sun are over-powered by the nuclear farts of the rest of the Galaxy and space."

      From the yet-to-be-written Bevis and Butthead Encyclopedia. (Any publishers willing to sponsor this, BTW?)

  36. Golden Record by JimPooley · · Score: 3, Informative

    Doesn't the disc on Voyager feature an introduction by then UN Secretary General Kurt Waldheim giving greetings from Earth?
    How odd that the first human voice any aliens who could work the disc will hear is the voice of a former Nazi alleged to have taken part in war crime atrocities in the then Yugoslavia...

    --

    "Information wants to be paid"
    1. Re:Golden Record by bsDaemon · · Score: 2

      How odd is it that the former Secretary General was a former Nazi alleged to have taken part in war crime atrocities in the then Yugoslavia?

    2. Re:Golden Record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eliza, is that you?

    3. Re:Golden Record by bsDaemon · · Score: 2

      yes. yes it is. and i'm coming for your first born for blowing my cover.

    4. Re:Golden Record by skymester · · Score: 1

      Too bad that it doesnt run debian, you could ssh into it, do apt-get update; apt-get upgrade and not only would the greeting be updated, you can also fix the latest security problems.

      Martin

    5. Re:Golden Record by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2
      Doesn't the disc on Voyager feature an introduction by then UN Secretary General Kurt Waldheim giving greetings from Earth?

      How odd that the first human voice any aliens who could work the disc will hear is the voice of a former Nazi alleged to have taken part in war crime atrocities in the then Yugoslavia...

      It's not worse than aliens contacting earth by sending them back the 1936 TV programme with Adolf Hitler at the opening ceremony of the Berlin games.
    6. Re:Golden Record by frozenray · · Score: 1

      Here's Waldheims message to other civilizations.

      Oh, the irony in hearing Waldheim say "We step out of your solar system into the universe seeking only peace and friendship"...

      --
      "There are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare." - Blair Houghton
    7. Re:Golden Record by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Not any more odd perhaps than the "voice of the leader of earth" being a more-or-less powerless figurehead of a more-or-less powerless political entity.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    8. Re:Golden Record by icejai · · Score: 1

      How odd that the first human voice any aliens who could work the disc will hear is the voice of a former Nazi alleged to have taken part in war crime atrocities in the then Yugoslavia

      Just as odd as the first television broadcast they'll receive will be of the Olympics being hosted in Germany with Adolf Hitler sitting in the front row.

  37. Infinity taken for granted by minkwe · · Score: 2, Interesting
    What's Next: To infinity and beyond
    Another very crucial word that is almost always taken for granted by scientist and lay-men alike is Infinity. Does anybody know what infinity is really? The concept infinity is an ad-hoc device invented by humanity to hide certain contradictions wih our state of knowledge. The mere definition of infinity implies that there is no 'beyond', yet our current state of understanding does not provide room for boundlessness.
    Often scientists talk about how the universe is expanding. The concept of expansion itself demands that a boundary be present. And boundaries demark two regions, one within and one beyond. Yet nobody dares mention what is beyond the universe.
    All these contradictions just tell us one thing. Alot has to be undone about our stake of knowledge before we can begin to truely understand.
    Our current state of knowledge is similar to the days before Galeleo, when people thought the world was flat and you could reach the end of the world.

    My 0.02
    --
    "Fighting terrorists with millitary might is like killing a mosquitor on your Dad's forehead with a rifle."
    1. Re:Infinity taken for granted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, when we say that the universe is expanding we mean that all that matter floatign around in all this sapce (thats infinite space) is moving away from the "center" where that thing we call "the big bang" happened. When we say "the universe is expanding" we mean that all that matter hanging around now has better distribution.

      Thats about as far as I can possibly dumb it down. I hope you understand.

      recompile.org

    2. Re:Infinity taken for granted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Does anybody know what infinity is really?
      Read a maths book. There's lots of different sorts, all perfectly adequately defined.
      The concept of expansion itself demands that a boundary be present.
      No it doesn't. Sorry.
    3. Re:Infinity taken for granted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are utterly wrong. The "centre" where "the big bang happened" is at every single point in space.

      Perhaps you could get one of your teachers to explain it to you?

    4. Re:Infinity taken for granted by minkwe · · Score: 1

      What do you mean by the center of the universe then 'einstein'

      --
      "Fighting terrorists with millitary might is like killing a mosquitor on your Dad's forehead with a rifle."
    5. Re:Infinity taken for granted by minkwe · · Score: 1

      http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=expand

      One entry found for expand.
      Main Entry: expand
      Pronunciation: ik-'spand
      Function: verb
      Etymology: Middle English expaunden, from Latin expandere, from ex- + pandere to spread -- more at FATHOM
      Date: 15th century
      transitive senses
      1 : to open up : UNFOLD
      2 : to increase the extent, number, volume, or scope of : ENLARGE
      3 a : to express at length or in greater detail b : to write out in full c : to subject to mathematical expansion
      intransitive senses
      1 : to open out : SPREAD
      2 : to increase in extent, number, volume, or scope
      3 : to speak or write fully or in detail
      4 : to feel generous or optimistic
      - expandability /-"span-d&-'bi-l&-tE/ noun
      - expandable /-'span-d&-b&l/ adjective
      synonyms EXPAND, AMPLIFY, SWELL, DISTEND, INFLATE, DILATE mean to increase in size or volume. EXPAND may apply whether the increase comes from within or without and regardless of manner (as growth, unfolding, addition of parts). AMPLIFY implies the extension or enlargement of something inadequate. SWELL implies gradual expansion beyond a thing's original or normal limits. DISTEND implies outward extension caused by pressure from within. INFLATE implies expanding by introduction of air or something insubstantial and suggests a resulting vulnerability and liability to sudden collapse. DILATE applies especially to expansion of circumference.

      --
      "Fighting terrorists with millitary might is like killing a mosquitor on your Dad's forehead with a rifle."
    6. Re:Infinity taken for granted by ambisinistral · · Score: 1

      "The concept of expansion itself demands that a boundary be present" Only if you insist on placing the non-Euclidian universe into a larger Euclidian space.

      --

      deserve's got nothing to do with it...

    7. Re:Infinity taken for granted by kmellis · · Score: 2

      Your ignorance is charming assuming that you're still in elementary or secondary school. If you're older than that, then it's not so charming.

    8. Re:Infinity taken for granted by Jeffv323 · · Score: 1

      My way of looking at it is that the boundaries you speak of are the farthest known peices of matter from the center of where the big bang happened. The infinite part is the space that all of the matter from the big bang travels in.

      --
      I'm a minister!
    9. Re:Infinity taken for granted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who (with two brain cells to rub together) has ever talked about the center of the universe except to say that there isn't one?

      See if this is connected to your problem: Where is the center of the surface of the Earth? Not the center of the Earth, but the center of the _surface_. The Earth's surface is finite but unbounded, and it doesn't have a center. Embedding it in a space of higher dimension (3-D) defines in, out, etc., but the surface itself doesn't have those properties.

  38. What??? by Quarters · · Score: 2
    Case in point: In 2002, can we understand that 70's show, when the Polish greeting memorialized as "Welcome, creatures from beyond the outer world"?


    That's a nice sentence fragment you've written. Try full sentences next time. You might like them.
    1. Re:What??? by Stalyn · · Score: 1

      Someone needs a punch in the face.

      --
      The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
    2. Re:What??? by Quinn · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the same thing. What idea was that string of words intended to convey?

      Someone please answer.

      "How can we understand Polish if we can't understand That 70's Show?"

      "If I translate Polish literally, I can't understand That 70's Show?"

      Here's a serious attempt at restructure:

      In 2002, when we can't even understand "That 70's Show," how can we expect aliens to understand a Polish greeting memorialized as "Welcome, creatures from beyond the outer world?"

      But I can understand "That 70's Show" just fine, and why would aliens need to literally translate Polish into English?

      There are pictures of homo sapiens and equations and shit on that gold record. What's so bad about it? If someone found it, they'd know it was created by some kind of intelligence. They may not understand the literal "message" (which is trivial anyway), but they'll get the /point./

      --
      #19845
    3. Re:What??? by jaoswald · · Score: 2

      I saw it as a somewhat ironic phrasing: if we can't understand a message from a Slashdot editor posted on the internet, what hope does an alien civilization have of understanding the recordings?

      On a less sarcastic note, the point of the record is not really to communicate to aliens. By the time any aliens get the record, the Earth might even be long gone. Any aliens who find this probe will know that there was (or is) some form of intelligence in the universe. Maybe they won't even understand the concept of "sound" as a medium of communication, but it will be clear that this was the product of a civilization. Perhaps the effort to decode the disk will be a source of enlightenment or inspiration for the aliens, even if it isn't successful. If the message were totally straightforward, it might seem trivial. You've got to leave some part of it mysterious, to give them something to chew on and wonder about.

