Slashdot Mirror


Collecting Stardust

An anonymous reader writes "Washington University in St. Louis space scientists are reporting the first definitive laboratory dissection of an interstellar dust particle, thus pulling out each grain's history individually. When collected at high-altitude, the origin of six grains are from outside our solar system. 'Space' is full of dust, or ejected material from long-dead stars. In this case, 3 of the 6 dust grains are from red giant stars, and perhaps 2 are from supernovae. In the next 5 years, there are six missions targeting a rendezvous with either a comet or asteroid, including the Stardust mission to return the first extraterrestrial samples since Apollo. That only leaves 100 billion comets left to explore in our own solar system's Oort cloud." Update: 02/28 17:22 GMT by M : Fixed university name.

147 comments

  1. Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    You mean Washington University in St. Louis...

    *not* "University of Washington"

    1. Re:Correction by clmensch · · Score: 1

      As a Wash U alumnus(sp?), all I have to say is if I had a dollar for every time someone confused Washington University in St. Louis with the University of Washington or even George Washington University, I'd be on my way to the International Space Station right now...

      --
      There is no gravity...the earth just sucks.
    2. Re:Correction by vortigern00 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Anyone who does not regognize Washington University in St. Louis immediately dates themselves as a net newbie...

      It doesn't seem like long ago that wuarchive.wustl.edu was the definitive source of stuff on the net.

      ...and zurich.ai.mit.edu was the definitive source of... other stuff :)

      -Vort

    3. Re:Correction by PD · · Score: 1

      funet.fi

      I laugh in glee thinking about how much trans-Atlantic bandwidth I used up.

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

      This week in Malinckrodt Center, a group was selling T-shirts to give the proceeds to charity. The slogan: "Washington University is in St. Louis, Dammit!"

  2. In Other News by choctawgh · · Score: 3, Funny

    In other news, David Bowie is suing for patent infringement, claiming he IS stardust... ok, so it's weak......I'm tired and the coffee maker is broken ;)

    1. Re:In Other News by gowen · · Score: 0, Funny
      In other news, David Bowie is suing for patent infringement, claiming he IS stardust...
      No no no. Bowie is the Starman. Joni Mitchell is Stardust. She is also Golden and Million Year Old Carbon
      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    2. Re:In Other News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he wasn't the star man either (the star man was waiting in the sky). He was in Ziggy's band though.

    3. Re:In Other News by hachete · · Score: 0

      Nowadays, he's only wanting Stardust Memories:

      And now the purple dusk of twilight time

      Steals across the meadows of my heart
      High up in the sky the little stars climb
      Always reminding me that we're apart

      http://www.cox-internet.com/damor1/stardust.html

      or maybe this:

      http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&id=1800121702& cf =info&intl=us

      h

      --
      Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
  3. Update: Project cancelled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sadly, the sorting and cataloguing procedure was halted today after an inattentive graduate student sneezed the entire collection over the lab

    1. Re:Update: Project cancelled by $$$$$exyGal · · Score: 1
      No worries. It turned out that the grad student's beard was a motherlode-source of intergalactic dust.

      --sex

      --
      Very popular slashdot journal for adul
    2. Re:Update: Project cancelled by TarPitt · · Score: 1

      If I had mod points, you'd get one for "funny". I've personnaly known some grad students who seemed like they'd spent way too much time in outer space.....

      --
      If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
  4. Washington University, Actually. by cbowland · · Score: 3, Informative
    --

    Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.
    Teach him to eat and he will fish forever.

  5. I gotta ask... by gpinzone · · Score: 1, Insightful

    How the heck do they know that the dust is from a whole 'nother solar system?

    1. Re:I gotta ask... by tHiNk411 · · Score: 2, Funny

      If dust is from diffrent stars then wouldn't it be obvious that its from a diffrent solar system?

    2. Re:I gotta ask... by gpinzone · · Score: 1

      So...how do they know it's dust from a star? Sounds like a lot of assumptions are being made.

    3. Re:I gotta ask... by YanceyAI · · Score: 1
      Our star has a very specific make-up from other stars. If the age and/or make up of particles is different....

      --
      Can I bum a sig?
    4. Re:I gotta ask... by Andy_R · · Score: 2, Informative

      according to the article...

      "Using the NanoSIMS probe, the Washington University investigators then
      measured the relative amounts of two isotopes of oxygen in more than a
      thousand grains from nine interplanetary dust particles. The data told them which grains had come from stars."

      --
      A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
    5. Re:I gotta ask... by gpinzone · · Score: 1

      Oh well, if the NanoSIMS probe says it's from nine interplanetary dust particles, there's no reason to question it.

    6. Re:I gotta ask... by glitch23 · · Score: 0

      They know it is dust from another solar system the same as they know evolution is the reason there is life on earth, that reason being it's the only thing the scientists want to believe and thus it MUST BE TRUE. To a scientist something is true until it's proven false. Unfortunately that logic doesn't always work but try telling that to a scientist.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    7. Re:I gotta ask... by tgrigsby · · Score: 1

      The tiny "Made In Centauri 5" label was a dead give away.

      --
      *** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
  6. Already done it by worst_name_ever · · Score: 1, Funny
    I've been collecting stardust since 1972.

    Sincerely,
    David Bowie

    --

    In Soviet Rush, today's Tom Sawyer gets high on you.
  7. cleanup by bobba22 · · Score: 3, Funny

    This obviously points to the rumour that nasa has started training old women for the 'space cleanup' - removing all space dust and debris from the upper atmosphere. Old women have several advantages aside from being expert cleaners, they are lightwieght, require little food or sleep, their bones are brittle anyway and they have absorbed enough cherry to keep them radiation-free for months at a time.

    1. Re:cleanup by t0ny · · Score: 1

      How would you like to slam into some stardust going 120au/hour =)

      --

      Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

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

      I'd like it alot

  8. How do people figure this stuff out? by guacamolefoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When collected at high-altitude, the origin of six grains are from outside our solar system.

    IIRC, someone once wrote that "...even God cannot tell carbon atoms apart." How do you pull something from the upper atmosphere and conclusively determine that it came from outside the solar system? Perhaps it would help to RTFA (and I will) but it just baffles me how these scientists are able to figure this stuff out. I'm starting to fall into that "Science as magic" category, I guess.

