Slashdot Mirror


Interplanetary Superhighway

rotenberry writes "The current issue of Caltech's Engineering and Science magizine contains the article "Next Exit 0.5 Million Kilometers - A Caltech/JPL collaboration explores the 'Interplanetary Superhighway.'" which describes "...the Interplanetary Superhighway - 'a vast network of winding tunnels in space' that connects the sun, the planets, their moons, and a host of other destinations as well. But unlike the wormholes beloved of science-fiction writers, these things are real. In fact, they are already being used." However, it takes a very long time to get there."

237 comments

  1. Of course it takes a very long time....... by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 5, Funny

    Because all of these tunnels connect through Atlanta where there is a "change of plane".

    1. Re:Of course it takes a very long time....... by DarthWiggle · · Score: 0, Troll

      And i have an ex-girlfriend in Atlanta too... gives new meaning to "baggage claim"

      wooooooo.....

    2. Re:Of course it takes a very long time....... by j-pimp · · Score: 1

      Well some of them go through O'Hare.

      --
      --- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
    3. Re:Of course it takes a very long time....... by Sabalon · · Score: 1

      Simpsons quote: Lisa - why did we have to transfer twice in Atlanta.

      If you go to hell, you have to go transfer through Atlanta.

      Of course, you may not know the difference :)

    4. Re:Of course it takes a very long time....... by t0ny · · Score: 1
      But unlike the wormholes beloved of science-fiction writers, these things are real. In fact, they are already being used

      By who? I hope its not the Borg. They dont like us...

      --

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

  2. There's a bulldozer outside my house by egg+troll · · Score: 4, Funny

    An Interplanetary highway, eh? Better head down to the pub, in a hurry!

    --

    C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
    1. Re:There's a bulldozer outside my house by benna · · Score: 1, Funny

      So long and thanks for all the fish!

      --
      "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    2. Re:There's a bulldozer outside my house by jon787 · · Score: 1

      Don't Panic!

      --
      X(7): A program for managing terminal windows. See also screen(1).
    3. Re:There's a bulldozer outside my house by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "An Interplanetary highway, eh? Better head down to the pub, in a hurry!"

      First you have to find that bottle of aspirin before the house gets bulldozed.

      It could be worse, though. You could be trying to catch that God-forsaken Babelfish...

    4. Re:There's a bulldozer outside my house by whig · · Score: 3, Funny

      There's a good pub at L5. Called the Libation Point.

      --
      Peace and love, y'all
    5. Re:There's a bulldozer outside my house by PurpleBob · · Score: 4, Funny

      Note to moderators: The Hitchhiker's Guide is funny. Making the occasional reference to it is funny. Quoting random catchphrases from it in response to that reference is not funny.

      --
      Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
    6. Re:There's a bulldozer outside my house by ackthpt · · Score: 1
      An Interplanetary highway, eh? Better head down to the pub, in a hurry!

      Perhaps a quick check of your digital watch might give you some idea how much time you've got. Oh, and a fashion tip: don't go down to the pub is your dressing gown.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    7. Re:There's a bulldozer outside my house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL

    8. Re:There's a bulldozer outside my house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      now that's funny!

    9. Re:There's a bulldozer outside my house by benna · · Score: 1

      Its not random. Its what I say when my planet is being destroyed...I am the second smartest creature on earth.

      --
      "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    10. Re:There's a bulldozer outside my house by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 1

      "Note to moderators: The Hitchhiker's Guide is funny. Making the occasional reference to it is funny. Quoting random catchphrases from it in response to that reference is not funny."

      Here, have some muscle relaxent.

    11. Re:There's a bulldozer outside my house by Peterus7 · · Score: 1

      And remember, you have to hold your breath on these tunnels. Or you won't get your wish... And the fact that you'll run out of air is smart too....

    12. Re:There's a bulldozer outside my house by Sabalon · · Score: 1

      > put satchel in front of hole
      > put mail on satchel
      > hang robe on hook
      > press button

      And I still think I'm missing a step.

    13. Re:There's a bulldozer outside my house by grytpype · · Score: 1

      block drain with towel

      --

      - Have a picture

    14. Re:There's a bulldozer outside my house by Sabalon · · Score: 1

      thnx...I tried playing it online and was having enough trouble getting off the earth...it's been about 18 years!!!

    15. Re:There's a bulldozer outside my house by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      > > put satchel in front of hole
      > > put mail on satchel
      > > hang robe on hook
      > > press button
      >
      > And I still think I'm missing a step.

      5. Profit!!!

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
  3. time for publishers to start... by trmj · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...getting the rights to the book title "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"

    --
    Work sucked, until it became unemployment, when it became slightly more tolerable. -Tet
    1. Re:time for publishers to start... by Pxtl · · Score: 1

      Actually, I was thinking more about the interplanetary hypertubes from Cowboy Bebop. But that one's good too.

    2. Re:time for publishers to start... by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      Funny-- the article is by Doublas Smith, and I read it as Douglass Adams instead.....

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    3. Re:time for publishers to start... by Ashtead · · Score: 1
      Maybe too late.

      I remember a series of books by John DeChancie I read in the 80s about an intergalactic highway system. Evidently there is a series of these books, Starrigger was one, Red Limit Freeway was another.

      On the other hand, we could still have use for a local road network for the solar system. However, should this be put out to tender, we will have to screen out Vogon contractors...

      --
      SIGBUS @ NO-07.308
    4. Re:time for publishers to start... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      i already did that, by warping in time 100 years back.

      (yeah it's been a while since i read them, and i can't recall correctly the time-machine&copyright jokes around the book)

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    5. Re:time for publishers to start... by AsbestosRush · · Score: 1

      Paradox Alley was the third installment of this series. I actually enjoyed them all.

      The series was told from a first person perspective, and (in my opinion) it does what a good science fiction should do: The technilogy facilitates the story, not a story about technology.

      --
      EveryDNS. Use it. It works.
      AC's need not reply
  4. Seven Rules For Spotting Bogus Science by dreadknought · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wonder if this applies to the seven rules for spotting bogus science?

    --
    What you reap is what you sow
    1. Re:Seven Rules For Spotting Bogus Science by vortmax(OU) · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Bogus science? How about this?

      From the article:
      Ideally, a spacecraft at L4 or L5 will remain there indefinitely because when it falls off the cusp, the Coriolis effect--which makes it hard for you to walk on a moving merry-go-round--will swirl it into a long-lived orbit around that point.

      IIRC from physics classes, is the force making it hard to walk on a moving merry-go-round not the centripetal force?? I thought Coriolis was only a pseudo-force, not a real one.

      --


      Cole's Axiom: The sum of intelligence on the planet is a constant. The population is growing
    2. Re:Seven Rules For Spotting Bogus Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Coriolis effect is real its not a force, and as will be drilled into your head if you major in astrophysics "THERE IS NO CENTRIPETAL FORCE"

    3. Re:Seven Rules For Spotting Bogus Science by Discordantus · · Score: 1

      Centripetal force is the 'force' that tries to throw you off the merry-go-round, and yeah, it's not really a force.
      The Coriolis effect is more along the lines of a vortex, I belive... It's what makes water spin down the drain in the opposite direction in Australia. It's also what makes record player needles skate.

    4. Re:Seven Rules For Spotting Bogus Science by The+Only+Druid · · Score: 1

      Two points:

      One, neither "centripetal" or "coriolis" are actual forces; they're better understood as virtual forces or pseudo forces. That is, they are an easier way for some people to compartmentalize the pragmatic effects of real forces [both are due to the interaction between radial acceleration and linear momentum].

      Two, toilets do not spin in the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere as they do on in the northern hemisphere for any reason related to this physics; they spin in a certain direction because of several facts - 1, water is shot in at an angle into the bowl to better catch material stuck to the wall, 2, the toilet bowl is shaped a certain way to cause water to twirl, again to catch materiel.