      Secondarily (or is it primarily...), it is made for the people of Earth, to know that some remnant of our humanity is floating, practically eternally, through space, even after the Earth is destroyed by solar evolution. That this disc has deliberately tried to preserve sounds that represent a diverse range of humanity is a hopeful gesture, like a time capsule, that no matter what happens to humanity, each of us can know that Voyager represents us in some small way.

    4. Re:What??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      But I can understand "That 70's Show" just fine, and why would aliens need to literally translate Polish into English?

      Yes, but in 2002, can you understand a Slashdot editor from 2002?

    5. Re:What??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I give you haiku:

      Gay man posts
      Picks apart the English
      Suck cock

    6. Re:What??? by vrmlguy · · Score: 3, Interesting
      IIRC, Sagan said that he believed that the Voyager records were more likely to be retrieved by humans than aliens. I don't recall any elaboration, but I got the idea that he expected them to be found by, say, a robotic Oort cloud explorer in AD 2929.

      If so, I would hope that the spacecraft would be analyzed in situ and allowed to continue rather than being returned to Earth and stuck in a museum.

      --
      Nothing for 6-digit uids?
    7. Re:What??? by pointandlaff · · Score: 1

      methinks that the reference was not necessarily to fox's "That 70's Show", but to a show in the 70's?? I don't really recall "That 70's Show" having anything to do with aliens, but maybe that's just because my tv's broken . ..
      Although I'll go along with the punch in the face comment lol

  39. Re:2012-ish marks next 'landmark' event for Voyage by Bishop923 · · Score: 1

    Neither, unless they strap a decent engine to the vase it would quickly get caught in Earth's gravity and vaporize on re-entry.

  40. Kind of OT but ... by Mr_Silver · · Score: 2
    ... imagine you were on that thing. You'd be the loneliest person known to mankind.

    I don't know about anyone else but I get this quite erie vision of this thing out there with nothing around it for millions of miles.

    --
    Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
    1. Re:Kind of OT but ... by Idarubicin · · Score: 1
      I don't know about anyone else but I get this quite erie vision of this thing out there with nothing around it for millions of miles.

      It's kind of like being in Iowa.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    2. Re:Kind of OT but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ah, but don't forget that humans are alone (with noone for millions of miles) on this very small planet we call "earth".

      If earth is eventually swallowed up by the sun, then our civilization, our history, our everything is gone forever.

    3. Re:Kind of OT but ... by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      (* If earth is eventually swallowed up by the sun, then our civilization, our history, our everything is gone forever. *)

      Those calculations are controversial. Some say that it will not be swallowed up because the Sun will lose mass and Earth's orbit will stretch because of this. The earlier calculations did not take this into account IIRC and assumed the same orbit radius.

      But, Earth will get cooked beyond recognition regardless. Thus, we better find a way to move to a different neighborhood by then.

  41. 'Cause they lie by bsDaemon · · Score: 2

    Obviously the universe isn't getting any larger. Everything inside of it is getting perportionaly smaller, evenly. That way it looks like the universe is getting bigger, but really not. It's just the size of a softball. really.

  42. You have no idea what you're talking about. by p3d0 · · Score: 3, Informative
    They would have to hurl that vase at at least 19 kilometers per second for it to leave the solar system, and even at that rate, it would not go nearly as quickly as the Voyager probes. 19km/s would be just enough for it to just barely crawl away from the solar system at a velocity asymptotically approaching zero.

    Besides, your analogy falls flat. I presume your point was that the age of the technology is irrelevant when it comes to leaving the solar system? Then consider this: what is it that pushed the 1970s technology of the Voyagers out of the solar system? Answer: more 1970s technology. If your 16th century vase were propelled by 16th century rockets, then your analogy would be valid.

    --
    Patrick Doyle
    I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
  43. Re:Voy 1 will likely confuse even modern earthling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The silhouette *would* be very confusing, unless there's a solid reference between it and a human baby.
    Like a lot of pictures of fetuses in various states of development and then some pictures of babies?
  44. silly question by sckeener · · Score: 2

    How fast is voyager traveling? Can we launch something that is faster? We've got 4.2 light YEARS to get to Proxima Centauri. 12 light HOURS are not going to cut it....

    --
    "Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
    1. Re:silly question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A star that burns twice as bright lasts half as long (or something like that).

      I think we need a big catapult to launch these craft :)

    2. Re:silly question by FortKnox · · Score: 1

      From the Nasa Voyager page:
      Voyager 1 is escaping the solar system at a speed of about 3.6 AU per year.

      An Astronomical Unit (AU) is the distance from the Earth to the Sun.
      Maybe someone who's got some time and a calculator can give how fast its going in MPH and KPH.

      --
      Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
    3. Re:silly question by Sheridan · · Score: 2
      From the Nasa Voyager page: Voyager 1 is escaping the solar system at a speed of about 3.6 AU per year.

      An Astronomical Unit (AU) is the distance from the Earth to the Sun.

      Maybe someone who's got some time and a calculator can give how fast its going in MPH and KPH.

      Hmm... From memory, distance to the sun is around 93 million miles (probably an a.u. is an average over min and max distances over a year but I'll assume 93 million for ease.)

      93000000 * 3.6 = 334800000 miles per year

      dividing by ( 365 * 24 ) gives

      voyager speed = 38219 miles per hour (a shade over 10 miles per second, or 0.000057c)

    4. Re:silly question by Gogo+Dodo · · Score: 2

      The latest Mission Status from February has the velocity numbers you're looking for.

  45. What the hell are we doing this? by HanzoSan · · Score: 2

    Why do we put our DNA in space like that? Its fucking stupid!!

    What next? Displaying your social security number on the INTERNET? Yeah let all the terrorists and hackers grab your identity?

    Well thats what we are doing in space, dumbass Nasa scientists should get their ass kicked seriously.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  46. Huh? by travdaddy · · Score: 1

    Voy 1 will likely confuse even modern earthlings-- much less ET. Case in point: In 2002, can we understand that 70's show, when the Polish greeting memorialized as "Welcome, creatures from beyond the outer world"? Unlike those ET creatures we meet daily from the inner world?
    Is it just me, or did the article poster really stop making sense at this point?

    --
    Adidas To Bring Back Sneakernet
    1. Re:Huh? by datarat · · Score: 1

      Nope. Meter is based on several different, naturally occuring conditions. The most recent definition is

      Length traveled by light in vacuum during 1/299 792 458 of a second.

      Crap. Relative term again...

      --
      If you do something right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
    2. Re:Huh? by jcast · · Score: 1

      You're right that ``second'' is a relative term. 1/299,792,458 is a pretty god-awful relative number, too.

      --
      There are reasons why democracy does not work nearly as well as capitalism.
      -- David D. Friedman
  47. Dead in less than a light day by Pac · · Score: 2

    If its velocity is constant, when it dies in 2020 Voyager will have travelled less than a light-day from Earth. In the grand scheme of things, unless it really collides with something there is very little chance it will ever be noticed.

  48. Nasa Scientists are ignorant. by HanzoSan · · Score: 2


    I dont care how many degrees you have, anyone ignorant enough to put pictures of us, our DNA, our sound files and everything into space deserves to have their asses kicked.

    Its as stupid as me posting my social security number on slashdot, Here 002-32-4840

    Here you go, please hiijack my identity, heres my credit card number too! James Spencer 220345035212

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:Nasa Scientists are ignorant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My SSN is 000-00-0002. Damn you Franklin Roosevelt!

    2. Re:Nasa Scientists are ignorant. by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 1

      that was only 12 digits of Credit Card number.. please continue and include expiry date.

    3. Re:Nasa Scientists are ignorant. by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1
      Reminds me of 'enterprise' in which there first transmission to everyon they come across is the location of earth and our cultural database.

      While they are at it they should just transmit how our women like to be touched...

      --
    4. Re:Nasa Scientists are ignorant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      only a few double 00 ssn's were awarded, you should be happy

  49. What will the RIAA do now? by Trix · · Score: 1

    How are they ever going to collect royalties on the gold record when it is played by extraterrestrials or copied by them?

    --
    I want all of the power and none of the responsibility.
  50. 25 Years by Spackler · · Score: 1, Offtopic


    Does this mean the goatse guy was actually an ALIEN ANAL PROBE?

    Was image 26 where they got the idea? (http://vraptor.jpl.nasa.gov/voyager/record_images /image026.gif)

    What have we done?

  51. Why do they give Aliens our DNA? by HanzoSan · · Score: 5, Funny

    I mean damn of all things you could give a person why give them your DNA?

    If aliens decide to take over the world, well theres a map, our DNA so they can change their genes to look exactly like us, some wav files so they can learn how we talk and maybe even our language from the greetings. What the hell are Nasa scientists doing? Where is the government and national security?

    I mean damn shouldnt the NSA outlaw us putting DNA into space and maps, I dare the scientist who gave our DNA to aliens to post his social security number and credit card number on the internet in plain text!

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:Why do they give Aliens our DNA? by Saggi · · Score: 1

      DNA? No problem!

      This is only an illustration of how DNA is build. It is NOT a specific copy describing a living object on earth. It's like sending them the alphabet, but not the book.