    GF.

    1. Re:How do people figure this stuff out? by k3v0 · · Score: 1

      especially when most comlex atoms in the universe are created in the explosions of stars. the article isnt heavy on the details but I questioned their findings it as well

    2. Re:How do people figure this stuff out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny
      How do you pull something from the atmosphere and determine that it came from outside the solar system?
      Passport stamps.
    3. Re:How do people figure this stuff out? by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 4, Informative

      The usual way to trace the place of origin of a sample (meteorites, dust, whatever) is to look at the ratio of isotopes of certain elements. In this case, they used two oxygen isoptopes. Objects in our solar system tend to have a particular ratio, all the material having formed from the same nebula 4.6 billion years ago. Material with a very different isotope ratio probably comes from outside the system, then.

      This method isn't without it's risks, of course. There are processes which might enhance or deplete a body in a particular isotope over it's kin. But I'm not thinking of any that would work on a dust grain, assuming it had ever been part of a planet.

    4. Re:How do people figure this stuff out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just an additional comment. These "cosmic dust grains" are typically formed in the outer reaches of old (that is, near explosion!) red giant stars, whose outer reaches are actually cool enough so that carbon, and other trace materials, can actually condense. When such a star blows off its envelope at the end of its lifetime (such as our star, the Sun, will do when it transitions from red giant to white dwarf), the dust grains get kicked into interstellar space.
      Once in interstellar space said grains tend to collect together (stick) when they hit each other. Also, fast moving H atoms can hit the carbon, forming organic molecules. I believe the science calls for these granuals to reach a maximum size, then stop growing (because of shocks from supernova?).
      A granual from a supernova would be expected to be laced with heavy elements since it's supernova that tend to generate things from iron and up to the transuranics. Our own sun won't be likely to build granuals out of anything heavier than carbon.

    5. Re:How do people figure this stuff out? by zaqattack911 · · Score: 1

      Radioactive decay dating has it's limits.

      I took this course a while ago but there is a limit to how old we can date something based on radioactive dating.

      For example.. using certain materials we can only date something back to a maximum of several thousand years. Using another method, we are limited to a few billion.

      Does anyone know the limit to hold old we can date something (using whatever type of isotope that would be best?) I guess if we can date something as far back as 15 billion years.. we don't have to worry (since that is the age of the universe estimated I think).

      --Noodle

    6. Re:How do people figure this stuff out? by Ignorant+Aardvark · · Score: 1

      They're not collecting single atoms, that's nigh well impossible. They're collecting "stardust", little motes of billions of atoms. By analyzing the ratio of isotopes you can determine what kind of star environment the stardust was probably formed in. And that quote "God cannot tell carbon atoms apart" isn't true. There's carbon-12, carbon-14, etc. All the isotopes can easily be told apart from each other. That's how this process works.

    7. Re:How do people figure this stuff out? by guacamolefoo · · Score: 1

      I understand that they are not collecting single atoms and, having read the article, it makes some sense. On the other hand, pulling stuff from the upper atmosphere (which is soup compared to interstellar space or even the Oort Cloud) seems to be an unusual way of looking for motes of cosmic debris. The people who come up with this stuff are, so to speak, "out there".

      And that quote "God cannot tell carbon atoms apart" isn't true. There's carbon-12, carbon-14, etc. All the isotopes can easily be told apart from each other.

      You're missing the point of the quote. A carbon-14 atom and a carbon-14 atom cannot be distinguished. Clearly, a standard carbon atom and a carbon isotope, such as c-14 can be distinguished.

      I believe the quote came from someone discussing how predestination in the universe is an absurd idea and that the universe is not simply a pool hall.

      GF.

    8. Re:How do people figure this stuff out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was my response too. If we can't distinguish the right-thinking terrestrial dust from the invader species, the terrorists have already won. I'm going to write an open letter and petition to GWB to install a worldwide dust shield! Who's with me?

  9. Dragoons by mygrane · · Score: 1

    For some reason, I thought the hardest stardust to get was the one at the home of the gigantos. I had to go back and look everywhere to find that one... but it's definitely worth it for what Martel gives you when you have all 50.

  10. This would be much easier by SirSlud · · Score: 2, Funny

    .. had god been smart and made the universe and everything within it with RFID tags. Imagine the possibilities ...

    --
    "Old man yells at systemd"
  11. A few corrections, sir by (1337)+God · · Score: 3, Informative
    A few corrections, sir:
    1. We lost 7 people in the Columbia disaster, not 8.
    2. It exploded over Earth, not Middle Earth. Perhaps you should re-join the real and stay away from your sci-fi fantasy movies.
    3. I know this is hard to believe, but it's Iraq that we're going to invade, not Iran. Iran is so '80s.
    4. The world will never be totally fixed. That's why we need to study Space and find out how to get the hell off Earth before it's too late ;-)
    --

    Background: 28/M/Bi-Sexual; Owner of a Linux company; MBA Harvard 2003; B.S. Comp Sci MIT 2000
    1. Re:A few corrections, sir by scottennis · · Score: 1

      So we can fuck up space too?

      I'm reminded of a debate in one of my high-school classes. We were talking about disarmament and what to do with all the extra missile lying around.

      Someone suggested we just shoot them into the sun. To which a particularly dim bulb responded:

      "Oh, right, and what if we blow up the sun!"

    2. Re:A few corrections, sir by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, hard to tell if you really fell for this troll and replied to him seriously, or if your reply is in itself a clever troll.

      You are either a genius or a moron (or maybe both!)

  12. Andromeda by CWCarlson · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wonderful. I suppose Project Wildfire will be activated shortly, following the mysterious death of all but two people (a baby and an old man) living in a desert town somewhere...

    Perhaps this time they won't hire any epileptics.

  13. That's Washington University, moron by sjbe · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    The official name of the school is Washington University in Saint Louis. At least get the name of the school right. That's like calling Harvard University the "University of Harvard". You sound like a moron to anyone who went there.