      --
      "Stumble before you crawl"
    5. Re:Seven Rules For Spotting Bogus Science by wwest4 · · Score: 1

      centripetal force is quite real. so-called "centrifugal" force is imaginary.

      oh i suppose a link is in order.

      coriolis is also an apparent (re: imaginary) force along the same lines - the way i understand it, we perceive it because any movement on earth happens with respect to a non-inertial frame of reference (not just relative to surface, but to orbit and rotation). it's not a real force, but it's a very real part of accounting for motion. i think i remember hearing about a gemini splash-down being off by miles because a programmer didn't account for the coriolis effect.

    6. Re:Seven Rules For Spotting Bogus Science by karlm · · Score: 5, Informative
      IIRC from physics classes, is the force making it hard to walk on a moving merry-go-round not the centripetal force?? I thought Coriolis was only a pseudo-force, not a real one.

      Ehh... you're 3/4 right. Centripetal force is real and coreolis force is "imaginary". Centripital force is force towards the center of rotation, keeping you from traveling in a streight line. Centripital force doesn't make it hard to walk on the merry-go-round; centripital force allows you to stay on the merry-go-round. You're thinking of the "imaginary" centrifugal force that appears to counter-act the centripital force you are applying with your feet.

      Centrifugal force and Coreolis force are both imaginary forces used as short hand for taking second time derrivatives (calclating accelerations) in rotating reference frames using polar coordinates . If you're spinning at a constant speed about the merry-go-round, you keep the same polar cooarinates when in fact, a lot of corce is acting on your body to keep it constantly changing direction at a fairly high rate. In the reference frame you ae always at rest, so you don't say that momentum change is balancing out the force you are using to keep yourself "still" in the rotating reference frame, you say that this imaginary "centrifugal" force is acting on you. The two statements are equivalent, but one is a technical gloss.

      Now suppose you try moving in relation to the rotating reference frame. You want to travel in a streight line in the polar coordinates. Well, since the frame of reference is rotating, a streight path in non-rotating space is a curved line in the rotating reference frame, and the amount of aparent curvature is dependent on speed of travel relative to the rotating reference frame. So when you try and walk in a streight line on the merry-go-round with out correcting for rotation, you more or less walk in a streight line in the non-rotating reference frame. In the rotating reference frame, your path is curved. The easiest way to do calculations is to make up frorces that would havepushed your path into that curved shape. It's all just short hand so that everything doesn't need to be translated to and from the stationary reference frame.

      Even at the equator, you experience the coreolis effect, it's just that your axis of rotation is parallel to the ground. At the equtor, running East appears to make you lighter, running West appears to make you heavier, jumping up appears to push you West, and dropping off a ledge appears to push you East. One explination of why thy always launch spacecraft in an eastwardly-traveling orbit is that that way the coreolis force helps, rather than hinders the spaceflight. In a non-rotating reference frame this is equivalent to saying that it already has a lot of speed in an easterly direction, so blasting off to the west actually means sloing down a lot rather than using the speed it already has due to traveling at the same speed as the ground.

      It's all equivalent, sometimes it's jsut easier to do the math one way. If nobody has done the math to figure out how the imaginary forces get added in in your situation, then you need to translate everything into a non-rotaing, non-accelerating frame of reference and do the calculatins and translate them back into your rotating frame of reference.

      It's kinda like special relativity. If you forget the formulas, you can re-derrive them by looking at everyhting in a stationary reference frame and looking at a photon clock and a photon yardstick and figuring out what apears to happen to one secodn and what appearsto happen to one meter and what appears to happen to one kg being acted upon by 1 Newton. It's just a lot easier if you remember the formulas Einstein derrived for you instead of having to transate everything to and from the stationary reference frame.

      --
      Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.
    7. Re:Seven Rules For Spotting Bogus Science by Discordantus · · Score: 1

      Okay, you're right, and I'm wrong. I blame my teacher for that one.
      But it does affect hurricane spin.

    8. Re:Seven Rules For Spotting Bogus Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a centripetal force. He's thinking: THERE IS NO CENTRIFUGAL FORCE.

      Thanks,

      Firendly neighbourhood physicist AC.

    9. Re:Seven Rules For Spotting Bogus Science by grumpygrodyguy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wonder if this applies to the seven rules for spotting bogus science?

      Believe it or not, basic celestial mechanics still has several unsolved problems.

      For instance noone knows exactly how to model the formation of ring structures like the Kuiper Belt(a ring of asteroids orbiting the sun), or Saturn's rings.

      If you don't believe me check out this link.

      --
      The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
    10. Re:Seven Rules For Spotting Bogus Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First:
      There is NOT "Coriolis force"
      There EXISTS the "Coriolis effect"
      There is NOT "centrifugal force"
      There EXISTS the "centriphugal effect"
      There EXISTS centripetal force (take your belt on you hand and turn it around your head: the force your hand applies to the belt so it doesn't go breaking someone's head is the centripetal force -it is for REAL, nothing imaginary).

      Second:
      Water on toilets DO spin some direction due to reasons related with physics. What do you mean? Water turns around due to some "methaphysical reason"? You probably tried to say that Coriolis effect was of so lower magnitude when compared with other elements (like the angle it goes into the bowl or the shape of the bowl) it has not to be considered.

    11. Re:Seven Rules For Spotting Bogus Science by Darth_Foo · · Score: 1

      Excellent physics lesson (I was an engineer in my previous career). However, please PLEASE learn to spell or at least proofread - "straight", "second", and "calculations" ,for example, are the correct spellings.

    12. Re:Seven Rules For Spotting Bogus Science by dillon_rinker · · Score: 2, Informative

      Good on #2, but not quite on #1. Centripetal and coriolis forces are quite real and entirely valid. Centripetal forces are obvious in a static frame of reference, while coriolis (and centrifugal) forces are valid in a rotating frame of reference. If you are being rotated, you will experience centrifugal force, and if you try to move you will encounter the coriolis force. Someone watching you from outside the rotating area would chalk it all up to good old-fashioned inertia.

      The myth about no centrifugal or coriolis forces exists because it's easier to say that to freshman than to try to teach them to analyze forces within a rotating frame of reference.

  5. huh? by adamruck · · Score: 2, Interesting

    dont the planets move around the sun at different rates? So how would it be possible to make a fixed structure to "drive" to a planet?

    --
    Selling software wont make you money, selling a service will.
    1. Re:huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      dont the planets move around the sun at different rates?

      No haven't you seen those planetary books you read in elementry school. All the planets are in a line, one after the other and we all rotate together just as God intended it to be.

      Now excuse me I have to getting back to horse and buggy.

    2. Re:huh? by Professor_Quail · · Score: 1

      The paths are not actually fixed...they're just calculated at a fixed point in time (i.e. they calculate to find that you need to be at starting point a at time t in order to 'catch the tube' to get to endpoint b)

    3. Re:huh? by dackroyd · · Score: 4, Informative
      So how would it be possible to make a fixed structure to "drive" to a planet?

      It's not. You have to constantly calculate where the low energy paths will be and and then choose one that will take you where you want to.

      When the planets move around these paths will change and to get to the same place you may have to take a different 'route' for journeys that start at different times.

      Calling it a 'network of tunnels' is a poor simile, lets see if I can do any better. It's more like a set of deep valleys connected to each other over a small rise. The valleys are formed by the gravity of the planets and moons, and the layout of the valleys change as the planets move around.

      To get from point A to point B, you can either use lots of energy to go in a straight line up and down the deep sides of the valley or if you follow the bottoms of the valleys and aim carefully at the connection between different valleys you can use less energy to move.

      As space is frictionless, not only do you have to spend a lot of energy to get up the side of the valley (ie getting the spaceship up to speed for the journey), you also have to spend a lot of energy to stop from rolling on past where you want to go to (ie slow the spaceship down once it there). This is a problem if you want to send a probe to go and look at several planet/moons in a mission and spend a reasonable amount of time around each one. If you just accelerate/decelerate to get to and from each orbit you'll need a lot of fuel.