      Why is it interesting then? What we want to tell them is that we are carbon-based beings. Carbon is the best way to create living objects (check out the chemical specs for yourself), and it would be very informative if other creatures used a similar building component. If we found life elsewhere this is definitely one of the things we would like to know.

      If we meet someone who wish to attach us, we're dead anyway. A species with the capacity to travel here could easily wipe us out anyway. I think we are the aggressive ones.

      --
      -:) Oh no - not again.
      www.rednebula.com
    2. Re:Why do they give Aliens our DNA? by vb.warrior · · Score: 1

      Im sure if you post the same thing even more times someone will actually give a fuck

    3. Re:Why do they give Aliens our DNA? by BlueSpark · · Score: 1

      Really...I mean Bill gave Monica his DNA and look at how much trouble he got into...

      --
      -- "Words are lame and words are crap" - Bouncing Souls
    4. Re:Why do they give Aliens our DNA? by demaria · · Score: 1

      So far carbon has been the only way to create living objects. :-)

    5. Re:Why do they give Aliens our DNA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If we meet someone who wish to attach us, we're dead anyway. A species with the capacity to travel here could easily wipe us out anyway. I think we are the aggressive ones.

      Oh, but you forget about the stick with a nail... in Simpsons, it drove away the attacking aliens.

    6. Re:Why do they give Aliens our DNA? by schwatoo · · Score: 1

      They've already got plenty of terrestrial DNA from all the cattle tackle they've abducted.

      --
      I have trouble with passwords among other things.
    7. Re:Why do they give Aliens our DNA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fourth time lucky, but you got your +4, funny! :p

    8. Re:Why do they give Aliens our DNA? by HanzoSan · · Score: 2

      Learn C you lazy monkey

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    9. Re:Why do they give Aliens our DNA? by stinkythumbs · · Score: 1

      "I mean damn shouldnt the NSA outlaw us putting DNA into space and maps"

      or maybe just modify the DNA a little bit to represent a human-like race that enjoys aliens as tasty snacks?

      --
      I wish I had more hands so I could give this post 4 thumbs down!
  52. But thats not DNA! by HanzoSan · · Score: 2


    Radio Signals allows them to know theres something going on at Earth. But they'd have to come here physically to see exactly what we were doing, They'd have to physicially land a ship, get out, snatch a few hundred of us of us from all diffrent races and capture our DNA.

    They wouldnt be able to just hiijack our DNA from space, and come to earth looking just like us.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:But thats not DNA! by acid_andy · · Score: 0

      Anyone considered the fact that unless the inner parts of the probe were built in clean room conditions there's probably some human skin cells in there that might make it to the alien world? Then they'd have a real sample of our DNA to work with.

      --
      Your ad here.
  53. My Polish is rusty, but... by Zoop · · Score: 4, Informative

    All I hear is "Wytajcie, istoty zaswiatu," which would basically mean "Greetings, otherworldly beings," or better, "Greetings to beings from beyond Earth." The "outer world" is at best a rather poetic (or possibly condescending) translation.

    I think it would be an equivalent of "Greetings, creatures from Outer Space," but they didn't intone it pretentiously, right before Ed Wood hovers the hubcap from a string and a theremin plays in the background as his boustier intrudes into the picture, as we are wont to do over here.

    1. Re:My Polish is rusty, but... by ppluta · · Score: 2, Informative

      "zas'wiaty" (due to flexion it's "zas'wiato'w", you hear it as 'zas'vyatoov') is a word I can't give proper English equivalent now since I don't have a dictionary handy, but it means the place the ghosts come from. It's general for heaven, hell, limbo etc. Maybe I don't know something, but it's rather not where the Voyager was sent :-) Correct would be e.g. "istoty z dalekich s'wiato'w", heard as "dahlekyh s'vyatoov" and meaning "far worlds".

    2. Re:My Polish is rusty, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She's actually saying

      "Witajcie, istoty z zaswiatow."
      (a few accent marks are missing)

      I like the previous poster's translation: "Greetings, otherworldly beings"

      Witajcie = welcome/greetings
      istoty = beings/creatures
      z = from
      zaswiatow = beyond or outside the world

      The greeting sounds formal, and as anyone who's ever taken a foreign language knows, a lot of subtleties are lost during translation. I don't see what's so funny about it, unless it's the same kind of 'funny' as when a first-grader learns that 'pomme de terre' isn't REALLY a potato--it's an apple of the earth. har har.

    3. Re:My Polish is rusty, but... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2, Funny

      Isn't it rather "Hello to all intelligent life forms everywere, and to everyone else, the secret is to bang the rocks together, guys"????

    4. Re:My Polish is rusty, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "outer world" is at best a rather poetic (or possibly condescending) translation.

      I think you totally missed the geek culture reference. Scary thing is you got an insightful mod out of it :p

  54. Sounds of Earth by mmca · · Score: 2, Interesting


    If you found this record do you think you could play it?

    And extract the images from it?

    I have the directions http://vraptor.jpl.nasa.gov/voyager/messages/VgrCo ver.jpg
    and it would still be pretty tricky.

    If I didnt have them I dont think I would have any chance of figuring out what this thing was.

    -M

    1. Re:Sounds of Earth by Loligo · · Score: 1

      >If you found this record do you think you could
      >play it?

      Me? Some J. Random Sysadmin finding this thing in the backyard? No.

      A team of scientists studying this thing with tons of funding? Let's just say they've got a much better chance.

      I'm going to assume that intelligent life on other worlds will have similar divisions, ranging from the unskilled laborers to the professionals to the hardcore research academics.

      -l

    2. Re:Sounds of Earth by dkresge · · Score: 1

      hahahaha - Interesting that there are no visual cues as to _rotation_ of the record. speed, plane, elevation of stylus relative to record, but what then?

      "hmm, let's see - earthling disc is flat on table, box with pointy thing on top... dude, mine's busted."

    3. Re:Sounds of Earth by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > Interesting that there are no visual cues as to _rotation_ of the record. speed, plane, elevation of stylus relative to record, but what then?

      Visual cue to rotation - the fact that there's a big wavy groove running in a big spiral all around the disc. The waves have a pattern to them. (That's how the "pictures" and "data" are encoded, along with some of the physics stuff.)

      Stylus - not relevant. Could be a laser bouncing off the grooves and the measurement of the deflection angle. If you've figured out that the grooves contain information, how you read it doesn't matter.

      Speed - not relevant for the "pictures" and "data" - it's just like decoding the Aricebo transmission. If you measure 21cm (common wavelength, Hydrogen, yadda yadda) from the big illustration, you can figure out basic contstants like the speed of light.

      So for the music - Earthers say the speed of light is 186000 miles per second. But since aliens don't know what miles or seconds are, Earthers write it as $VERYBIGNUM wavelengths of the hydrogen atom per unit-time. Speed of light and hydrogen wavelength are constant, voila, you've just taught the aliens what a second is.

      The other way to do it is to get to a level of physics where you're talking about the Planck time, and tell little green men "$VERYSMALLNUM rotations per Planck Time" :)

    4. Re:Sounds of Earth by wilhelm · · Score: 1

      Stylus - not relevant.

      It says on the graphic that a stylus is actually "furnished on spacecraft", so yeah, it really is irrelevant. :)

    5. Re:Sounds of Earth by ShadowBlasko · · Score: 1
      "I'm going to assume that intelligent life on other worlds will have similar divisions, ranging from the unskilled laborers to the professionals to the hardcore research academics."

      Assuming this to be true, that means that we can extend the basis of social class division as well. Doing so, *I* calculate that if (by some one in a trillion chance) it were to be intercepted by a sentient life form, that life form would most likely be someone living in a trailer in their version of southern Georgia. Scary thought isn't it? (br) "'suppose they oughta have thought ta put sum skynerd on that purdy shiny disk. Freebird!!!"

      Or, as some musicians seem to believe, Elvis is riding shotgun in a UFO anyway, I bet he's gonna be TICKED he didn't make the cut.
      Sorry... I know, silly as hell, but I am in that mood tonight.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order- Ed Howdershelt Via Tass
    6. Re:Sounds of Earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      for god's sake, man. you take this way too seriously. so tell me... you see a disk with wavy grooves (and of _course_ the stylus is relevant - even if it's not the one included on the craft, you still need a stylus (even if it's a laser)) -- which way does it rotate? clockwise? counterclockwise?

  55. Useful purpose for 1 AU by Idarubicin · · Score: 2, Informative
    Well actually one of the problems I have is the ridiculous distance for an AU. I'd think it would have made more sense to make an AU 100 Millions miles or 1 billion miles so as to make calculations easier.

    First, as has already been pointed out in other replies, miles are also an absurd, arbitrary unit as far as science is concerned. We could get a 'round' unit if we took, say, about .65 AU, as the 'new' astronomical unit--exactly 10^11 m.

    But then the AU would be a pretty useless yardstick. Earth's orbit is very nearly circular, which means that over a period of six months, the Earth moves a net distance of (almost) exactly 2 AU. Using this knowledge, it is possible to measure the distance to nearer stars. As the position of earth changes, the apparent positions of nearby stars will also appear to change relative to much more distant stars--a parallax effect. To get a precise measure of this distance, you want to move the Earth as far as possible, to get the maximum apparent shift in position. 2 AU is as far as we can readily move the earth.