    For future reference it is NOT any of the following:
    University of Washington
    Washinton State University
    Western Washington Universty
    Central Washington University
    George Washington University
    Washington and Lee University

    1. Re:That's Washington University, moron by drooling-dog · · Score: 1

      Let's all agree to a moratorium on the use of the word "Washington" in the names of future universities...

    2. Re:That's Washington University, moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To really get the ire of an alumna, simply call the universtity "Wash U."

    3. Re:That's Washington University, moron by kahei · · Score: 2, Funny

      You sound like a moron to anyone who went there.


      I'm having trouble believing that *everyone* who went there is like that. I think what you meant to say was something like:

      'I have very few sources of pride in my life, so I obsess over trivia such as the name of my old school -- desperate for anything, no matter how trivial or laughable it may seem to others, that will allow me to tell myself for a precious second or two that I am in some minute way superior."

      --
      Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
    4. Re: That's Washington University, moron by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > At least get the name of the school right. That's like calling Harvard University the "University of Harvard". You sound like a moron to anyone who went there.

      Dude, everyone sounds like a moron to anyone who went to Harvard!

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    5. Re:That's Washington University, moron by idiot900 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I go to Washington University right now. We Wash U people are used to this. Anytime we talk to family they say things like "Seattle is pretty rainy isn't it?" You'd think more people would have heard of a major research university with billions of dollars in its endowment. Sadly this is not the case. No love lost, we understand :)

    6. Re:That's Washington University, moron by Alan+Shutko · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's mostly the college administration that is upset by "Wash U", since they're ever seeking higher ratings in the USN&WR college ranking and feel that Wash U isn't "respectable" enough.

      As far as I know, the women who went to Wash U don't feel any differently... no, just polled one alumna, my wife, and she doesn't care.

      If you really want to upset Wash U alums remind them their school is responsible for foisting wu-ftpd on the world....

    7. Re:That's Washington University, moron by mmol_6453 · · Score: 1

      I dare you to mix up "Michigan State University" and "University of Michigan" around my family.

      --
      What's this Submit thingy do?
  14. Stardust? by pmz · · Score: 1

    I collected a whole bunch of it, but then all I got was this armor...

  15. No Washington in Missouri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    From an alumnus: it's WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, not the University of Washington. If it was, don't you think it'd be somewhere called Washington?

    We used to have t-shirts that said "Washington University is in St. Louis, damnit."

  16. Why is space so dirty? by Mothra+the+III · · Score: 5, Funny

    If space is a giant vacuum, shouldn't it be picking up all this dust?

    --
    Worst. Sig. Ever.
    1. Re:Why is space so dirty? by dmomo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Why? Did you ever try looking inside of your vacuum cleaner? If anything, I would expect space to be full of pennies, pens and missing G.I. Joe weapons.

    2. Re:Why is space so dirty? by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

      if thats the case then if we ever shoot barbie hair into space the universe will come to a grinding halt

      --
      "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  17. Ahhh! by Bendebecker · · Score: 1

    only 100 billion
    Once you've seen one comet, you've seen em all.

    --
    There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
    most of us won't be able to afford it.
    -- Lemmy
  18. Very nifty by KiahZero · · Score: 1

    Makes me want to break out the +1 Vorpal Sword.

    I found it interesting that commercial mining of asteroids was mentioned in the third article. Sure, raw materials are plentiful in asteroids, but wouldn't the cost of getting there far outweigh the benefits of the plentiful resources? I guess this would be practical if/when we run out of certain ores, or as an "While we're here, we might as well" measure, but I can't see it going anywhere otherwise until the price of space travel drops dramatically.

    --
    I'm a lawyer, but not yours. I wouldn't represent someone who thinks taking legal advice from Slashdot is a good idea.
    1. Re: Very nifty by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > I found it interesting that commercial mining of asteroids was mentioned in the third article. Sure, raw materials are plentiful in asteroids, but wouldn't the cost of getting there far outweigh the benefits of the plentiful resources?

      Surely it would be worthwhile if we could find an asteroid made of Slashdot Karma.

      We could harvest Karma with our hoes!

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Very nifty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another basic trick: Even the near-earth asteroids are presumed to have large deposits of water. There was an article in Spectrum (IEEE house organ) where the possibility of mining these asteriods for fuel was seriously discussed. With nuclear power plants, it's trivial to make an engine with water as the propellant. Or, alternatively, use solar energy to "crack" the water into H2 and O2, which is then burnt in rocket engines. Point: If you don't have to haul fuel up from the Earth's gravity well the econcomics get a LOT better.

  19. Stardust by ryanvanderzanden · · Score: 2, Funny

    "...including the Stardust mission..."

    Ziggy learned to play guitar, flying high with...

    etc...

    sorry, had to do it. :)

    -r-

    1. Re:Stardust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Hey dickhead, don't post lyrics if you can't get them right, ok? You've got it so screwed up I don't even know what song you're talking about.
      So, how do you know he screwed them up at all?
  20. Fortunately, I didn't go there- by purduephotog · · Score: 1

    And it sounded just fine to me. So to anyone that didn't go there, you sound like a moron making a big deal about nothing... especially when we click on the article and see the correction....

  21. Washington University by day+of+ire · · Score: 1

    i'm sure i'm the thirty-seventh person to point
    this out, but the University of Washington is in
    Washington, and Washington University is in St.
    Louis. this article is refering the Washington
    University, which is located in St. Louis, MO.

  22. Skeptical by FosterSJC · · Score: 1, Informative

    Now, I know the articles I'm about to site are about identifying possible extra-terrestrial life, but I believe that calling atmospheric dust extra-solar is just as specious.

    The first article is about the supposed space bacteria collected off of a weather balloon at high altitudes. You've got to be kidding me... That stuff did not just float thousands of light years just to get caught and identified off a weather balloon not even in space.

    The second article concerns the Murchison meteorite. This one they know came from outer space and still cant tell whether it had Earthy or Non-Earthy critters living inside.

    My point is that the possibility of contamination and disturbance of the results in experiments looking at both organic and inorganic compounds is astronomical (pardon the pun). I agree with an above post: some grad student didn't wash his hands after going to the bathroom and touched a sample.

    1. Re: Skeptical by thelexx · · Score: 5, Informative

      A little reading would go a long way in your search for truth.