      What's cool about this is that if you want to, you can bounce around within the valley so long as you don't roll at the low connection to another valley. This means that the spaceship/satellite could stay in one orbit around a moon for a while, and then when the time comes to move on, it can fire its rocket for a very short time just to aim at the low connection to the next valley. This will then make the ship move into orbit around the next planet/moon and it will be in a stable orbit around that until it decides to move on again.
      --
      "Free software as in beer, copy protection as in racket" - Telsa Gwynne
    4. Re:huh? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      haven't you seen those planetary books you read in elementry school. All the planets are in a line, one after the other and we all rotate together just as God intended it to be.

      Wrong, hotshot. The earth doesn't rotate. The sun revolves around the earth. Just as G-d intended.

    5. Re:huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The 'network of tunnels' analogy is actually quite fitting. There are manifold surfaces in space which, once you are on them, you automatically fall to a destination lagrange point. That is where that analogy comes from.

      (Of course, the manifolds do not just have coordinates in space but have required velocities at those coordinates. But once you are "on" the manifold in the sense of being in the right place with the right velocity, then it works exactly like a tunnel connecting you to somewhere else because you simply "fall" there without having to do anything else.)

    6. Re:huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you people have anything better to do than introduce your own personal issues into completely unrelated stories?

    7. Re:huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're going to pick on religion (in a totally unrelated story, no less) at least pick on the religious views that are currently held. Religion develops, just like science. If I were a luddite, randomly picking on scientists, I could make a similar unfair comment: "Wrong, hotshot, didn't you read your science books? The sun revolves around the earth on a celstial sphere, just like Eudoxus said."

    8. Re:huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, you could say that, and yes, that too would be funny.

      It's a joke! Laugh.

    9. Re:huh? by dackroyd · · Score: 1

      Yeah but which one is easier for a non-mathemetician to imagine ?

      Three dimensional manifolds which have varying potential energy and limits on velocity to be contained within the manifold.

      OR

      Valleys

      btw is there a word for the connection between two separate valleys ?

      --
      "Free software as in beer, copy protection as in racket" - Telsa Gwynne
  6. Uh yeah... by ObviousGuy · · Score: 1, Funny

    We can't even build a highway from Seattle to Honolulu. How about thinking globally and acting a locally?

    --
    I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    1. Re:Uh yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      How about thinking globally and acting a locally

      You Sir are truely on the popular media bandwagon, but for the ObviousGuy you obvious don't know what you are talking about and I would suspect that you also do not practice what you preach.

      Please leave so that I do not have to listen to your pathetic comments.

    2. Re:Uh yeah... by adamruck · · Score: 0

      unlike the previous poster... you should be called "crypticGuy" becuase ive got no idea what the heck you are talking about...

      I think obviousGuy has a good point... we cant seem to do projects on a comparitevly small scale... much less on a planetary scale... besides, im still waiting for the elevator to the moon.

      --
      Selling software wont make you money, selling a service will.
    3. Re:Uh yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He might have a good point if we were talking about a construction project.

  7. This sounds like the borg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and their warp-conduit system... resistance is futile

  8. Gravity Hitchhiking, Pure and Simple by weston · · Score: 3, Funny

    That's what this is. You don't get quite the comfy ride in the back of a Vogon Space Cruiser or anything, but it's still hitchiking.

    Now if only I could get a free ride to the Midwest or East Coast this way.

  9. yes, it takes a long time. by Quasar1999 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Of course it takes a long time... you forgot rule #1... the shortest distance between any two points is a straight line... err... is it a curved line? no... wait... ahh screw it...

    Ok... it's a friday night... I'm sitting at home, with nothing better to do than try and be a smartass on slashdot... Oh lord, I've wasted my life...

    --

    ---
    Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
    1. Re:yes, it takes a long time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      when you are dead the universe cannot here your stupid comments

      but they can here yours

    2. Re:yes, it takes a long time. by benna · · Score: 1

      I can see it now....Tomorrow there will be a slashdot post..... Someone has killed themself based on a sugestion on slashdot...he told everyone to watch his webcam and...hmm I am mixing up my stories.

      --
      "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    3. Re:yes, it takes a long time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      the shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line. But they're talking about the lowest energy path between 2 points

    4. Re:yes, it takes a long time. by josh+crawley · · Score: 1

      rule #1... the shortest distance between any two points is a straight line

      But it seems the path of least resistance is curved... Following gravity ripples where it cancels.

    5. Re:yes, it takes a long time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The shortest distance between any two points is a straight line but that dose not make it the fastest.

    6. Re:yes, it takes a long time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      got anything with asians?

    7. Re:yes, it takes a long time. by gilroy · · Score: 2, Informative
      Blockquoth the poster:

      rule #1... the shortest distance between any two points is a straight line
      ... but if the spacetime metric is not flat, the "straight" line might be curved... (Think great circles on the surface of spheres.)
    8. Re:yes, it takes a long time. by Tony-A · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ok, I'll bite. Yes, the shortest distance between any two points is a straight line. That's because a straight line is *THE* path between the two points with the shortest distance. (You can have some fun with equivalence classes if there's more than of of 'em;) A straight line on a 3-d sphere goes through the sphere, not on the surface. A straight line on a 2-d surface of a sphere will not look straight when projected onto a flat map. A straight line on a Mercator projection is not the shortest distance on the represented 2d-surface, but does have the advantage that you can pick a heading, stay on it, and get there eventually.

  10. It'll Never Pan Out... by Quaoar · · Score: 4, Funny

    The project is a failture from the start...what good is it when this "highway" doesn't deliver porn?

    --
    I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
    1. Re:It'll Never Pan Out... by m1chael · · Score: 2, Funny

      yes it can, it just takes a long time to come.

      --
      I know you are psychotic, but please make an effort.
    2. Re:It'll Never Pan Out... by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      Oh, I get it. That's a pun. Ha-ha. ;-)

    3. Re:It'll Never Pan Out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you haven't seen the space-babe images transferred off voiager yet, have you?

  11. This Reminds me of Doug Adams by Montgomery+Burns+III · · Score: 3, Funny

    "The Universe is big. Really big. You might think that it is a long way to the chemist, but that is nothing comapred to the universe."

    --

    'ta
    1. Re:This Reminds me of Doug Adams by m1chael · · Score: 0

      you mean its a long way to the universe?

      --
      I know you are psychotic, but please make an effort.
    2. Re:This Reminds me of Doug Adams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah I remember Dougie boy. We used to hang out down at the local gay bar and after a few drinks go out back for a quicky. Those were the days... I really loved it when he inserted his man love into my tunnel of pleasure it felt so good I went to the stars myself with every thrust.

    3. Re:This Reminds me of Doug Adams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      sorry if you want to reply to me you can get me on

      webriot3@hotmail.com

  12. Bzzzzzzt! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trans-warp drive requires a flux capacitor and a locomotive that goes 88 mph because of the hot-burning, colorific logs. And a static warp bubble that traps beverly crusher and causes the universe to shrink.

    1. Re:Bzzzzzzt! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      beverly crush-her. yes I seem to remember that name, but as you say the universe shrank so I guess it worked out for the best.

      most non-sensical post ever!!

  13. how this works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    What this is about is mapping out stable and semi-stable manifolds (paths) in space between planets. That is there are places in the solar system if you put an object, it will naturally draft toward certain other positions. For NASA, JPL, etc. The important paths are those linking the planets and other destinations of interest hense the high way metaphor (which is just a metaphor, not even a precise one at that. A embeded manifold is the precise mathematical term) These manifolds are created by the interaction of the planets and because of that can be thought as fixed relative to them, or as moving with them. (Which is why manifold is more precise term sense it does not denote fixed position nor one dimensionalness)

    1. Re:how this works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, yes, this is all true. But the term "superhighway," aside from being cute, really describes to lay-people exactly what can be done with it, whereas calling it an "embeded manifold" may not carry that same meaning to most people.