    There is even a unit of measure that is defined on this basis. The distance at which the apparent parallax shift of a star is equal to one second of arc is defined as one parsec. Parsec measures can be directly obtained from astronomical images taken six months apart, so they are the preferred unit of measure for some types of observational astronomy.

    Of course, this also works backwards. If we could see a planet orbiting a star one parsec away (about 3.26 light years--this is a hypothetical case) and its orbital motion was across one apparent second of arc, we would know it orbited its sun at a distance of 1 AU.

    --
    ~Idarubicin
  56. Re:WARNING: dodgy porno redirect by sirinek · · Score: 1

    What are you talking about? Theres no redirect at all in there, let alone a porno redirect. I suppose thats why you posted as an AC.

    siri

  57. Yes, for sufficient money by Goonie · · Score: 2, Informative
    Voyager is not travelling all that fast, and we could go faster with sufficient time and engineering effort.

    First cab off the rank is probably the Orion drive. Build a really big plate, attach it with really big springs and dampers to a heavily radiation-shielded spacecraft, and detonate atom bombs behind the plate. The basic technology exists right now, all you need is a pile of cash and be prepared to violate the space weapons treaty. Maximum speed is about 1-2% of the speed of light, so you're still taking a couple of centuries to Proxima Centauri.

    Next option is a fusion engine. We can't generate power with controlled fusion yet, but ITER probably will if and when it gets built. ITER is, er, rather large and heavy, and doesn't really produce much net power, so a practical space fusion power plant is a fair bit of engineering development down the road. Anyway, the idea is quite simple. Release the "exhaust" of the reaction out the back of the engine, just like a normal rocket except the exhuast is a hell of a lot hotter and travelling a lot faster. Maximum speed maybe 10-12% of the speed of light.

    Alternatively, use a light sail powered by a really big laser. All you need is to scale up laser and telescope technology a crapload (so, again, considerable engineering development required). Maximum speed? Somewhere between 10 and maybe 30% of the speed of light, depending on just how big you can make your mirror (and consequently how far you can keep accelerating).

    The other big issue with interstellar spacecraft is the question of how much debris is out there. If there's a lot, as you go faster you'll need one hell of a shield to protect you.

    Finally, there's there's also the possibility of using antimatter-matter reactions to power a ship. Antimatter is kinda powerful stuff to have around, and you could theoretically use it to power a ship to near the speed of light. However, there is no known natural source, and manufacturing it requires milllions of times more energy put in than you get back when you "burn" it. It, therefore, is a really long-term option from when humanity has such astounding energy generation capacity it can afford to use it to power antimatter-powered spaceships.

    All in all, there are some possibilities, but most are still a fair bit of technological development away. Let's get to the rest of the solar system first :)

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
    1. Re:Yes, for sufficient money by dlb · · Score: 1


      Nice Footfall reference...

  58. Stellar escape velocity by lucasw · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is the Voyager really going fast enough to make it to another star, even if it was pointed at one? A lot of these posts and articles similar to this seem to imagine the thing just sailing on forever, not in a particularly long orbit around our sun.

    If I'm plugging in the equation right, taking into account the 93 AU that the Voyager has already reached, and the present speed (39,000 miles an hour, assuming none of that's tangential velocity), I get a required speed of 4000 km/s, and the Voyager is going far slower.

    So as far as I can tell, really the gold record, etc. on board are more of a time capsule for when the craft swings back around on its comet-like trajectory, rather than for contacting aliens. I think the nasa people and popular science writers like to preserve the more romantic notion of an unintentional first instellar voyage, though my calculations could be wrong.

    1. Re:Stellar escape velocity by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      Maybe we'll achieve warp speed, then we can just send a ship out to grab it before the aliens see our embarassing gold disk - its only 12 hours away at light speed :)

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    2. Re:Stellar escape velocity by mattorb · · Score: 3, Informative
      Looks to me like you must have made an error in your calculations.

      Escape velocity from the Sun at a given radius,r, is just sqrt(2*G*M_sun/r). Plugging in (G=6.67e-8 in cgs units; M=2e33 g; r=93 AU = 93 *(1.496e13 cm)), I get v_escape of about 4.4e5 cm/s, or 4.4 km/s. (About 15,800 km/hr, or 9800 mi/hr, safely less than Voyager's velocity.)

      It was an interesting thought, though. :-)

  59. Re:2012-ish marks next 'landmark' event for Voyage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a stupid comment. Just how does the 4000 bc brick gain enough velocity to escape the gravity of the solar system (let alone the earth)?

    Did the Mesopotamians have some booster technology we didn't know about?

    Moron.

  60. The international language of "huh?" by ohboy-sleep · · Score: 1

    I'm curious as to why they chose Polish for their greeting. I'm sure whatever aliens find the satellite have already mastered English, thanks to broadcasts of "I Love Lucy" and the "Honeymooners".

    1. Re:The international language of "huh?" by ShadowBlasko · · Score: 1
      I could be mistaken, as I did not wade through the entire Voyager data site, but I believe the greeting was done in 55 different languages, not just Polish.

      I wonder if those 1970's "esperanto is the UNIVERSAL language" people got ticked about being excluded?

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order- Ed Howdershelt Via Tass
  61. Re:2012-ish marks next 'landmark' event for Voyage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone's been watching too much Jimmy Neutron.

  62. We should create Voyager III by Arcturax · · Score: 5, Funny

    Fully updated with ion or solar sail propulsion to get it out there quicker with a nice AOLesque "VERSION 3.0" stamped on the side so they know its the latest.

    On board we also include a copy of Lord of the Rings in DivX format and Mp3's of Britney Spears. That way if the aliens invade, we can tell the RIAA and MPAA they have pirated movies and music and watch the aliens recoil and flee under the unsuing crush of lawyers and DMCA threat letters.

    If that doesn't work, we trick them into installing the cracked copy of WinXP convieniently on stowed board and watch their ships fail in horrible and astonishing ways.

    Now if that fails, then we trick them into installing AOL and logging onto it. After all nothing can withstand humankinds most powerful weapon... Pure stupidity.

    --

    --Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
    1. Re:We should create Voyager III by Sabalon · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't the mp3's of Britney Spears have them mark our planet as hazardous waste and not come at all? :)

    2. Re:We should create Voyager III by teslatug · · Score: 1

      Kang: Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons
      Kodos: Kneel before my slingshot puny Earthling
      Kodos: He's got a board with a nail in it!
      Kang: That board with a nail in it may have defeated us but the humans wont stop there. They'll make bigger boards and bigger nails. Soon they will make a board with a nail so big it will destroy them all!

    3. Re:We should create Voyager III by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "unsuing"?

    4. Re:We should create Voyager III by Arcturax · · Score: 2

      Yes I noticed that after I posted, oops.

      But hey, that does bring up the idea of also including a couple of grammar nazi's on board as well as another line of defence against hostile aliens.

      --

      --Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
    5. Re:We should create Voyager III by plugger · · Score: 1

      Hehe, you put an apostrophe in "gramma nazi's".

      Was it bait?

  63. communicating with cookers??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did anyone else notice the fact that he listed "microwave oven" amongst great strides in communications technology???

  64. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, do not eat the brown acid!

  65. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe I'm wrong, but aren't centimeters just a figment of our imagination? Just 1/100th of a meter, which is an arbitrary length that some french dude came up with? And seconds. I know that the current definition of a second has to do with cesium atoms and something, but how are "they" going to know what a second or centimeter is? I just don't see the point of putting those measurements on there. Why not rods or hogsheads?

  66. Wait a minute... by mrogers · · Score: 1

    Voyager is carrying a GIF image of DNA? Good luck tracking that one down, Unisys!

  67. Re:Perspective (OFFTOPIC WARNING!) by bogado · · Score: 2

    I don't understand this embarecement to be seen as a baby. Don't we all were babys once? Everyone loves to se babies but get embareced when people see themselves as a baby. I used to have a picture of my self as a baby in my wallet, it was a funny one cause I was doing some "dirt" gestures. Actualy my hands were caugth in a random position that casualy looks like an "ok" for american, but in Brasil it stands for "asshole".

    --
    []'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins

    ^[:wq

  68. Before you rush off to tell your friends... by Sancho · · Score: 2

    realize that the article was submitted a day before it was posted to the main page, so "today" actually refers to August 20th.

  69. Here's an idea by shine-shine · · Score: 1

    How about creating an object that will catch up to Voyager 1 before it leaves our solar system, in 2012. That's something I'd like to see us commit ourselves to.

    1. Re:Here's an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GW Bush is already working on that, since Voyager 1 is carrying an image that is embarrassing to him and his administration.

      http://vraptor.jpl.nasa.gov/voyager/record_image s/ image013.gif gives the relative amounts of Carbon Dioxide and Oxygen in Earth's atmosphere as it was in the 70s.