      From the linked article:

      Using the NanoSIMS probe, the Washington University investigators then measured the relative amounts of two isotopes of oxygen in more than a thousand grains from nine IDPs. The data told them which grains had come from stars.

      From a link in the article:

      The NanoSIMS is a first-of-its-kind ion microprobe in the Laboratory for Space Sciences in Arts & Sciences and is housed on the fourth floor of Compton Hall. The $2 million instrument is the first in the world built to analyze the isotopic and elemental composition of extremely small samples, such as interplanetary dust particles, at a sub-micrometer scale, allowing a first-time look at those particles' subcomponents.

      And from a link on the NanoSIMS homepage:

      Results: Of all the subgrains defined in 25 images from 9 cluster IDPs, roughly 1031 were measured with sufficient precision to distinguish solar material from circumstellar dust as shown in Figure 1. Only grains > 200 nm were measured with this level of precision. Six of these grains have O isotopic compositions which fall well outside the range of solar system materials, marking them as stellar condensates.

      Seems to me like these cats know what they are doing.

      --
      "Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
    2. Re: Skeptical by Biff+Stu · · Score: 1
      I would like to add a bit more info for the skeptics. The isotope ratios are a pretty good key. The material in our solar system has already been subject to a couple of generations of stellar processing. (Otherwise, there would be nothing by hydrogen.) The isotopes generated by the prior stars in our neck of the woods were determined by a particular set of fusion processes (dependent on stellar mass) that occurred during the life of those stars.

      Some of the matter from outside our solar system was generated by stars with different fusion processes which generate different isotopes for particular elements. These isotope ratios have been determined precisely from the microwave spectral signatures measured by radio telescopes.

      The fact that some extra-stellar grains drift into our solar system isn't surprising. However there a couple of big questions that I have. (Note that the wustl web site has been /.ed.)

      First, can the nano-SIMS system do chemical analysis, or is it limited to elemental analysis? That depends on how destructive the primary electron beam is. It probably needs to be fairly high energy in order to get the spatial resolution.

      If it can do chemical analysis, then we have a potential probe of the extra-solar chemistry. That's always exciting. However, there are some caveats. We don't know how long the grains have spent in our solar system. They could have been contaminated with some of the crud from our neighborhood.

      Furthermore, heat from the sun has probably evaporated many of the more volatile compounds and decomposed some of the more reactive species that one might find in interstellar space.

  23. I've got 'em all! by skilljoy · · Score: 2, Funny

    I even have his 80's "Fashion" stuff. I do miss the Spiders from Mars...
    (sigh)

  24. Star Dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And now the purple husk of twilight time
    Steals across the meadows of my heart
    High up in the sky the little stars climb
    Always reminding me that we're apart
    You wandered down the lane and far away
    Leaving me a song that will not die
    Love is now the stardust of yesterday
    The music of the years gone by...

    Sometimes I wonder why I spend the lonely night
    Dreaming of a song?
    The melody haunts my reverie
    And I am once again with you
    When our love was new
    And each kiss an inspiration
    But that was long ago
    Now my consolation is in the Star Dust of your song...

    Beside a garden wall, when stars are bright
    You are in my arms....The nightingale tells his fairy tale
    Of Paradise where roses grew...Tho I dream in vain,
    In my heart it will remain...
    My Star Dust melody....The memory of love's refrain
  25. well, by C21 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I suggest they check out the moon's craters for the dust residue from asteroid impacts...

    --
    this is not a sig.
    1. Re:well, by mmol_6453 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Why bother, when we have craters on Earth to look at instead? The point is that we haven't been there, we haven't specifically looked at the object, so we technically don't know what it is.

      You see, that's science. Other examples might be...
      • ...why did we send flyby probes to other planets when an orbital telescope could tell us just as much?
      • ...why spend money on an orbital telescope when we see** just as much from higher-altitude observatories?


      How long would it have been before we were sure about about the Van Allen radiation belts, if we we hadn't sent probes up to check?

      (**) Yes, I know you have to deal with refraction and diffraction and turbulance and clouds, but we've got technology to deal with all of that now.
      --
      What's this Submit thingy do?
    2. Re:well, by Fweeky · · Score: 1
      Yes, I know you have to deal with refraction and diffraction and turbulance and clouds, but we've got technology to deal with all of that now.

      All the technology in the world isn't going to help you get around the atmosphere filtering out certain interesting wavelengths of ratiation. Not unless you get said technology outside of said atmosphere ;)
  26. Re:He sneezed because he was crying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They may be redundant, they may be bastards at times, but I don't think they qualify as fascist. Poor flamebait material. Give us something creative, not this third-rate junk! I beg you.

  27. Why hasn't anyone else said this? by BabyDave · · Score: 1
    Spaceball One has become ... Mega Maid!
  28. Stardust, WWE wrestler by chef_raekwon · · Score: 1

    isn't stardust a WWE wrestler??

    oh wait, thats golddust......ahh, golddust, stardust, whatever; they're all ferry dust anyway....

    --
    We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
  29. One major problem by burgburgburg · · Score: 3, Funny

    Their intergalactic cries of "Look at this place. Where were you raised? In a barn?" contravene several interstellar conventions on peaceful coexistence.

    1. Re:One major problem by bobba22 · · Score: 0

      It is this set of problems that NASA is hoping to overcome in the near future. other shortfalls are occuring in the spacesuit dept. where extra room is having to be made for extra thermals and cardigans and a flask of tea. NASA has had some success by insisting to the old dears that they "really shouldn't" and that "the grandkids can look after themselves now".

    2. Re:One major problem by Moses+Lawn · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, space is looking a lot nicer now - it's possible to wander around without having a sneezing fit all the time. Plus, you can get a nice cuppa when you go there.

      Hopefully they can get to that big cloud of dog hair and all those old newspapers off in the back corner of the galaxy pretty soon. It really does look like a pigsty out there.

      --

      What if life is just a side effect of some other process and God has no idea we exist?

  30. Comets by JCholewa · · Score: 2, Funny

    > Once you've seen one comet, you've seen em all.