  14. for those who didn't read the article... by PissedOffGuy · · Score: 4, Informative

    it's talking about how the gravity wells of planets make for low-energy paths from place to place, like how we choose to launch a mars probe when earth and mars are at certain positions relative to each other, maybe using the moon along the way. a well-known concept but the article has lots of flashy language.

    1. Re:for those who didn't read the article... by charboy1 · · Score: 1

      ". . . the article has lots of flashy language."

      I don't think I'd use the word 'flashy'. More like 'wordy' with a lot of complicated analogies. But the article is interesting despite the writing.

  15. We have one person to thank for this... by commodoresloat · · Score: 5, Funny

    Al Gore.

  16. Oh they had better not.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    someone had better tell them to wait 5 damn minutes, because if I don't find out what the friggin question is, im gonna go insane, or, well, as insane as someone who was just blinked out of existence can be...

  17. Bend space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Yes, the shortest distance is a straight line. But if you can bend space so that the straight line between two points is shorter, it won't take as long to get there!

    Space-folding technology is still a work in progress, though.

  18. Uh oh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please! For the love of {insert man-made deity of choice} I hope you don't mean the current president with #4.

    1. Re:Uh oh... by fussman · · Score: 0
      You don't know how to troll correctly! It should have been:

      For the love of $man-made_deity_of_choice I hope you didn't mean the bastard in the with house as #4.

      --
      Support Israeli punk bands. Man Alive.
  19. Oh the taxes by krray · · Score: 4, Funny

    When do the tolls go into place? Would we have to STOP even though the system will probably automated? We do have to be human sometime and make it counter-productive...

  20. Re:This is true man love by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    22. Gas-guzzling monster turbo diesel engines.

    Diesels don't use gasoline.

    Other than that (and being off-topic) it's pretty funny. Deserves at least a "2".

  21. MacDonalds by Timesprout · · Score: 1

    In other news the board of McDonalds collectively wet themselves with excitement at the though of the enormous expansion in drive thru's

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
  22. Where's my towel?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    How am I to hitchhike off this god-forsaken planet without my towel?!?!

  23. First Slashdot.jp ps0t honkeys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and i had a full ten minutes to get it too...

    look at it

  24. The structures aren't fixed by Macrobat · · Score: 5, Informative
    The structures aren't fixed. The basic idea is, though, that the most fuel-efficient way to get to another planet/moon is not just to wait until it's reached it's closest point and blast off, but to calculate when and where the gravity wormholes offer the most aid/least resistance. They are akin to the Lagrange points between the earth and the moon, where the pulls from the two sources create an area where the least resistance still keeps an object in place, sort of like a patch of dirt on an icy surface. (That's an analogy for what happens, not how it happens.)

    The thing about the wormholes is, though, that they're governed by non-linear dynamics, and are therefore extremely convoluted and difficult to calculate. But that doesn't imply that they're static, just that they're usually not the shortest distance between points A and B.

    --
    "Hardly used" will not fetch you a better price for your brain.
    1. Re:The structures aren't fixed by adamruck · · Score: 1

      so what form do the structures actually take? Are we talking about something that can flex, or something rigid?

      --
      Selling software wont make you money, selling a service will.
    2. Re:The structures aren't fixed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they arent actual structures, its just virtual paths created by gravity, calculate that path and launch your rocket through it and youll get to the destination the easiest. Its not an ACTUAL path, like man made.

    3. Re:The structures aren't fixed by kfg · · Score: 4, Informative

      Just as if one wants to travel from England to NYC entirely by sail it is faster to sail south to the Canary Islands off the coast of Africa, across the Atlantic to the Caribbean, then up the east coast of North America, because that way you are traveling with the currents and prevailing winds the whole way, rather than against them.

      These are even often refered to as "Highways on the Sea," and calling these "Interplanetary Superhighways" is no doubt derived from this.

      Of course there is no actual structure.

      The only real difference is that in space the "continents" are in continuous and *rapid* movement as well, and thus the "currents" and "winds" are in a constant state of flux.

      Other than *that* Mrs. Lincoln. . .

      KFG

    4. Re:The structures aren't fixed by LMCBoy · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's not a material structure at all, and the parent poster shouldn't have called it a "wormhole", either. It's simply the least-energy trajectory from A to B through the Solar system, given the gravitational effects of the planets. The paths are always changing (quite chaotically), simply because the planets are in moion.

      NASA's been taking advantage of such "gravity assist" trajectories for a while. How do you get to Jupiter? Slingshot around Venus, flyby Earth twice, then you're on your way. It seems roundabout, but sometimes, paths like that are the easiest way.

      --
      Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
    5. Re:The structures aren't fixed by quintessent · · Score: 1

      Good description.

      Unfortunately, when they introduced words like "superhighway" and "wormhole", it just added hype, while making the subject only more confusing.

    6. Re:The structures aren't fixed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, these are very different from normal gravity assist manuvers that have been used in many interplanetary missions. Those are still spliced together from ellipse like pieces, whereas these "superhighway" paths are simply not. Of course, 3rd body effects must usually be numerically calculated and accounted for in any real mission, but in this case they are part of the trajectory design to begin with.

    7. Re:The structures aren't fixed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are talking about something that can read.
      Go read the fucking article and you'll know!!!

    8. Re:The structures aren't fixed by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      Aren't these just Hohmann orbits? Didn't any of you folks read "Interplanetary Flight" when you young?

  25. Hiiiii hoooooo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ZING!

  26. Re:Laff Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rock Hudson can't get car insurance. He's been creamed in the rear too many times.

    What a shame! It's not poor Rock's fault if he's been banged in the rear too many times!

  27. Interesting prospects for NEAR by davburns · · Score: 1

    Now you'd have to watch for asteroids passing near any of the L1 / L2 (maybe L3, too? The article doesn't mention it, though, and it would be hard to observe) points of Earth-Sun, in addition to just watching what comes near the Earth/moon system itself.

    1. Re:Interesting prospects for NEAR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes the L3 cache is good for speeding up performance but it is only a stop gap for a faster bus.... oh sorry wrong L3

  28. Any distributed computing people listening? by asparagus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Here is a project I would love to support.

    Massive amounts of numbers to be crunched, tons of routes to be discovered, and all by lowly computers with nothing better to do.

    Proving that some ungodly number of ProcHours can figure out a RC-72 bit key is meaningless to me.

    This is the sort of science humanity is interested in. Onward to Mars!

    -Brett

    1. Re:Any distributed computing people listening? by La+Temperanza · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Have you taken a look at DistribFold? I mean, these things and SETI@home are cool, but folding proteins actually helps people now.

      --

      --
      est modus in rebus
    2. Re:Any distributed computing people listening? by isorox · · Score: 1

      but folding proteins actually helps people now.

      But I have enough problems folding sheets!

    3. Re:Any distributed computing people listening? by WillWare · · Score: 1

      Stupid question: Is DistribFold the same group as Folding@Home? I have been running the FAH client for a while now, on and off. I'd switch, if I had reason to think that DistribFold will accomplish more good humanitarian stuff.

      --
      WWJD for a Klondike Bar?
    4. Re:Any distributed computing people listening? by grytpype · · Score: 1

      Looking at the DistribFold home page, I would say it's not the same project. Folding@Home is run out of Stanford and has a Linux client, both not true of DistribFold.

      --

      - Have a picture

    5. Re:Any distributed computing people listening? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh...

      HP PA-RISC Linux 2.x Text Client - PA-RISC Linux

      etc, etc...

  29. Re:This is true man love by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gas-guzzling is used in an expressive form. Gas has become a defacto word for fuel that is put into an automotive machine but yes you are right that gasoline is a product distinct from diesel.

  30. Poincare Conjecture by Professor_Quail · · Score: 2, Informative

    I read the article and understood most of what they were talking about...but I knew I had heard something related to this before.

    The Poincare Conjecture

    IIRC, solving this problem should make some major advances in this 'tube-theory'. Can anyone explain how though?