  70. Re:2012-ish marks next 'landmark' event for Voyage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NASA explanation of heliopause:
    http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap02 0624.html

    Voyager 1 exceeded Pioneer's distance from the sun some time ago. According to this NASA press release, dated 13 Feb 1998, Voyager surpassed Pioneer on 17 February 1998.
    http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/98/vgr217. html

  71. Not the furthest mad-made object?! by clickety6 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    How far would this baby be now?


    "Project Thunderwell was the inspiration of astrophysicist Bob Brownlee, who in the summer of 1957 was faced with the problem of containing underground an explosion, expected to be equivalent to a few hundred tons of dynamite. Brownlee put the bomb at the bottom of a 500-foot vertical tunnel in the Nevada desert, sealing the opening with a four-inch thick steel plate weighing several hundred pounds. He knew the lid would be blown off; he didn't know exactly how fast. High-speed cameras caught the giant manhole cover as it began its unscheduled flight into history. Based upon his calculations and the evidence from the cameras, Brownlee estimated that the steel plate was traveling at a velocity six times that needed to escape Earth's gravity when it soared into the flawless blue Neavada sky. 'We never found it. It was gone,' Brownlee says, a touch of awe in his voice almost 35 years later.


    http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/1892 /s putnik.html

    --
    ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
    1. Re:Not the furthest mad-made object?! by Lips · · Score: 1

      I saw this thread and searched for manhole...bingo! I love this story and first heard it on a radio science segment hosted by Dr. Karl.

      From http://www.adelaidebushwalkers.org/magazine/Autumn 2002.htm:
      "Various computer simulations show that a bubble of super-hot air would probably protect the manhole cover on its path through the atmosphere, and stop it from vaporising. If it survived, that manhole cover went past the orbit of Pluto many years ago, and is our first interstellar ambassador."

    2. Re:Not the furthest mad-made object?! by Sloppy · · Score: 2

      According to this page, that steel plate's mass travelling at six times escape velocity, would be have kinetic energy than the total energy released by the explosion. (No, I haven't checked the math.)

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    3. Re:Not the furthest mad-made object?! by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      Between-Arm Travelers are now advised a state of war now exists between the Federation and the inhabitants of the third innermost mostly saltwater covered iron/nickel planet of the Sol system. The Friendship Ambassador and his delegation were killed when the Peace Ship was struck with a kinetic energy weapon projectile, an astounding achievement in warfare for so primative a society. Even stranger is that forensic evidence suggests the iron alloy projectile was not launched by electromagnetic means, but chemical. Though it is expected that the galaxy will soon be rid of this menance, for now travelers in the Between-Arms of the Milky Way postpone their vacations.

    4. Re:Not the furthest mad-made object?! by dwm · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Project Thunderwell" is a bit of a myth.

      See This page for details about the real test (search for "Pascal-B").

    5. Re:Not the furthest mad-made object?! by Anaphilius · · Score: 1

      Hmm. That's interesting! Can't find the site, though.

      I think that, if this is true, this thing would be in orbit around the sun in a roughly earth-like orbit. It would take a lot more energy to escape the sun's gravitational pull, but then again, IANAA (I am not an astrophysicist).

    6. Re:Not the furthest mad-made object?! by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      Brownlee estimated that the steel plate was traveling at a velocity six times that needed to escape Earth's gravity when it soared into the flawless blue Neavada sky. 'We never found it. It was gone,'

      Maybe that plate is what Contour smacked into.

    7. Re:Not the furthest mad-made object?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I checked it - using 4 trillion J per kiloton (found on the web), it would take a 500-ton shot to do it. The web site claims it was only a 300-ton explosion.

      From the page, the explanation that the vaporization of the concrete plug was the source for the propulsion still doesn't make it work. There's only x joules there, and unless concrete is an explosive itself, you won't get any energy out of destroying it - it will _absorb_ energy.

    8. Re:Not the furthest mad-made object?! by refactored · · Score: 2

      Given how long OOP's and Wireless has been around, I dare say a serialized Object can travel quite far at the speed of light....

  72. Confusing? by Apostata · · Score: 1

    Some progress there. Voy 1 will likely confuse even modern earthlings-- much less ET. Case in point: In 2002, can we understand that 70's show, when the Polish greeting memorialized as "Welcome, creatures from beyond the outer world"? Unlike those ET creatures we meet daily from the inner world?"

    If the lack of grammar and comprehension checks implied by the acceptance of this submission is any indication, then yes, the aliens will have trouble understanding us.

    At least they'll have Glenn Gould.

    --

    This wasn't just plain terrible, this was fancy terrible. This was terrible with raisins in it. - Dorothy Parker
  73. To Voyager 1 by Sideways2 · · Score: 1

    God speed little one.

    If your reading this over 802.11, then my message will reach Voyager in a little over 11 hours and 38 minutes.

  74. Poor Polish Translation... by Corporate+Drone · · Score: 2

    It should be, "Greetings, creatures from beyond Earth."

    --
    mmm... yeah... You see, we're putting the cover sheets on all TPS reports now before they go out...
    1. Re:Poor Polish Translation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Greetings. This is Science Officer Spock speaking. There are curently no life forms available to take your call. However, at the pre-arranged audio tone you may record whatever information you feel is necessary. Live long and prosper."

  75. Are we sure? by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 2

    Even without believing tinfoilhat stuff, isn't it more accurate to call this the farthest known manmade object?

    How impossible is it that a pottery shard was included in some ejectile material 25,000 years ago... and given the likely orbits of something like that, how far could it have gone?

    1. Re:Are we sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      repeat after me: escape.... velocity....

    2. Re:Are we sure? by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 2

      Yeh. Which means the only way those meterites in Antartica that were originally on mars were...

      Sent here by little green men!

      Do us a favor, and pull your head out of your ass. This sort of stuff happens all the time on a geologic time scale. It's improbable, but possible, that there are some pieces of manmade material, pre-space age, floating around out there. I'm just not bright enough to be able to figure out if it would all stay in a solar orbit pretty close to Earth's or not.

    3. Re:Are we sure? by datarat · · Score: 1

      Escape velocity for the sun is considerably higher than that for mars or the earth. Nothing has hit us that hard since mankind started walking.

      --
      If you do something right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
  76. I don�t see why its disappointing. by Saggi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just because the nearest star is really far away, it doesn't make it disappointing. We'll get there some day, it may take time and it may not be easy to phone home, but does it matter.

    1000 years ago, it took years to go or communicate from one end of the known world to the other.

    250 years ago, we reach the new world. But it still took most of a year, and the danger of shipwreck to get there.

    In 100 years from now we may have very fast ships. Lets say 10% of light speed. This would put us on the nearest star in 40 years. People who go on that mission will be expecting it to be so. Civilization is not a one mans cause; it's the perspective of generations.

    --
    -:) Oh no - not again.
    www.rednebula.com
    1. Re:I don�t see why its disappointing. by karm13 · · Score: 1
      1000 years ago, it took years to go or communicate from one end of the known world to the other.

      and a squirrel could go that distance without ever getting on the ground, just by jumpibng from one tree to the next (well, all trough europe at least).
      chopping off and burning down rain forests, wasting of resources, global warming, no apparent will on the side of the worlds #1 polluters (25% of carbon dioxide emissions world wide) to take part in international initiatives to stop it -- we (human race) might not live long enough to see this.

      but appart from this, out of couriosity, if we would somehow manage to accelerate to 10% of light speed, couldn't we accelerate even further? 10% is well below anything relativistic, so whatever accelerated us from 5% to 10% could bring us up to 90% after a (long) while, or did i get something wrong here?

      --

      --
      making up good sigs is a hard thing to do.
    2. Re:I don�t see why its disappointing. by TheOnlyCoolTim · · Score: 2

      There's the fact that if the ship is using conventional movement (i.e. it doesn't travel through wormholes or with a space-bending warp drive or something) it will be limited in its acceleration because it will have to turn around halfway through the voyage and start decelerating.

      Tim

      --
      Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
    3. Re:I don�t see why its disappointing. by Timodious · · Score: 1

      250 years ago, we reach the new world.

      Really? I seem to remember differently. 2002-1492=510 years.

      Don't you remember the Columbus hype in 1992? Or did you think that was for Columbus, Ohio?

    4. Re:I don�t see why its disappointing. by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      Building multi-generational colonies may be a better approach than trying to go really fast. If you go really fast, you start to have a host of problems that you don't if you use patience instead of speed.

      For one, hitting space dust or rocks at high speeds can be devastating. Second, it requires huuuuuuge amounts of energy to speed up and slow back down. IOW, a lot of nukes of some type.

      Given our current technology, a multi-generational colony(s) is the best choice in terms of resources.

      Now, an *exploratory* probe is another matter. Since we don't have to worry about life-support and human death, we can crank that baby up a bit perhaps.

    5. Re:I don�t see why its disappointing. by fishbowl · · Score: 2

      Not really meaning to split hairs, but the current evidence shows humans in the Western Hemisphere as early as 15,000 years ago.