    I dunno about that. On Star Trek last year, they had a comet with earthlike gravity. Now that's damned impressive, and it must be true since its on TV.

    Maybe there are other unique comets out there, like ones with bizarre technobabble-inhibiting EM fields and occasional spaceberry orchards. ^_^

    -JC

  31. Immortality!!! by ashitaka · · Score: 1

    ...assuming it had ever been part of a planet.


    So, at some point in time, billions and billions of years from now, the atoms that make up myself will be drifting around the cosmos blown out by the destruction of the earth by the red-giant death of our sun.

    To be picked up and analyzed by some alien scientist who determines that their planet wasn't the only one to invent pizza.

    --
    If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
  32. Uhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Washington University in Saint Louis

    That's what it says, asshole. Jesus get a life.

  33. We are stardust! by radpole · · Score: 1

    Why don't they just take a crap, cough or scrape some skin and examine that. Aren't we all supposed to be stardust from expired stars, according I guess to the new age people, or Babylon 5.

    The pulsars in my head keep throbbing.

  34. Mining Asteroids and other economical tasks in 0g by JCholewa · · Score: 2, Interesting

    > I found it interesting that commercial mining of asteroids was mentioned
    > in the third article. Sure, raw materials are plentiful in asteroids,
    > but wouldn't the cost of getting there far outweigh the benefits
    > of the plentiful resources? I guess this would be practical if/when
    > we run out of certain ores, or as an "While we're here, we might
    > as well" measure, but I can't see it going anywhere otherwise
    > until the price of space travel drops dramatically.

    Yeah, it's an "economy of scale" thing. Once we have regular (and by regular I mean many companies each making daily launches) access to space, the incremental cost of space travel will be far, far below what we pay now in terms of cost per unit mass.

    And, thing is, it doesn't cost much in terms of energy to get to any given asteroid once you're outside the gravity well of Earth. The only cost would really be time, since momentum keeps you going until you want to brake. So you start up a pipeline of automated mining probes to Ceres. Much like on modern microprocessors, the initial hardware cost would be greater, but you'd be able to transport mining materials at a much faster and more reliable rate than you otherwise would.

    And mining in a low gravity environment (Ceres, the largest asteroid, has less than a thirtieth of Earth's surface gravity) should be far less energy intensive than mining on Earth, where you have to expend unbelievable amounts of energy to merely move mined elements from the mines to the transports, and where you're severely limited in machine travel range due to friction related to that nasty 9.8m/s^2 that we have to put up with all the time here.

    And some asteroids will probably have minable minerals in abundance, and remote spectral analysis will be able to allow us to identify mineral compositions from millions of miles away. That does away with a huge portion of the work involved in mining on Earth, where you have to often indirectly figure out what minerals are hidden beneath the surface, wasting time by drilling all over the place. That costs money continuously, and you could save on that with asteroid mining.

    There are probably some other things in asteroid mining that I'm not thinking of. I'm not miner, and my "engineering" knowledge is rather amateurish (I'm more of a theoretical guy, being a programmer and all). Maybe wear and tear of machines would be less (due to both that lesser gravity we discussed above and the total lack of atmosphere or microorganisms to break down the machine parts). Maybe there are social benefits, like higher morale for the folks who like to work in larger and more open environments (this century, maybe "getting away from it all" will mean accepting a job that lets you work fifty million miles away for a year or two).

    Economies of scale, my man. We have to force ourselves to pay the high costs to continue the proliferation of new technology. I we don't do this, we go stagnant. Space launches these days are often more expensive than they were in the old days, even when you take inflation into account. It's because we stopped doing them so often. It saves a few billion dollars a year in the short term. But we might have made back those billions -- and far more -- by now from the direct and indirect benefits of building up an economy-of-scale framework of space travel. I mean, heck, we landed on Luna six years before I was born. We have space probes ten light hours away. We also have advanced manufacturing facilities on Earth now. Had we continued our push into space instead of borking it all in the seventies through the nineties, I imagine that we would have simple factories producing complex objects on the cheap (at least with products that require tons of work on a small amount of raw material -- no friction and no gravity equals huge cost reductions!) now. Chip fabbing companies would be looking at near to medium term options for building astro-fabs. Do you realize how much more precision in the sub-nanometer range you'd get in building chips when you don't have to worry about gravity and vibrations from the local landmass and atmospheric variables? I mean, crap, we probably would be able to further accelerate process shrinks. 3.0GHz on a 130nm process? What a backwards technology for a space-enabled 2003!

    Economies of scale, my man. Startup costs are [almost] always prohibitive. That's how science and technology works. Live with it. But don't work to inhibit it.

    -JC

  35. This is OLD News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hasn't anyone read the Golden Compass? The dust is living. It created everything and so on, blah blah blah....

    Now we just need a subtle knife or two, so get those smarty-pants scientist types o start on that... jeez...

  36. Most Beautiful Song Ever Written by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    Stardust, by Mitchell Parish and Hoagy Carmichael -- the most beautiful song ever written.

    --
    -kgj
    1. Re:Most Beautiful Song Ever Written by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely in agreement. It is hauntingly beautiful.

  37. What Oort Cloud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The Oort cloud is only a proposal the explain what cannot be explained by the alleged billion-year age of the solar system. See this page for a short description. It says this about the Oort Cloud: "The very existence of the Oort Cloud is only a working hypothesis. Our only evidence is very indirect."

  38. Oooh baby! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I feel like the music sounds better with you.
    Love might bring us back together...

  39. My God by chris411 · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's full of dust!

  40. Joni Mitchell on Stardust by handy_vandal · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    We are stardust
    We are golden
    And we've got to get ourselves
    Back to the garden


    Woodstock by Joni Mitchell

    --
    -kgj
  41. "Low earth orbit is halfway to everywhere" by Unknown+Poltroon · · Score: 1

    I can't rememebr who said it, but is true. Once youre in orbit, the rest is easy.

    --
    All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
  42. kryptonite by peter303 · · Score: 1

    They find the isotope of element 36 in solid form which does not occur on earth at normal temperatures and pressures. If you hold this material next some kinds of aliens, it makes them weak and eventually kills them.

  43. since 98 by Hubert_Shrump · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Finally, someone else collecting Stardust. There are enough remixes out there.