    ---

    1. Re:Poincare Conjecture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      IIRC, the Poincare conjecture has to do with being able to map the number of 3-dimensional simply connected (no holes ala the donut), compact (think finite expanse, although that isn't correct; the definition of compact is a bit more technical), boundaryless (maybe) manifolds (surfaces) to the 3 sphere.

      The article has nothing to do with this. The article is simply discussing searching for trajectories whihc minimize the energy to get from A to B. The tube/wormhole terminology seems awful, if not incorrect (wormholes are very different beasts).

  31. Wait a minute... how long? by RumGunner · · Score: 2, Funny

    Like most Amerikans, I want it all, and I want it NOW.

    Plus, those gravitational speed ups are slowing down the planet! Eventually, we'll suck up so much momentum to cause the earth to stop revolving around the sun, and we'll burn up!

    Act now to fight the destruction of our gravitational resources!

    1. Re:Wait a minute... how long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so is his name chui or chiu?

      and where can i find alex crunchy?

    2. Re:Wait a minute... how long? by TheRealBlueEAGLE · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This might seem like a joke, but in the very end it is a point. It's like the atmosphere or the oceans. Since there's a lot of it it doesn't matter if we dumt this and that into it.

      Hopefully we'll find other ways to explore the space before we slow down so much that we crash into the sun. :)

      --
      If pro and con are opposites, what is the opposite of progress?
  32. Re:Robert E. Lee? by benna · · Score: 0

    I would thank you not to use the name George W. Bush and AMERICAN in the same sentance. Its emabassing. Anyone but the shrub, 2004!

    --
    "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
  33. Gravity drive by gmuslera · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Is like driving a ballon, wasting a very little energy to go to up or down the next "wind" that goes in the rigth direction. With gravity forces, inertia, and a bit of calculus to find where is the best moment to start the ride, you can go very far without wasting combustible or whatever you use to move, just letting gravity to do their job.

    Bus, as far I understand, that "highway" must be very dinamic, is like saying that in a year, 6 months and 3 days there should be a "road" to Pluton, but if you try this every other moment it will be very costly or the trip will last 4 months more.

    And, well, this "highway" is beloved as well for good hard sci fi writers, taking advantage of gravity to do "impossible" tricks is very used, and is funny to see everyone surprised in the story of that kind of tricks

  34. for those who didn't understand the article ... by Heisenbug · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am not a rocket scientist, but I think this article uses flashy language because it's talking about something way more complicated than using the moon along the way. They mention, for example, that the Earth to Mars path is much harder to figure out than Jupiter to Saturn (and I got the impression that it would take thousands of years).

    This isn't just a way to get from planet to planet using less fuel -- it's a way to get around using no more than a shove in the right direction, starting from between the Earth and Moon and ending up anywhere you want. That's not your father's rocket science, and it's bloody cool -- flashy language or not.

    1. Re:for those who didn't understand the article ... by grumpygrodyguy · · Score: 1

      Yes, this stuff does get complex.

      --
      The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
    2. Re:for those who didn't understand the article ... by chaotician137 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Thanks Heisenburg! It's good to know some people appreciate our work. It's bloody hard to explain to NASA managers, much less the general public. This article is a sort of first attempt.

      Although I guess I am in some sense a "rocket scientist," I think the truly cool aspect of the work is the light that it sheds on the mechanisms of "interplanetary cross-fertilization." This understanding contributes to fields such as astrobiology, for example, where comet impact rates are key for determining the delivery of water to the Earth and impact ejecta exchange rates are important for investigating the transportation of microbes between Mars and Earth.

      By the way, the fastest that a piece of impact ejecta has been able to get between Earth and Mars in any simulation is 10,000 years. This would be a piece of debris which, due to nonlinear effects, repeately encountered Mars and Earth with just the right geometry that it made the trip in the fastest time. The average transit time for bits of debries is a few million years.

  35. Re:MacDonalds + your sig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    seem to contradict each other.. MacDonalds and Individualism can't compute runtime error McDs 00000789jx

  36. Re:That is not the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    shouldn't his image include mohamad(sp?) and possibly G W Bushy boy

  37. AND PICTURES! PRETTY PICTURES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ahh, the life of a trol. Obnoxios, unrelenting, MADNESS.

  38. Re:That is not the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe but in that case it should also contain the Jews (as they haven't had their religious comming yet they can be represented with their symbol)

  39. Sysadmin in his native habitat by buck_wild · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    http://www.boners.com/grub/788973.html

    --
    If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
  40. Lagrange Points by LuxFX · · Score: 2, Informative

    This technique uses a concept called a Lagrange Point, where gravity from multiple bodies (usually in a orbiting situation) cancel each other out -- which results in a place where a parked object can sit and stay in place in relation to the orbiting system.

    This technique is used to keep the SOHO sun observation satellite at Lagrangian point 1 in the earth/sun system, so that it keeps a constant view of the sun.

    The concept behind this is extended in this instance to reveal tunnels which offer the 'path of least resistance.'

    In fact, this has been discussed on Slashdot before. Slashdot users have also discussed Lagrangian points in relations to one or both of Earth's sub-moons.

    --
    Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'
    1. Re:Lagrange Points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank god, this is the first poster that seems to understand anything, you are my hero

    2. Re:Lagrange Points by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 3, Informative
      But these are Lagrange Points for systems with more than 2 bodies. They're extremely dynamic and move along some very convoluted and lengthy paths. If you stick your ship in one at the right time, then you basically get taken for a free ride courtesy of Gravity, Inc. But the "tens of thousands of years" needed for an Earth-Mars trip doesn't strike me as being particularly useful anytime soon. Maybe for moving large asteroids out amongst the gas giants, but in this neighborhood the free ride just isn't worth the wait.

      Evidently the research is more immediately useful for the techniques learned in complex multi-body interacting systems problems, which fluid dynamics guys are also fascinated in.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
    3. Re:Lagrange Points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It causes me to think of the anti-matter propulsion systems being developed,anti-matter floating in a center surrounded by matter, it having a sort of "resting place" there with magnetic and centrifugal forces creating an environment mimicking what is ocurring there naturally

    4. Re:Lagrange Points by morridx · · Score: 1

      This should make ion engines such as these much more useful for space exploration. If all you need is a little push to get you from one manifold to another, ion engines sound perfect for facilitating a nice surf on the Interplanatary Superhighway!

    5. Re:Lagrange Points by chaotician137 · · Score: 1

      Good observation. This is exactly what we hope to do for a multi-moon orbiter mission which "jumps" between the planet-sized moons of Jupiter (e.g., the proposed Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter).

    6. Re:Lagrange Points by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 1

      I just had this image of futuristic space sailors knowing the paths and intersections of the Lagrange Points like their nautical counterparts know every stream and depth marker of their respective domains. Similarly, such knowledge would only be useful until the advent of cheap high-energy propulsion, which makes all of it fairly moot.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
    7. Re:Lagrange Points by chaotician137 · · Score: 1

      Yes, I do hope cheap advanced propulsion concepts get used sometime in our lifetime. Then we can start "Buck Rogering" around the solar system rather than worrying about every drop of fuel. That's when the real fun'll begin.

  41. You are so full of crap by p3d0 · · Score: 5, Informative
    The article says a whole lot more than that, my dear whore. It has a lot of cool ideas if you would take the time to skim it.

    They have discovered a new type of route throughout the solar system, besides the conic sections typically used today, requiring orders of magnitude less energy. They can also predict up to 100 orbits into the future, with multiple ports of call on the itinerary, which is much more sophisticated than the simple slingshot method you're alluding to.

    They are using chaos theory and orbital instability to their advantage. That is something most certainly not done in traditional conic orbital maneuvers, which are of such a short duration and simple nature that chaos and instability don't enter into it.

    --
    Patrick Doyle
    I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
  42. Re:america - the new world butcher.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can stop the war on your own, thanks. I'll be in my apartment watching Simpsons.