      Your statement of "250" years fails to take into account the period of exploration and colonization by Europeans, and totally disregards the Norse reaching Canada.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    6. Re:I don�t see why its disappointing. by karm13 · · Score: 1
      i don't think the risk of hitting anything dangerous is that high on interstellar travel, but i might be wrong.
      you're right about the energy, of course.

      i wonder wether you hit more if you go slow than when you go fast. i would imagine you hit less when you go fast:
      less from the side, equally from front, and less from the back (you are faster).

      --

      --
      making up good sigs is a hard thing to do.
    7. Re:I don�t see why its disappointing. by geronimo87 · · Score: 0, Troll

      If Carbon Dioxide is pollution, I demand that you immediately stop breathing.

    8. Re:I don�t see why its disappointing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Civilization is not a one mans cause; it's the perspective of generations.
      We may get some help along the way.

      I don't know how many of you guys have seen this, it was aired on the SF channel a while back. It appears to be genuine.

      Here's a detailed analysis of the video NYC flyby
    9. Re:I don�t see why its disappointing. by CTachyon · · Score: 1

      The problem isn't so much how much you hit; it's how much kinetic energy it has. Say that in your path is a small rock weighing 1 gram, and you're traveling at 0.10c. Without considering relativistic effects, which are rather small at 0.10c (gamma ~ 1.005), we can use the Newtonian equation of KE = 0.5 × m × v^2, giving a kinetic energy of 4.5×10^11 J. For comparison, that's roughly equal to 1 million trucks, each weighing 1000 kg (a metric ton) traveling at 28 m/s (about 60 MPH), all coming from one lonely little pebble in the way.

      --
      Range Voting: preference intensity matters
    10. Re:I don�t see why its disappointing. by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2

      A true change of perspective would have us questioning why we would even want to send humands anywhere when advanced machines are cheaper and more efficient. Fulfilling the Star Trek fantasy is a little like the ancient myths of strongmen like Hercules who could do almost anything. Now we have industrial equipment to do construction and demolition work. A human operator/crew may be as old fashioned as supernatural strongmen.

    11. Re:I don�t see why its disappointing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a better quality mpg version of the video

    12. Re:I don�t see why its disappointing. by karm13 · · Score: 1

      sure, but how high is the probability that you hit something when you are in outer space far away from the nearest star?
      and aren't those little pebbles fast enough by themselves to destroy any antenna a probe would need to transmit something back to earth from a distantce it would reach with such a speed?

      --

      --
      making up good sigs is a hard thing to do.
    13. Re:I don�t see why its disappointing. by karm13 · · Score: 1
      If Carbon Dioxide is pollution, I demand that you immediately stop breathing

      you convinced me. as i have to breath anyway, i can as well drive a huge car, with it's airconditioning set on chilly. in winter, i can turn up the heating some more instead of building a house with modern windows, take an airplane instead of a train and finally use ordinary light bulbs again instead of those energy saving ones.
      thank you, you have made my life a lot easyer.

      i'm 26, so odds are i won't live longe enough to be affected by the effects of my actions anyway.

      --

      --
      making up good sigs is a hard thing to do.
    14. Re:I don�t see why its disappointing. by CTachyon · · Score: 1

      sure, but how high is the probability that you hit something when you are in outer space far away from the nearest star?

      It's the Law of Large Numbers at work: take something that's rather improbable (say, the odds of finding a 1g pebble drifting about in 1 cubic meter of interstellar space) and give it lots of opportunities (the number of cubic meters the vehicle passes through to travel 4 light-years), and the probablility of the seemingly improbable thing happening at least once during the trip approaches 1. After all, we ARE talking about flying blindly through the Oort cloud.

      Even disregarding the risk of a 1g pebble being somewhere in the path, even a 1g speck of dust would wreak havoc (lots of kinetic energy imparted on a small surface area -- hull breach, anyone?). Unfortunately, this fact makes safe space travel at such high speeds all but impossible, with the possible exception of using energy intensive methods (perhaps an electrostatic field) to repel microscopic debris in front of the bow.

      and aren't those little pebbles fast enough by themselves to destroy any antenna a probe would need to transmit something back to earth from a distantce it would reach with such a speed?

      The pebbles themselves aren't zipping around at 10% of the speed of light -- our hypothetical ship is. As the Voyager probes are traveling considerably slower than that (about 0.00006c according to the BBC article), they haven't explored a significant enough chunk of space to have encountered the Law of Large Numbers yet on this issue. If a Voyager probe were traveling straight to Alpha Centauri, it would take around 70,000 years to get there, and the probability of encountering said pebble (at much lower energy) would be precisely identical to the probability of our hypothetical ship being struck by said pebble (at about 1/10th of a kiloton) within its 43 year journey.

      --
      Range Voting: preference intensity matters
    15. Re:I don�t see why its disappointing. by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      (* If a Voyager probe were traveling straight to Alpha Centauri, it would take around 70,000 years to get there, and the probability of encountering said pebble (at much lower energy) would be precisely identical to the probability of our hypothetical ship being struck by said pebble (at about 1/10th of a kiloton) within its 43 year journey. *)

      It is possible that Voyager has been hit by some stuff. We simply would not know unless it was strong enough to bust something we needed. (One did have some camera malfunctions a few times. Perhaps it was space grains.)

      The Pioneer crafts had meteoroid detectors on them, and they registered some hits, although the particles were probably microscopic. But at 1/10 the speed of light even the small ones would pack a fare wallop.

  77. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vinyl sucks my left nut.

  78. Plutonium batteries by FussionMan · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know if there is a warning sticker on the plutonium batteries? If not, then the aliens maybe very angry or dead.

  79. Re:Perspective (OFFTOPIC WARNING!) by Kintanon · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Just so you know, not everyone loves to see babies, I find them disgusting and useless and unpleasant to both see and be around.

    Kintanon

    --
    Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
  80. Pluto pobe Voyager III by peter303 · · Score: 2

    The on-again off-again 2006 Pluto probe (launch date) relies on favorable planetary configurations as Voyager did. If it isn't launched in 2006 then its something like 40 years before another favorable Pluto configuration occurs.

  81. What does it take to hack it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If someone wanted to hack this probe, how big a radiotelescope would he need?

  82. How quickly could we catch up... by squaretorus · · Score: 2

    How quickly could we catch up with Voyager using 2002 technology?

    1. Re:How quickly could we catch up... by handorf · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Never. All the money that was spent on Voyager type probes would now be spent on finding a better way to kill people.

      --
      -- IANAEG - I am not an elder god.
    2. Re:How quickly could we catch up... by juhaz · · Score: 1

      That depends on how much money one would be willing to pour into the "tag".

      At the current budget ... yeah, the another posters "never" seems to be about right.

    3. Re:How quickly could we catch up... by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 2

      Not people, Muslims. There's a Republican administration now, remember?

    4. Re:How quickly could we catch up... by kharchenko · · Score: 1

      space programs were initiated almost exclusively for the military purposes, hence there was enough money for "extras" like Voyager probes. Nowadays military doesn't need much space development, so the modern probes fly on a shoe string budgets.

  83. "would be have" by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    Oh no, I wrote a sentence that has contains two verbs.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:"would be have" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You also seem to be missing a comparison: ...have kinetic energy than the total energy...

      more than? less than?

    2. Re:"would be have" by Sloppy · · Score: 2, Funny

      I wrote that post during a brief moment when I thought there was an advantage to convincing the world that I am a sub-literate non-native English writer. Surely you've seen how people can act when they have a dream. Yes, a dream: to become a /. editor. Have some compassion; don't laugh at my hopeless ambitions.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    3. Re:"would be have" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you have a comparison you need 2 verbs...

  84. They had a hissy fit but blocked nothing... by Jack_Frost · · Score: 1

    A big stink was made when Cassini was launched several years ago. Seems they finally figured out that deep space probes aren't solar powered. Cassini still launched and RTG's are still the only practical way to power spacecraft beyond the orbit of Mars.

  85. It has nothing to do with environmentalism by marm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a shame that the environmentalists had a hissy fit in the 80's and 90's that blocked this very reliable technology from being used on modern spacecraft.

    Not really. The problem is that in order to make one of these generators safe, it needs to be protected from the launch rocket exploding on take-off. It doesn't matter whether you're an environmentalist or not - if a couple of kilos of plutonium gets vaporised and spread to the four winds on the launch pad, you've just made enormous chunks of the US's only major space launch site unusable until it can be cleaned up. You can stick your head in the sand about it, but that doesn't make the radiation go away. Needless to say, the clean-up operation and interruption to US space activities would cost tens of billions of dollars - and quite possibly a lot more.

    It's perfectly possible to protect these generators from the explosive force caused by a rocket blowing up on the launch pad - it's just a simple engineering problem. The problem is that it costs weight - lots of it, and the number one thing you want to avoid on a rocket launch is extra weight. Every extra kilogram costs you hundreds of thousands of dollars, or costs you one or two or three valuable scientific instruments.