    Cassius does a good one.

    Vinyl: It's what's for mixing.

    --
    Keep your packets off my GNU/Girlfriend!
  44. Re:Mining Asteroids and other economical tasks in by mfrank · · Score: 1

    Also, heavy elements like gold and platinum are concentrated in earth's core; the heave stuff settled there when the earth was formed. Metal asteroids would have significantly higher concentrations of the good stuff. I've read that a good-sized near-earth iron/nickel asteroid would be worth $20 trillion wholesale, with about $4 trillion being economically viable to return to Earth (i.e. metals like gold, platinum). Also I seem to recall the world's largest nickel mine, in Canada, is actually the remnants of an iron/nickel asteroid that hit long ago.

  45. Re:Mining Asteroids and other economical tasks in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your post makes an excellent argument for the banning of font weight variations in body text.

    Of course, no one expects good typography on Slashdot, home of the all-italics front page.

  46. Re:Mining Asteroids and other economical tasks in by JCholewa · · Score: 1

    > Your post makes an excellent argument for the
    > banning of font weight variations in body text.
    > Of course, no one expects good typography on
    > Slashdot, home of the all-italics front page.

    Heh. I do that for a reason. I've found that I tend to drone on when I write stuff, so many readers get bored before they can get to the meat of what I'm saying. So I try to highlight (well, make bold) words that represent the important points of the paragraphs. Some readers (granted, not all) find it easy to quickly scan a long post if they can pick out important key words.

    For instance, when I said "So you start up a pipeline of automated mining probes to Ceres. Much like on modern microprocessors, the initial hardware cost would be greater, but you'd be able to transport mining materials at a much faster and more reliable rate than you otherwise would", a speed reader would see the boldfaced words " pipeline ... automated mining probes ... Ceres ... microprocessors ... faster ... more reliable rate", and they might be able to make out the general gist of what I was talking about. I probably should have added a boldfaced term like "high initial investment" to balance out what I was saying there, but I was writing a lot of stuff on the fly. This isn't a term paper or a news article, you know. :p

    Granted, I stole this technique from Mad and Cracked magazines, so it might not be the best approach. :)

    -JC

  47. G.I. Joe weapons by intermodal · · Score: 1

    woo! i want intergalactic G.I. Joe weapons too!

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  48. Re:Mining Asteroids and other economical tasks in by Netmonger · · Score: 1

    The Italics make perfect sense though - its the part of the posting which isnt in 'present tense speech'.

    --
    -- NeTMoNGeR
  49. Astrophysics: Unscientific by Angram · · Score: 0

    They don't. They don't have any way of knowing it's from another solar system, since they have never been in another solar system.

    Most of modern astrophysics isn't scientific, in fact. Unversal expansion, etc. are theories based on microwave radiation coming from all directions, assumed to be coming from distant stars everywhere. Of course, that's just bull (scientifically speaking). We have no way of knowing whether the radiation is just inherent to our solar system, galaxy, or even planet. In fact, it is most likely that the instruments themselves are the problem. Science is based on parsimony, and unfortunately, these are far more simple explanations than 'The whole universe is doing it'. Essentially, there are WAY too many sources of error here. We don't have data from anywhere but here, so observer bias (everyone on Earth would only constitue one observer, as we're all in the same situation), is way too likely in these cases.

    I had picked up Stephen Hawkings' "A Brief History of Time" from the library, but stopped reading it once I realized there wasn't really anything more than fantasy involved. They're trying so hard to get answers that they've forgotten they don't have any solid base for their work.

    --

    GL
    1. Re:Astrophysics: Unscientific by Rip!ey · · Score: 1

      I had picked up Stephen Hawkings' "A Brief History of Time" from the library, but stopped reading it...

      Do a google for stephen-hawking-a-brief-history-of-time.pdf and download a copy. It's easily found and worth reading in full.

    2. Re:Astrophysics: Unscientific by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Most of modern astrophysics isn't scientific, in fact.

      As someone who studied astrophysics at university, I can honestly say that statement is just bull. Yes, astrophysics is mainly a theoretical science, but that doesn't make the science any less valid.

      The fact that you couldn't get through reading A Brief History Of Time without dismissing its contents as "anything more than fantasy" suggests to me that you're the kind of person who doens't have the capacity for anything other than simple thought.

      I'll ask you two simple questions that illustrate just how dependent science in general is on theories:

      Q: How do you know that the Earth is round? (Ie, how can you prove it?)

      Q: How do you know that gravity exists? (Again, prove its existance.)

      Observational astronomy has helped astrophysicists prove and refine their theories. Want proof of the effect of gravity on light as predicted by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity? Then just look at gravitational lensing caused by the Sun. Etc, etc.

      Astrophysics may be a relatively new science (it's less than a hundred years old) but it's backed up by astronomy (the oldest science) pretty damn well.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    3. Re:Astrophysics: Unscientific by vrmlguy · · Score: 1
      OK, I know its a troll, but I've been sucked in anyway. Let me try to answer two of your points.

      They don't. They don't have any way of knowing it's from another solar system, since they have never been in another solar system.

      I've never been to a different continent. I have a stuffed goldfish that's from a different continent. I can tell by reading its tag. Yes, really. It could have been made here, but that would mean that it was sold with a fake tag, which is very unlikely given the effort required to produce one, and without a legitimate tag, because someone would have had to remove the original, which is unlikely because I see no evidence of that. Likewise, the dust particles have tags (oxygen isotope ratios). To have a very different ratio would require a great deal of effort, along the lines of a naturally occuring gaseous diffusion isotope seperator, plus any deposits of oxygen atoms at the original ratio would have to be removed, which would also leave evidence.

      We have no way of knowing whether the [background microwave] radiation is just inherent to our solar system, galaxy, or even planet. In fact, it is most likely that the instruments themselves are the problem.

      Let's first assume that the radiation comes from a spherical shell that surrounds us. If the shell enclosed just our planet, we would see minor changes in intensity at different altitudes. If it enclosed just our solar system, we would see minor changes in intensity as we orbited the sun. If it enclosed just our galaxy, we would see minor directional changes in intensity as look in different directions (since we aren't at the galatic center). Now let's assume that the radiation comes from a fog that we're embedded within. In this case, we would see the radiation even when looking at something that would block it (the moon, distant galaxies, etc), but we don't. Finally, if the instruments are the problem, we would see differences as we used different instruments.