  43. Three words: read the article. by p3d0 · · Score: 1

    (Hint: the article never makes any reference to any kind of "fixed structure".)

    --
    Patrick Doyle
    I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
  44. Re:The Genesis Project? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're a gay.

  45. Where's LTOOL? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 2, Funny

    Raise your hand if your first reaction to this article was to try to find a copy of Ltool...

    1. Re:Where's LTOOL? by GileadGreene · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, large portions of LTool are written in Python. Unfortunately, I seriously doubt that JPL will ever actually release LTool to the world.

  46. Some day... by DoraLives · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Some day, somebody is going to grapple a surprisingly large freely-orbiting body of mostly nickel-iron, with perhaps some very valuable other transition metals in there too.

    It'll get nudged this way and land in the back yard of the lucky (corporation, government, fill in the blank) via these EXACT orbital pathways.

    When it does, you can tell the grandchildren, "Bah, that's OLD news. We were talking about it on slashdot before your PARENTS were even born."

    --
    Is it fascism yet?
  47. Re:Dur... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And just what in the bloody fuck is a "fagz0rz" supposed to be?

  48. sadjif by DrMrLordX · · Score: 0

    Don't forget to reconfigure your plasma coils and change the polarity and re-route the plasma conduits and and um

    !??!?!

    There's the baby alien ship sucking energy from the warp core, so feed it some bad milk before its mother gets angry!

  49. The problem with nerds... by ehudokai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... is that for the most part we have too much information in our heads, but no common sense to use it. This article does a wonderful job of illustrating, in a relitively reasonable manner, how we can do a lot of work traveling between planets without expending much energy!

    BRAVO!!!

    They have managed to move beyond their meager geekness and actually apply concepts that come from Lagrange, chaos theory, etc... and use them to better mankind and also explain previously unexplained phenomena.

    I know way too many nerds who cannot do this for the life of them. They have lots of knowledge, but they are useless!!!

    A bit of a rant... I know, but it's frustrating to read all the comments by idiots who can't even read the article before they reply...

    --
    This is just sig!
    1. Re:The problem with nerds... by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      I fail to see how being angry at people who deal with maths and physics that currently has no practical application is linked to people who comment without reading the article.

    2. Re:The problem with nerds... by chaotician137 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for enjoying the article. I'm the grad student who did much of the work that the paper speaks of; a friend let me know that slashdot was discussing it, which is cool. There seem to be a lot of questions. People have to remember that the level of the article is "Popular Science"-esque, which always involves some glossing over important mathematical concepts.

      We have some papers at my website here.

  50. Re:Totally off topic ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm the one who wrote the rhyme. But reading this discussion, its obvious I'm not the only one who is fucked up right now. Does this happen every Friday night at Slashdot? I think it kind of cool. Fuck nerdom for awhile. At least.

  51. Duplicate article from July 20, 2002 by Arcturax · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here is a previous discussion of this subject.

    --

    --Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
  52. Re:Robert E. Lee? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fuck off

  53. Did you read the whole article? by big_groo · · Score: 1
    Akin to Lagrange points?

    A set of five of these balance points, called Lagrange or libration points, exist between every pair of massive bodies--the sun and its planets, the planets and their moons, and so on. -- from the article.

  54. Calculations are much easier than you think by MickLinux · · Score: 1

    Use the Parker-Sochacki solution to the Picard iteration. The orbital positions and therefore the gravity field [and thus the derivatives] become a simple matter of additions and multiplications, and everything comes out as a polynomial function of time.

    The original method was published in Neural Computing.

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
  55. Re:Robert E. Lee? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, it's very "emabassing."

  56. oh dear by gid13 · · Score: 5, Funny

    you know you've been reading too much slashdot when you think it says "...these things are real. In fact, they are already being SUED"

  57. Hmmm... by breon.halling · · Score: 2, Funny

    A Caltech/JPL collaboration explores the 'Interplanetary Superhighway.'" which describes "...the Interplanetary Superhighway..."

    Am I the only one who finds this redundant?!?! =P

    --
    "Yeah, well, Dracula called and he's coming over tonight for you and I said okay."
  58. Re:This is true man love by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Diesels are also more officient then gasoline engines. Oh, and you can make diesel fuel from used vegetable oil and eliminate 95% of the pollutants if you're that much of a tree-hugger.

  59. Re:interesting! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A girlfriend that's into UNIX? That's how I know you're lying!

    I got hit on by a fat slut at a Mexican food restaraunt earlier.

  60. Calculations are much easier than you think-STNG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    "Use the Parker-Sochacki solution to the Picard iteration [jmu.edu]. "

    Using this, the Next Generation writers could tell how many more times they could use the "Caught in a time loop" plot device.

  61. Re:This is true man love by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not everyone is a limp-wristed computer nerd or suburban soccer mom. Some people actually need to have large vehicles. You can't pull a horse trailer with a Honda.

  62. This would require... by MrMadnutz · · Score: 1

    A change of ideals... "this can be shown as the circulatory system of a worm" (loosely quoted). OMG, are we not the supreme being of the galaxy???? Can anybody imagine????

  63. Interplanetary Superhighway by Photar · · Score: 0, Troll

    My ass.

    --
    He who knows not and knows he knows not is a wise man. He who knows not and knows not he knows not is a fool.
  64. The Intergalactic Laxative by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

    by Donovan Leitch of the album Cosmic Wheels, 1973)
    I was impressed like everyone when man began to fly
    out of earthly regions to planets in the sky
    with total media coverage we watched the heroes land
    as ceremoniously they disturbed the cosmic sand

    I awe with admiration we listened to the talk
    such pride felt they, such joy to be upon the moon to walk
    my romantic vision shattered when it was explained to me
    spacemen wear old diapers in which they shit and pee

    chorus:

    oh the intergalactic laxative will get you from here to there
    relieve you and believe me without a worry or care
    if shitting is your problem when you're out there in the stars
    the intergalactic laxative will get you from here to mars

    they don't partake like you and I of beefy burger mush
    their food is specially prepared to dissolve into slush
    absorbed my multi-fibres in the super diaper suit
    otherwise the slush would trickle down inside the boot

    you may well ask now what becomes of liquid they consume
    a pipe is led from penis head to a unit in the room
    the water is recirculated, filtered for re-use
    in case of anti-gravity, pee gets on the loose

    wherever man has conquered on the quest for frontiers new
    I'm glad he's always had to do the no. one and two
    it makes it all so ordinary just like you and me
    to know the greatest heroes they had to shit and pee!

  65. Dupes by pyrrho · · Score: 1

    what is the problem with it being a dupe exactly?

    I didn't see that article at the time.

    The new link was more informative, I think, than the original.

    Repetition is a good thing. I think it's interesting the obsession that has grown against duplicate stories... so called. Like all the stories on 9/12 about the Twin Towers thing. We heard already, sheesh! If something is news, you cover developments.

    That's the way it goes, an interesting thing, stays interesting. New people are born or listen for the first time to the interesting news.

    --

    -pyrrho

    1. Re:Dupes by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      Who are you replying to? I think you are seeing things and are paranoid. I don't see anyone complaining because it was reposted.

    2. Re:Dupes by pyrrho · · Score: 1

      I consider that possible.

      My impression has become that mentions of duplicates are generally intended as criticism.

      A knee-jerk criticism. I may be developing a knee-jerk defensive reaction. Maybe the post meant "yeah! covering this again! woohoo!" I admit I do not know.

      --

      -pyrrho

    3. Re:Dupes by Arcturax · · Score: 1

      Of couse I could have posted it so that people could go back and read the last discussion on it and the points made there. I mean, really, I think the discussions and comments are more important than the articles. Without them, /. would just be another tech news site.

      I know some other sites have comments, but /. was one of the first (that I know of anyway) where the comments and discussion were the main focus rather than the story.