    So unless you absolutely need a radioisotope thermoelectric generator, you don't use one. Solar panels are lighter (because they don't need explosion protection) and, therefore, cheaper to launch (which is the only really major cost consideration - the cost of the space vehicle itself pales in comparison). Modern solar panels are good out to nearly Jupiter. Beyond that you need an RTG. I can only think of one mission that NASA has launched since the Voyagers that has gone out that far - Galileo, which was launched in 1989 - and yes, it had an RTG on-board despite the protests.

    Honestly, NASA - at least the engineers - couldn't give a damn about the environmental issues involved with RTGs. Because as long as their containment engineering is up to scratch - and I rather suspect it is - there simply are no environmental issues. Instead, it comes down to economics - and for most missions that NASA undertakes, which go no further out than Mars, thermoelectric generators lose out badly to solar panels.

    Now, perhaps environmentalist fears are preventing NASA from sending more probes beyond Jupiter because they need an RTG, but that's a different matter entirely. Maybe they need to publicly blow up a few rockets with the generator containers on-board to prove their point.

  86. How could I forget? by marm · · Score: 2

    I can only think of one mission that NASA has launched since the Voyagers that has gone out that far - Galileo

    Cassini, as well. Which, surprise surprise, also has an RTG on-board.

  87. Re:2012-ish marks next 'landmark' event for Voyage by sheean.nl · · Score: 1

    Pompeii was just an failed rocket launch, DUH.

    --

    If at first you don't succeed, then sky diving definitely isn't for you.
  88. How do we know it's 12 light hours away? by zaqattack911 · · Score: 1
    Isn't this just an estimate? Didn't we in-fact lose contact with Voyager?

    Perhaps ot got caught in the gravity feild of some asteroid, and now is in bits in peices?

    Or.. perhaps it became artifically Intelligent with the help of cosmic beings, and now represents the God of some primitive civilization.(only to be destroyed later by Captain Kirk)

    --Me

    1. Re:How do we know it's 12 light hours away? by datarat · · Score: 1

      Nope, they ping it about once a year, and it's still responding.

      --
      If you do something right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
  89. Copyright Abuse: Et Tu, Voyager? by lildogie · · Score: 2

    I noticed that a drawing of a circle is copyrighted. It's a the top of the list on NASA's webpage on the Voyager photograpic recordings. Makes me wonder, will extraterrestrials be sued under DMCA?

    1. Re:Copyright Abuse: Et Tu, Voyager? by NeuroManson · · Score: 2

      Too late, I think they got it, found it as a mp3 on Gnutella...

      --
      Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  90. Get yer history right.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was Voyager 2 that was launched 25 years ago in August. Voyager 1 was launched in September and yes, is in fact the furthest human object (over taking pioneer a little while ago).

  91. Solar Power Not Usable For "Deep Space Probes" by EXTomar · · Score: 2

    The reason why there is a RTG (radioisotope thermoelectric generators...it generates power on the heat) on all deep robotic probes (Pioneer 10,11, Voyager 1, 2, Galielo, Cassini etc.) is because of the good old inverse square law.

    Lets say that the power collected from standard set of solar panels for an object around Earth is suffient to power the electrontrics. The problem is space is big...really big! For instance...

    Mars is about 1.5 times as far from the Sun as Earth....
    Jupiter is about 5.25 times as far away...
    Saturn is about 9.5 times as far away...

    I won't go farther. :-) The power a probe would receive from panels around Earth would now be 0.01 times as strong around Saturn. Needless to say you aren't going to get the 200 or so Watts needed to power critical equipment on Voyager 1 out of solar panels at the place it is flying right now(I suppose you could attach monsterous solar panels but that is mass a spacecraft doesn't need).

    Of course the idea of radio active material on space probes sends some people into a fit but it really isn't that much material. It also ignores the fact that if we want to do distant science there is no better powersource built yet.

  92. No. by marm · · Score: 2

    If a nuclear-powered device explodes on launch, or in low orbit, it's "not a good thing". At the very least you'll get radioactive debris spread over a wide area.

    You actually think NASA would be dumb enough to send up a nuclear-powered device without adequate containment against explosion and re-entry?

    NASA may be huge, inefficient, wasteful and sluggish, but they're not stupid.

    1. Re:No. by AndrewHowe · · Score: 2
  93. Pong in Space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So an alien's first look at earth's computing technology might end up being RCA's CDP1802 microprocessor, huh? Maybe instead of that record we should've included a CHIP-8 ROM, so they could've played a few games and learned where our culture was really headed...

  94. Watch out! by Art+Tatum · · Score: 2

    If there is an Interstellar Criminal Court, you sir are in big trouble. :-)

  95. RTGs and half-life and running out of power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As you said correctly, the half-life of the radioactive decay is not the problem -- a half-life of ~95 years is more than enough.

    PS: they can update the timed events (to turn off parts of the probe) if the RTGs happen to hold on better than expected.

  96. Re:2012-ish marks next 'landmark' event for Voyage by Loligo · · Score: 1

    >Just how does the 4000 bc brick gain enough
    >velocity to escape the gravity of the solar
    >system (let alone the earth)?

    Ass-launched bug-plasma. Duh.

    -l

  97. A well-designed RTG is plenty safe enough by marm · · Score: 2

    there is entirely too little experimental and experiental data for any strong claims about the safety of RTG containment to be made

    Rubbish. NASA RTG containment systems have been tested in real-life missions on re-entry twice, once in 1968 from a failed meteorological satellite, and once in 1970 from the remains of Apollo 13. On both occasions the RTG containment worked fine. Lab studies on both the re-entry and the explosion-on-launch scenarios have been extensive, and NASA's RTG systems have been tested to and survived nearly 4x the pressure produced from a rocket explosion on a Shuttle-type spacecraft.

    The physics and engineering behind an effective RTG containment system are quite simple. Frankly, a good Victorian-era engineer could have done it (although it would certainly have been a lot heavier than modern systems).

    NASA has a nice little piece on RTG safety that they wrote for people concerned about Galileo's power system. It's available here.

    Of course, you are free to disagree with NASA's findings, but it seems like good enough evidence to me.

  98. Re:2012-ish marks next 'landmark' event for Voyage by nEoN+nOoDlE · · Score: 2

    Pretty neat for a piece of 1970's technology.

    It's nothing compared to my lite-brite! Oooh, the colors!

    --
    Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
  99. Is the heliopause really the outer edge? by Party+Remover · · Score: 1

    What about the Oort Cloud? Shouldn't that count as part of the solar system? It's held in place by the Sun's gravity, if only barely, so I would think it should. If memory serves, Voy1 won't reach that for another 100,000 years.

    1. Re:Is the heliopause really the outer edge? by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      (* What about the Oort Cloud? Shouldn't that count as part of the solar system? *)

      But that boundary is also "nebulous". The Sun's gravity extends the entire universe in theory (except maybe for far-off portions moving away faster than the speed of light from our perspective.)

      Thus, in theory something as far away as the further Quasar could still orbit the Sun. What stops it (or interferes/overpowers) is gravity of other stars, and the positions of these change over time.

      Thus, if you define the boundary as "the spot where another star's gravity is stronger than the Sun's", then you pin the boundary to something that may not be around the area in a few million years or so.

      Something in the Oort cloud may be torn away from its Solar orbit by a passing star, and visa versa.

  100. Re:2012-ish marks next 'landmark' event for Voyage by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Funny

    What a stupid comment. Just how does the 4000 bc brick gain enough velocity to escape the gravity of the solar system (let alone the earth)?

    By bouncing off the forehead of a numbskull

  101. Re:Voy 1 will likely confuse even modern earthling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, you're smarter than a brick. That's about all that can be said.

  102. Solution! by Bingo+Foo · · Score: 2
    So you launch the generator on a balloon, and snag it with the rocket while it's still sub-orbital! No messy launchpad explosion danger!

    Wow, I should work for NASA.

    --
    taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!
  103. It has everything to do with environmentalism by YokuYakuYoukai · · Score: 1

    are you really ready to trust nasa engineers like that after that last big mix-up with metric and English units? i don't think i am.

    1. Re:It has everything to do with environmentalism by xQx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "mix-up with metric and English units?"

      Just nitpicking here, but metric IS english units. The issue was with American Vs. The-rest-of-the-world units.

      You can't blame the NASA engineers... I mean, when it comes down to it, they are Yanks after all.

      It's always amazed me how Americans have such a facination with whats going on in space, yet don't know, and don't seem to WANT to know whats going on outside their borders on the rest of this planet.

    2. Re:It has everything to do with environmentalism by PLBogen · · Score: 0

      -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
      Hash: SHA1

      First off, the NASA problem was not NASA's fault, the supplier did
      their mesaurements in Standard and did not label their units. NASA
      operated in Metric and assumed that their contractors would be
      complying to NASA's metric policy.

      Now as for the Anti-American bashing this seems to be the standard
      response from most people when a conversation about anything that
      occurs inside America is struck up on /.

      When you get down on it, 1) Most Americans don't give a damn what you
      think about them, because you do not live there. 2) Why should
      Americans care about other internal problems they are others not
      theirs. 3) The American media system focuses on domestic issues.
      While the rest of the world focuses on international issues.