      --
      Nothing for 6-digit uids?
    4. Re:Astrophysics: Unscientific by Angram · · Score: 0

      Firstly, don't attack me as not having "capacity for anything other than simple thought". That kind of name calling has no place in a scientific discussion.

      I don't think theoretical sciences deserve the same status as pure sciences. Psychology is my field, and I find anything other than behaviorism (the purely scientific arm of pyschology) to be far less valid. I work with cognitive processes, and don't regard psychotherapy as scientific. If you want to call it a "Theoretical Science" go right ahead, but realize that once you have to qualify it, you're diluting it.

      "illustrate just how dependent science in general is on theories"

      I think you missed my point. Theories are all that matter in science, as I am well aware. My problem with astrophysics is their lack of solid footing. Evolutionary theory can be easily backed up by observations, that's a very important feature. In astrophysics, your observations are on the same arm as your predictions. The lack of independence is a rather large stumbling block. If you have gotten a basic point (or an equation, etc) wrong, your 'observations' will be affected as well.

      If you really want me to answer your questions, I can do so, but I don't think they're really relevant.

      "Observational astronomy has helped astrophysicists prove and refine their theories. Want proof of the effect of gravity on light as predicted by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity? Then just look at gravitational lensing caused by the Sun. Etc, etc."

      You cannot prove anything, that's one of the most basic scientific principles. You can support theories, but never wholly be certain of anything. Observational astronomy's effects on astophysicists isn't relevant. Vision lends support to biologists, but that's not particularly significant on its own. As for Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, I think it's pretty good, but it seems to break down at extremes. Again, many 'observations' lending support are more mathematical than evidentual.

      I'm not damning physics or all of astrophysics, either. All I'm saying is that far too much of it is based on very loose ground. Black holes seem to have too little support, while gravity and planetary motion are backed up very well.

      --

      GL
    5. Re:Astrophysics: Unscientific by Angram · · Score: 0

      First, your tag analogy doesn't really make much sense in this instance. If there was a tag that said 'Made in ---', where would you think it was from? You wouldn't know. When we collect stardust, it doens't have a big 'Alpha Centari' tag on it. Our decision that something is from another galaxy is based on the particle's composition and our assumptions about different locales and objects in the sky. We get radiation and assume that we completely understand it and therefore know precisely what the body that emitted it was composed of. That's a stretch.

      We don't know if, say, Neptune, has some quirk that causes it to produce these particles. That's a very real and very valid issue (don't say we'd see it all coming from Neptune's direction, since it might be affected by, say, magnetic fields, etc).

      Also, in nature the word "effort" has no meaning. It doesn't take the Sun any effort to produce heat, it just does it.

      As for the your explanation about locale, you did a very good job, I must say. Those are points I had yet to consider, yet do not dissolve my position. If the 'fog' were a part of the 'empty space' in our galaxy (solar sytems and stars could have sucked up patched surrounding them), we would see the exact same phenomena. If the particles only travel a certain distance (i.e. destabilize after being emitted), and the waves as well (i.e. pulled apart by magnetic fields), how would we know it? It is entirely possible that the waves and particles we're getting in have been changed in some way by entering our galaxy (or solar system, etc), as well.

      If the instruments were all well constructed along the same lines, we would see this effect, rather than see differences between them. As far as I know, the same technologies and equations are behind them all.

      --

      GL
    6. Re:Astrophysics: Unscientific by vrmlguy · · Score: 1

      My tag analogy makes lots of sense. I don't know which country my stuffed animal is from, because I can't read the label. I can, however, tell that the label isn't from any country using the Latin character set. Likewise, we can't tell what star created the dust particles, but we can tell that it isn't from around here.

      The only planet in our solar system that could be the source of either particles or radiation such as you describe would be Pluto. We've sent robots to all of the others without seeing anything such as you describe. When you can provide a mechanism that explains how a cold object that's closer in size to an asteroid than a planet could do this, people will listen. Also, those robots have also mapped the solar systems magnetic fields, so the idea that magnetic fields somehow redirect point-source radiation to appear to come from all directions equally doesn't hold water, either. As for non-magnetic fields, gravity fields large enough to do the job would have other visible side-effects on planetary orbits, while quantum fields don't have the range.

      It takes the Sun a lot of effort to produce heat. Effort means work, which has a precise formula for its calculation. Or don't you think that those descriptions of "the equivalent of X million atomic bombs going off every second" denote anything?

      If a narrow-band radiation-emitting "fog" were part of empty space, we would see evidence in several ways. Depending on the scale, stars or galaxies would appear different to us according to their distance. If local phenomena cleared away the fog close to us (in an astronomical sense), the fog would appear to be more shell-like and we would observe shell-like effects, unless we are at the exact center of the shell. That seems unlikely, since we aren't anywhere near the center of the solar system, our arm of the galaxy, or the local cluster of galaxies.

      Soviet scientists observed the same radiation as Western scientists using instruments built with very different technologies. The only thing that they have in common are Maxwell's equations, which seem to work well enough for designing your TV set and the ICs in your computer. If you can provide equations that work exactly like Maxwell's except for predicting the spurious reception of frequencies identical to the cosmic black-body radiation, people will listen.

      A lot of science works like counting cards in blackjack. For instance, once all the face cards have been dealt, you don't have to physically examine the deck to know that you won't bust on a twelve. Likewise, science sees certain phenomena and reaches certain conclusions about the nature of the universe, without having to travel beyond our solar system. The same conclusions that led to the development of your freezer or cellphone also led to certain deductions about the nature of the universe. Now, I'll admit the possibility that the game is rigged. Maybe electricity is a fraud to steal my money. Maybe gnomes stuff ice in the walls of my freezer when I'm not looking. Maybe when I talk on my cell phone, I really talking to a very tiny parrot (cared for nightly by those same gnomes) who uses telepathy to communicate with other parrots in other cell phones.