      --

      --Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
  66. Sorry, I stills don't understand: by dusty123 · · Score: 1

    When the vessel approaches a planet, e.g. the moon, it speeds up, then it travels with very high speed around it, like a slingshot - but: When it leaves the orbit, it gets slower again until it reaches the original speed.

    You write: "least energy" - so, where does this energy come from?

    I can think of getting faster from A to B by doing
    a flyby near a planet because in between, the vessel accelerates to very high speeds and hence does need less time for the whole distance compared to a trajectory without "a planet in the middle".

    Or am I missing something?

    1. Re:Sorry, I stills don't understand: by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1
      When the vessel approaches a planet, e.g. the moon, it speeds up, then it travels with very high speed around it, like a slingshot - but: When it leaves the orbit, it gets slower again until it reaches the original speed.

      That's true in a 2 body scenario. But there are more options in a 3 body situation.

      You write: "least energy" - so, where does this energy come from?

      You arrange for the energy to be dumped/removed from some other body.

      For example, if a satellite was reentering the earth-moon system, it can arrange for the moon's gravity to suck away some of the kinetic energy it has by going behind the moon; relative to the earth the satellite would have lost energy- and the moon would have gained energy.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
  67. Home On Lagrange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh give me a locus,
    Were the gravatons focus,
    And the cold virus
    Never evolved

    Home, home on Lagrange,
    Were space debre always collects
    We have all it seems,
    Mans greatest dreams,
    Solar power and zero G sex.

    Dang I was hoping to be able to remember more of it. Oh well, its been like 20 years since I read it. Anyways does anyone know offhand how Euler derived L1, L2, and L3? Did he use the same method that Lagrange used with different constraints? I don't think so, there are other ways to deduce the existence of these three. If this is the case then the articals slamming of Lagrange is unwarrented. Lagranges result is cool, but how he derived it is even cooler.

    1. Re:Home On Lagrange by Krellan · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh, give me a locus where the gravitons focus
      Where the three-body problem is solved,
      Where the microwaves play down at three degrees K,
      And the cold virus never evolved.

      (chorus)

      We eat algea pie, our vacuum is high,
      Our ball bearings are perfectly round.
      Our horizon is curved, our warheads are MIRVed,
      And a kilogram weighs half a pound.

      (chorus)

      If we run out of space for our burgeoning race
      No more Lebensraum left for the Mensch
      When we're ready to start, we can take Mars apart,
      If we just find a big enough wrench.

      (chorus)

      I'm sick of this place, it's just McDonald's in space,
      And living up here is a bore.
      Tell the shiggies, "Don't cry," they can kiss me goodbye
      'Cause I'm moving next week to L4!

      (chorus)

      CHORUS:
      Home, home on LaGrange,
      Where the space debris always collects,
      We possess, so it seems, two of Man's greatest dreams:
      Solar power and zero-gee sex.

      --Home on Lagrange (The L5 Song)
      © 1978 by William S. Higgins and Barry D. Gehm

      http://www.jamesoberg.com/humor.html
      (from very bottom of page)

    2. Re:Home On Lagrange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks a bunch. I mangeled it pretty bad, but what would you expect at 2AM after ~16 hours of caffine driven coding! I just *knew* someone reading /. would recognize it and post it correctly!

    3. Re:Home On Lagrange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BTW, there are stanzas missing. I remember somethinhg like:

      Microwaves are sublime, so no one will mind,
      If we cook an ocasional goose,

      and also somthing else about waffers to big to fit through the hatch.

  68. Damn right by ishmaelflood · · Score: 1

    I want to play.

    Great article uber-parent, thanks for posting it.

    How can they talk about this stuff and not mention Hamiltonians?

  69. Libration Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought so too, but I don't think anyone actually reads the linked articles around here, and probably this one won't get modded up.

  70. Hmm.. who wants to start a project on sourceforge? by bigattichouse · · Score: 5, Interesting

    All the math makes me brain spin, but it would be seriously cool to have a linux-based "navigator".. give it the current date and your position and find the nearest routes to Jupiter.

    You know I wonder if this idea opens the thoughts for an interplantary positioning system (IPS)... in order to know where you get off, you'd have to know where you are.

    --
    meh
  71. Interplanetary SuperHighway by TREETOP · · Score: 2, Funny

    Where's my flying car. I want a flying CAR! This gives new meaning to the name "Disney World".

  72. Cant we just walk? by rosewood · · Score: 2, Funny

    With this stuff talked about in another slashdot article, it seems that I could just use my super-human blood to hold my breath as I walk the distance and never get tired!

  73. They aren't Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Neither of the four men listed are Americans. Two are "States" and two are "citizens of the United States".

    Americans are those people whose land was stolen from them, pushed onto the dryest land established as their reservations, and have lately discovered to make their money using casinos, but now the neighboring governments want to tax them again. I hope they don't get fucked in the ass as they did 100+ years ago by Spain, Brittain, and United States(TM).

    What were those peoples again? Ahhh, they were AMERICANS. Why aren't the four men listed, not AMERICANS? Because the four men listed were born inside of institutions that established their property ownership rights under artificial entities. If you realy owned property, you wouldn't have a "GRANT" to own the property. Of'course, corporations like the four men listed, abused this and they often established undefended or meek people as slaves, and force everyone to work through their bank of monetary worthless paper monies.

    It's a verry sad history...and we repeat it every day...

    1. Re:They aren't Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why did the Indian/Native Americans have any more right to the land that anyone else? I say, if you can take the land, do it. You don't think everyone else around the whole just sprung out of where they lived, do you? And these people never had to fight for land? Europeans were hardly the first, they were simply the most succesful in the end.

  74. Re:This is true man love by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and you can't pull a honda out of the mud with...a honda.

  75. Magizine... by k-0s · · Score: 1

    Calm down people, alot of you are getting your feathers ruffled over the science/numbers of this all. You missed that this was in a "magizine" meaning it's magic.

  76. Re:This is true man love by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Say, do you work at a store selling propane or propane-related products?

    And another thing, Diesel engines require much more skill to overhaul. And technically, they have more pollutive exhaust and diesel fuel doesn't require all the processing that 87 octane requires. Diesel fuel doesn't combust at standard atmospheric pressure. Diesel engines are much much higher compression engines, which means they compress the diesel fuel in order to make the diesel fuel unstable and combust. Diesel engines do not user spark plugs, they use Diesel fuel injectors and after the fuel enters the combustion chambers it is compressed and combusted. Why do you think Diesel engines need two HUGE batteries in the engine compartment? Diesel engines have no compression when they are not running. The act of making them start and idle is two batteries are needed to "turn" the engine, all the while compression/pressure builds up, the fuel combusts, the engine idles. And another thing, do you know how a Diesel engine is shut-off? A diesel engine can't be shutoff because spark isn't keeping it running; remember, no spark plugs. To shut-off a diesel engine, you must either stop the fuel from entering the combustion chambers/ie cut-off the fuel, or restrict the air-flow which allows the combustion to happen in the first place. Also, diesel engines are verry sensitive in its process of running. A diesel engines must be precisely primed, or they will not run. The 87 octane gasoline engines, that all you tree-huggers are using, is the vile of the earth. Diesel engine exaust stays low to the ground, all the while your 87 octance combustion engines throw the exaust into the atmosphere and cause the global warming predicament.

    The post was brought to you by a boring man selling propane and propane-related propane products.

  77. Wake up, 1337 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wake up, 1337.

    Don't go to the market to buy your camel or rate jerkey on April 1, from Halabim Slim Salim Halabim.

    The moth man sayeth...

  78. Get it right. by dark-nl · · Score: 1
    The solution to any Star Trek dilemma is to:
    1. Recalibrate a tricorder
    2. Remodulate the shield generators.
  79. Cant wait by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 1

    Cant wait till the Vogons have to explode the earth to make way for the new piece of the interplanetary superhighway.

  80. Original Story Posting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2002/release_2002 _147.html

  81. Super highway by setrops · · Score: 1

    The Vogons are comming ! the Vogons are Comming !