      Now back to the real issue here:
      Metric is SI
      English is also known as Standard.
      I know you are coming from the standpoint that "oh, only the
      Americans use standard therefore the traditional name of English
      doesn't apply."

      But to call Metric, English is ridiculous since the system was
      invented by the French during the Revolution as a way to distance the
      Republic from their Imperial past. While the Standard system was
      invented by the English.

      Additionally, the idea that America alone has not fully converted
      (and America has converted in some aspects but is still mostly
      Standard) is not true either. Some Imperial measurements are still in
      use in Canada. And, if you ever watch British television, frequently
      people speak of Standard measurements, such as the yard or foot or
      inch.

      -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
      Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use

      iQA/AwUBPWUAd9n5WzLWjZeEEQJvaACgr+KdCEwvN16RzM7k Kt XMOtO/vvQAoMqs
      yQSc5H5O7VOMJeNWK1uNUmL2
      =K+s6
      - ----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    3. Re:It has everything to do with environmentalism by Fat+Casper · · Score: 2
      Just nitpicking here, but metric IS english units. The issue was with American Vs. The-rest-of-the-world units.

      Gimme a "T!" Gimme an "R!" Gimme an "O!" Gimme an "L!" Gimme an "L!"

      Um, Metric is actually French. English units came to America with the English themselves. We kept using them and find that they work quite nicely, thank you.

      Americans...don't seem to WANT to know whats going on outside their borders on the rest of this planet.

      If it were filled with brighter people than you, we might care. Half the reason most people hate us so much is that we don't care that they hate us at all.

      --
      I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
  104. ObProfit reference... by Dthoma · · Score: 1
    Well, that wouldn't exactly make a good business plan, would it?

    1. Launch bleeping, electronic, pointy chunk of metal into space and wait 40 years
    2. ?????
    3. Profit!
    --

    Note to M1-ers: a curt but otherwise insightful message is not "Flamebait" or "Troll".

  105. Re:Perspective (OFFTOPIC WARNING!) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I Second that

  106. is it really the furthest? by yoha · · Score: 1

    since all light is made up of particles, wouldn't all of the light (particles) that we've created over the past 100 years have reached further?

  107. Re:Perspective (OFFTOPIC WARNING!) by Fishstick · · Score: 1

    It's not just being seen as a baby. I don't get embarassed at anyone seeing what I looked like at that age.

    Having a picture of you naked in the tub is another matter.

    --

    There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
    Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

  108. If you were wondering about Pioneer... by ShieldWolf · · Score: 2

    "Famed as the most remote object ever made by man, Pioneer 10 is now 7.5 billion miles away (Until 17 February 1998, the heliocentric radial distance of Pioneer 10 had been greater than that of any other manmade object. But late on that date Voyager 1's heliocentric radial distance, in the approximate apex direction, equaled that of Pioneer 10 at 69.419 AU. Thereafter, Voyager 1's distance will exceed that of Pioneer 10 at the approximate rate of 1.016 AU per year)."

    -Shieldwolf

    --
    just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
  109. Batteries?? How about RTG's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs)

    No battery would work in that deep of space for the length of time, it's nuclear decay that's keeping the viking & pioneer's lights & radio's on. Remember all the grandstanding about Cassini & radioactive waste spreading all over florida if it crashed? Well it's the same fuel technology used in most of the early NASA satellites & almost all of the military birds. In fact russia burned up more than a few in to earths atmosphere.. We just didn't have quite the touchy feely PC attitude in the 70's that we have to deal with now.
    Yes, I know it could have caused a big problem, but hey nothing wagered nothing gained.
    Plus, I live in VA :)

  110. Re:2012-ish marks next 'landmark' event for Voyage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Pretty neat for a piece of 1970's technology.

    What's wrong with the 1970's ? It brought man
    to the moon (and back, even under conditions that
    no-one had thought of before - Apollo 13).

    I recently asked one of my coworkers on J3, the
    Fortran Standardisation committee, who happens
    to work for NASA, what the possibilities were
    to redo this 2002. His answer was: "Significantly
    less than 5 %".

    Toon Moene.

  111. What's really going to confuse the aliens... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is the copyright symbol on the DNA picture.

    Does this mean they are not allowed to clone us?

  112. The most useful scientific principle by hayden · · Score: 2
    "Close enough is good enough if it makes the maths easier". Closely related to the "measure it with a micrometer, mark it with chalk, cut it with an axe" method of experimentation.

    Anyway, I think something called the AU should be measure something a bit more dinkum Aussie. Like the size of Ian Thorpes feet.

    --
    Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
  113. We'll likely run into it again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given our past track record with our own history, it seems unlikely anything out there will get to see it before we do again. We've dug up frozen bodies from failed Arctic expeditions 100 years ago, and we never leave any known artifact or site of archeological site of interest alone to gather dust or remain as is.

    Most likely, assuming we survive the coming population crash/wars for resources/disease, we will have spaceships that can reach the farthest parts of our solar system within 500 to 1000 years. Someone from earth will find it, and it will be valued as a well preserved piece of 20th century history. It will have higher value than other artificial satellite finds because of the culture and so on it carries. It will be an oddity amongst the artifacts within space history studies compared to say Anik E.

  114. Voyager ran on a warp core by xQx · · Score: 1

    You only need to watch one or two epesodes to work that out.

    Why else would they have flux capacitors, a warp manafold, two naselles and a big blue glowing thing in the engine room?

  115. Meter, kilometer, whatever by lucasw · · Score: 1

    I was only off by a factor of a thousand...

    The trajectory still needs to be taken into account, but even then I concede it's going fast enough to escape. This applet shows I & II's flight plans in 3d, and it looks like I is heading more directly away from the sun than II, so a larger component of its speed is actually contributing to that escape velocity.

  116. OFFTOPIC: Re:Infinity taken for granted by Tired_Blood · · Score: 1

    Your ignorance is charming assuming that you're still in elementary or secondary school. If you're older than that, then it's not so charming.

    Ignorance is not a bad thing as many assume. Withholding knowledge from those ignorant is far worse than the generally assumed evil associated with being ignorant.

    I am interested in the problem posed in this thread, but instead of a simple link to a site that focuses on it, I see arrogance.

    By not providing any further insight to the matter, your post could just as easily be the output of a random-flamebait generator. The odd thing about this is that the lack of details seems to be very inconsistent with your typical posts.

    --
    This is not my sig.
    1. Re:OFFTOPIC: Re:Infinity taken for granted by kmellis · · Score: 2
      By not providing any further insight to the matter, your post could just as easily be the output of a random-flamebait generator. The odd thing about this is that the lack of details seems to be very inconsistent with your typical posts.
      Fair enough. The problem I had was twofold.

      The first part is that I really don't know where to begin in terms of dealing with the poster's question. Infinity is problematic. Aristotle had exactly the same problem that the poster did -- for that reason, Aristotle differentiated between "infinity in extension" and "infinity in division", and disputted the existence of the former. Just as our poster did. In that sense, he's in good company. (Of course, many modern scientists don't see Aristotle as good company.)

      On the other hand, I think that incommensurability -- what we call "irrational numbers" (actually, that's what Euclid called them, too) is at least as problematic as infinite extension in terms of violating common sense. The difference is that irrational numbers are indisputable. That's why the Pythagoreans kept them a secret. My point is that just because something violates common sense, doesn't make it false.

      Sheesh: particle/wave duality, Heisenberg Uncertainty (properly understood), Relativity -- these all are completely in violation of common sense. Having a background in the history and philosophy of science as I do, I am somewhat sympathetic to objections that contemporary science violates common sense. That's a very interesting question to me. But the fact that this is the case can only come as a surprise to two kinds of people: someone so steeped in contemporary science that they are oblivious to its seeming "absurdities", or someone so oblivious to contemporary science that they're essentially two-thousand years behind the curve.

      Both of those people are, in relative terms, unobjectionable. But our poster crosses the line when he (as an example of the second type of person from the paragraph above) asserts that this violation of his common sense indicates that modern science is wrong and that there's a big conspiracy of silence. That's ignorance coupled with arrogance, and that's inexcusable. Which brings me to my second problem.

      You see this on Slashdot all the time. I mean, I know this, it's a joke about slashdot. But you get people that work in a technical field, took a few science classes in college, and watch science fiction, and they think they can comment on all sorts of things when, actually, they're just embarassing themselves. I had just had my fill of it yesterday. That's all.

      Typing "infinity" and "mathematics" and perhaps "physics" into Google isn't very hard to do. I'm not sure why I should be required to provide a link.

      All in all, though, your objection was at least partially valid, and my only defense is to plead annoyance.

  117. Hey Wait A Minute by narftrek · · Score: 1

    Hey I thought obligatory Simpsons quotes always got modded at least 3 Funny

  118. Whoa, buddy, Skylab not 1st Space Station by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once again we capitalist pigs were running a little behind them Godless Commies of the USSR.

    Skylab was, rather, the first American space station.