      Somehow, though, I doubt it.

      --
      Nothing for 6-digit uids?
    7. Re:Astrophysics: Unscientific by no+reason+to+be+here · · Score: 1
      i would respond to everything in both your posts, but, wow, you're...uhh, my head hurts. how you can say this stuff...i'll just nit pick on one thing:

      Psychology is my field, and I find anything other than behaviorism (the purely scientific arm of pyschology) to be far less valid.
      behaviorism has all the same problems you point out in astrophysics. first, there is observer bias (all observers are humans, and they are studying humans themselves). in order to truly observe human behavior qua the phenomenon of human behavior you would need a non-human observer capable of making observations in non-human terms. secondly, only a very, very, small statistical sample can ever be observed in a scientific manner, unless you can show me a way to study the behavior of 6,000,000,000+ people in a laboratory setting.
    8. Re:Astrophysics: Unscientific by barakn · · Score: 1
      We have no way of knowing whether the radiation is just inherent to our solar system, galaxy, or even planet. In fact, it is most likely that the instruments themselves are the problem.

      The microwave radiation is blueshifted in the direction our galaxy appears to be moving in relation to points at the edge of the visible universe, after correcting for blueshifts from our motion around the sun and the sun's course through the galaxy. This rather handily shows the source of the microwave radiation to be outside our galaxy. If you blame it on the instruments themselves, then you have to come up with a theory that explains how the instruments produce anomolous readings that correspond exactly with the extra-galactic point they happen to be aimed at at the moment (versus what planet, local star, geomagnetic longitude, etc. they are pointed at). And the source of the microwaves isn't claimed by astrophysicists to be "distant stars everywhere." It is obvious that you don't know enough about the theories or the instruments and observations that stimulated them to discount them. Part of science is to come up with theories that explain observations. No where is it implied that the theories have to be whole and perfect or even correct, just that they explain all the evidence gathered so far. If we could send probes to distant galaxies and they showed that the Milky Way was responsible for all the microwave radiation, then the theories would be rewritten and /. user Angram crowned as a visionary. But don't hold your breath.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
  50. I wonder by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

    how much of the dust in my house came from outer space?

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  51. Re:Mining Asteroids and other economical tasks in by Zathrus · · Score: 1

    Well, it's probably be worth a good bit less since in selling it you'd significantly reduce the sale price (even if you petered it out over a century).

    The real problem is still economic. It just doesn't have a good enough rate of return. Presume it costs a mere $30B to design, develop, and deploy a system to secure and exploit a nickel-metal NEAR as suggested. If it takes you 20 years to do this, and then you play the asteroid out over another century, what's your rate of return when you sell the goods for $4T?

    Well, if you took that $30B of initial investment and let it grow at 5% APR, compounding daily, it would turn into $1,206,780B after 120 years.

    So, uh... you just cut your return by over 3000 times. Ouch. Big, big, big ouch.

    That's the real big problem with space exploration - it takes so long that it becomes unviable economically. And these numbers don't even take risk into account, and they're probably low on a factor of 10x - it would probably cost closer to $300B to develop that first successful mining strategy, if not more. There's a lot of hard problems to crack first.

    Of course, this doesn't touch on other reasons to do this kind of thing, but then you're appealing to other desires. Raw economics is not a good reason to go into space... it's a really lousy one. But I still want to go there.

  52. If you want some REAL science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hubbard had this to say about niacin:
    "Niacin's biochemical reaction is my own, private, personal discovery. In
    the middle of the 1950's I was doing work on radiation, and I worked out
    that it must be niacin that operated on radiation...Niacin runs out
    radiation. The outpoint in medical thinking has been that they thought
    Niacin itself turned on a flush. Niacin all by its lonesome does not turn
    on any flush. What it starts to do is immediately run out sunburn or
    radiation."
    - From HCOB 1978RB, reissued 31 July 1985, "The Purification
    Rundown replaces the sweat program."

    1. Re:If you want some REAL science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1680 N. Vine St., Suite 415, LA, CA. 90028

      The address of the NEW scientology sponsored 'cult awareness network'

    2. Re:If you want some REAL science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dianetics, Scientology and myself for a very long time
      have been subjected to a very standard black propaganda
      campaign instigated by trained persons - the AMA in the US,
      the British Psychological Association in Australia, the
      National Association of Mental Health in England and
      internationally.

      What is being attempted by black propagandists is to
      _classify_ us firmly in the public mind by constant repetition
      of certain words like "cult." The more we let such
      propagandists do this, the more chance we give them, the more
      opportunity they have.

      LRH 1972

    3. Re:If you want some REAL science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lisa McPherson (36) - Margarit Winkelmann (51) - Josephus A. Havenith (45), Andreas Ostertag (38) - Peter E. Frei (37) - Heribert Pfaff (31) - Roger Nind (49), Carrie Slaughterbeck (23)

      SP Times of December the 7th, 1997

  53. Oh sweet JESUS on a STICK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah. It's been mentioned.

  54. my god... by sabine · · Score: 1

    ...it's full of dust...!

    (sorry, couldn't help it)

    ~sabine
    "if your brain had an ass, i'd kick it"

  55. Re:Mining Asteroids and other economical tasks in by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but if you brought back a solid platinum asteroid the size of a house, the price of platinum would drop making it just a worthless chunk of metal(is platinum good for anything besides being rare and therefore expensive?).

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  56. ITS THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN!!! by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

    Everybody run!!! Somebody call wildfire.

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  57. Re:Mining Asteroids and other economical tasks in by hplasm · · Score: 1

    Yes! Platinum is (or would be) incredibly useful in all sorts of applications. Unfortunately, it is also rare and therefore expensive. Ditto radium and gold and various other rare elements which could have much better uses than lining bank vaults.

    --
    ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
  58. Re:Mining Asteroids and other economical tasks in by mfrank · · Score: 1

    Platinum is very nice for fuel cells. I'd be willing to bet that in a hydrogen based energy economy a house sized chunk of platinum would go for a lot.

    Many metals are pretty rare in the earth's crust; there's no way to tell what commercial applications for these metals would appear if they were abundant enough to meet commercial demands, even at a couple hundred bucks an ounce.