    Be calm now, don't panic

  82. Trade winds and currents by Gerry+Gleason · · Score: 1
    are probably a better analogy to this, but the highway one is familiar to more people. The other way it works is with the idea that the Lagrange points act like interchanges where manifolds to/from different places come close so you can easily exit one and enter another.

    WRT sailing routes from England to NYC, it really depends on your boat. Multi-hulls pioneered the southern passage because they are much faster on a reach or broad reach, and not quite as good to windward. Some modern overpowerd monohulls might be faster on the southern route, but it is more of a toss up.

    They don't really go into the details of the actual paths because of how hard it is to picture the multi-dimensional spaces that would make it clear. It is remarkable how everything changes with the third body in what seems like a simple system at first glance. I think I get some of the fundamentals intuitively. The "stable" manifold leading to L1 would be a group of orbits that tend to pump the spacecraft into more and more excentric orbits, while the "unstable" manifold leading to L2 does the oposite. On the other hand, the physics is reversible, so there are trajectories taking you toward the unstable L2 state and away from the stable L1.

    When they start talking about orbit transfers, you are trying to find where the systems from neighboring planets link together. This involves considering seperate 3-body problems of Sun-Spaceship-Planet for each planet where the manifolds of each system are rotating with the planets, and are only synchronized at certain times. They don't really say why the link ups are harder to find (or longer to wait for) for Earth/Mars than the outer planets. If I had to guess, it is probably related more to the scaling the the orbit distances and the planet masses. The Earth and Mars aren't that massive, but it still might be more related to the closer orbital periods.

    To me, it is just fascinating that there can be so much to investigate and study in the pure mathematics of a few simple equations. Most of this was just about the near equilibrium equations for uncontrolled objects. The slingshot trajectories represent another group of solutions that have some special characteristics. Very cool stuff. It really points the way for a lot of robotic missions over the coming centuries. With solar power, the fact that it take a long time to get there doesn't matter as much as the fact that you can keep manuvering for new missions long after the initial mission planning.

    1. Re:Trade winds and currents by kfg · · Score: 1

      Well, if nothing else, spending a few weeks in pleasant weather on a broad reach with first landfall in Puerto Rico (less commercial than St. Thomas which has a pure tourist trade economy) beats the hell out of beating to windward through the icebergs for a first landfall in Newfoundland.

      Even if it's a toss up, it's still not a toss up. Monohullers have been doing this for ages for just that reason. (And I don't mean to get into the "hull wars." I kinda like "Sharpie tris" and Bolger square boats myself, so everybody hates me already)

      The orbitals are certainly fascinating though. Good thing we have computers now. I'd hate to work that out with slide rule, pen and paper.

      KFG

    2. Re:Trade winds and currents by Gerry+Gleason · · Score: 1
      Well, I was more thinking about race routes, but you are right on about the other trade offs. And yes, untill the late schooners and clippers, very few ships did well to windward, and it's always hard on the crew and the boat.

      By "Bolger sqare boats", you mean scows, right? I'm from the Midwest where they are (or at least were) very popular on the small lakes. They have most of the advantages of multihulls as long as you don't have any waves. I am partial to cats, although tris seem to be in vougue these days. I try to follow what's going on with the "maxi-multis" built for The Race a few years back. I know Playstation II set a new trans-atlantic record, but broke gear and dropped out early in the big one. There's something to be said for not pushing the envelope too much in size (105' x 60' is just huge), nobody had experience with sails of that size, particularly with the higher rig loadings that multihulls produce. If they can make it reliable, it will be unbeatable.

      To get a little more on-topic ... It's amazing what Poincare did on the problem before computers. He really started Chaos theory before it had a name, but the complexity was so great it was difficult to go much further until the computer came along.

  83. Mod up parent if you grok General Relativity by hacksoncode · · Score: 1
    Perhaps you always thought that General Relativity was a complicated idea that you never would have a hope of understanding. This post is the most succinct and clear description of (a large portion of) it that I have ever seen.

    The above statement is fundamentally the way the universe works. There is gravity (modulo quantum gravity :-) because both of these statements are basically true.

    You move towards a mass because it distorts spacetime so that the "straight line" you're travelling in actually goes towards the mass.

  84. Deflect killer astroids, gather comet dust? by wfolta · · Score: 1

    Two thoughts from the interesting article:

    1) Why are we sending robots to comets to fetch material when we could just send one to L4? The article mentions that cometary dust and space junk will gather there.

    Let debris from all over come to us. Sort of like Men in Black, where they confiscate alien technology at a single port of entry. Deep space exploration from the comfort of your own (planetary) home.

    2) The article mentions that a killer asteroid was riding the "rails" and the earth stepped out onto the tracks in front of it and got hit. Which makes me wonder if future asteroids on a collision course -- not necessarily on one of these low-velocity tracks -- could be deflected with smaller forces that previously envisioned? Throw some switches on the tracks, as it were.

    1. Re:Deflect killer astroids, gather comet dust? by chaotician137 · · Score: 2, Informative
      As one of the scientists mentioned in the article (my website), I think the author of the article, who's a journalist and not a dynamicist, is slightly wrong about material "collecting" at L4.

      Material typiclly doesn't come from elsewhere in the solar system and get stuck in some system's L4 points (like the Earth-Moon L4 or L5 points). The material that is there, if any, would have existed in that location since the formation of the system, i.e., anything near the Earth-Moon L4 or L5 points was there when the Moon formed.

      Regarding the killer asteroids, you're totally right about deflecting them with small forces. There will be a conference next year, Planetary Defense Conference: Protecting Earth from Asteroids, where people will propose technical plans associated with defending Earth from approaching near Earth objects (comets and asteroids). The threat will be approached from three warning levels: short-term (less than ten years warning); medium-term (ten to 30 years warning); and long-term (more than 30 years warning). The more time we have to deflect it, the smaller the force needs to be.

  85. Long time by Alari · · Score: 0

    However, it takes a very long time to get there.

    Welcome to space.

    Time to invest in FTL research. ;)

    --
    I use Windows... like a two dollar wh.. why don't I just go ahead and not finish that sentence.
  86. Set the ship to self-destruct in fifteen minutes. 90% of the time, whatever problem you have will resolve itself within fourteen minutes and forty-seven seconds.

    --

    You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

  87. Centrifugal Force found hiding under bed by Amroarer · · Score: 1

    I was always told by my physics teacher that centrifugal force was imaginary. But then he also told me that when an aeroplane stalls, it's very difficult to restart the engine, so I don't trust him overly much. Help me here, physicists...

    So if I'm in one of those big fairground rides; the ones like big centrifuges, where you stand inside a spinning drum:

    Centripetal force is the inward axial force that makes an object move in a circular path, right?

    The drum is spinning, so I'm undergoing a constant inward acceleration 'cos I'm moving in a circular path. This acceleration is provided by the wall pressing into me. Fine. That's a centripetal force.

    But there's an equal and opposite reaction on the wall. Isn't that force, acting on the wall, a cetrifugal force? It's not a centripetal force, because it's not what's constraining the wall to a circular path. The wall section's centripetal force comes from the girders supporting it.

    Explanations gratefully received.

  88. Link to interview at genesismission.org by mattr · · Score: 1
    Interview with Martin Lo, author of LTool (Libration Point Mission Design Tool) talks about new cusp of using advanced mathematics in real-world engineering.

    This link I gleaned and posted on Slashdot the last time we had an article about this. There are actually several interesting papers about this on the net, look for Lo in xarchiv and elsewhere I think. Downloaded a whole bunch last time.

  89. Re:My Favorite Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a fact? It's a simplistic fact that appeals to the void that is ignorance. However, uninformed and oversimplistic arrogance is NOT a substitute for ignorance.
    God's Earth? Which made up god are you talking about? Remember, combining religion and politics is dangerous. The examples are many.

  90. #4 by kalidasa · · Score: 1

    Broadcast a message, in the clear, about having to use the Corbomite device (was used twice).