Slashdot Mirror


Goodbye, Galileo

deglr6328 writes "On the 21st of this month the Galileo Space Probe, which has been orbiting Jupiter for nearly eight years, will plummet fatefully into the crushing pressures and searing heat of that planet's interior. The spacecraft's 14 year journey has brought the discovery of, among other things, the first moon orbiting an asteroid, the first remote detection of life on earth when Carl Sagan used data from an onboard infrared spectrometer to observe the spectral signature of Oxygen in our atmosphere, it has caught snowflakes of Sulfur Dioxide as it flew through the plume of an erupting volcano on Io, snapped pictures of comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 as it smashed into Jupiter's atmosphere and most importantly, provided proof a >60 Km deep ocean on Europa with hints of oceans on Callisto and Ganymede(listen to Ganymede's eerie sounding plasma wind). And all this with scarcely more computing power than a late '70s video game and a maximum data transfer rate of ~120 bits/s over a distance of more than 600 million Km. In a mission spanning three decades, the Galileo space probe has answered many of humanity's questions about space and presented us with the knowledge to ask many more which will be answered by the next generation of Jovian explorer. Goodnight Galileo."

341 comments

  1. This shows how geeky Im am... by epicstruggle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    but I would rather have a replica of this space probe in schools/colleges than any number of sports trophies. The amount of hard work and dedication required to do things like this should inspire our youths, instead of their current role models (kobe bryant, et al.)

    later,
    epic

    --
    "Im drowning here, and you're describing the water!"
    1. Re:This shows how geeky Im am... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sports make money for schools, science doesn't.

      Very sad, but true.

    2. Re:This shows how geeky Im am... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hummm Kobe Bryant works hard too, it's just a different type of work.

    3. Re:This shows how geeky Im am... by Slashdot+Junky · · Score: 1

      Why is a person modded down when they post true statements?

      -Slashdot Junky

      --
      .
      Landfill Mining Co.
      Managing the (Un)natural Resources of Tomorrow
    4. Re:This shows how geeky Im am... by Slashdot+Junky · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Why is a person modded down when they post true statements? Yes, I did post this exact comment in reply to another comment also modded down.

      -Slashdot Junky

      --
      .
      Landfill Mining Co.
      Managing the (Un)natural Resources of Tomorrow
    5. Re:This shows how geeky Im am... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was not a true statement but an opinion.

      As for my own opinion: If you had even a hint which way to hold a bat or stick, you'd know that the world of athletics could care less about your passions. While combining brains and brawn is a laudable achievement, they both demand an involvement with often allows for little outside interests (This applies to music as well...and no Im not talking about strumming Hotel California on your guitar) and are sub-cultures which rarely crossover.

      A trophy with an Arnold in a double biceps or side chest pose circa 1974....and the jocks will drool over themselves even more.

      zeke

    6. Re:This shows how geeky Im am... by RALE007 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Why not offer to fund the project for a local school? You could more than likely afford a trophy case alone, besides the possibility of getting donations. Build the replicas yourself or again, I think volunteers would be forthcoming if you looked hard enough. Model hobbyists tend to be the geeky type and would love to get in on that action. I wouldn't be surprised if you put a couple of fliers at hobby shops, and did a little drive for the resources to build the thing that you could easily have it done.

      I think it's a wonderful idea, but instead of just saying, how about doing?

      --
      Beware blue cats moving at .99c
    7. Re:This shows how geeky Im am... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking racist twerp.

    8. Re:This shows how geeky Im am... by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      Most sports don't make money. Basketball almost always does (at least in the Midwest). Football usually does, but it costs a lot to equip a big football team. My high school was a tennis and soccer powerhouse, but barely broke even on those programs. We probably had a dozen other men's sports that lost money and every women's sport did. I read an article in the paper today that some high schools are now charging between 10 and 100 bucks to participate in any extracurricular activity because there's no budget for them. In related news, the reconstruction of Iraq will cost between 70 and 150 billion dollars.

      -B

    9. Re:This shows how geeky Im am... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep...

      GO MIT... er.. what's the name of their football team again?

    10. Re:This shows how geeky Im am... by gordgekko · · Score: 2, Informative
      I read an article in the paper today that some high schools are now charging between 10 and 100 bucks to participate in any extracurricular activity because there's no budget for them. In related news, the reconstruction of Iraq will cost between 70 and 150 billion dollars.

      Care to explain how they are related? Education is not a federal mandate under the constitution and though it's been a while I know for a fact that the funding of sports programs at schools definately isn't a federal mandate, Title X or no Title X.

      --
      You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
    11. Re:This shows how geeky Im am... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then the Federal Government should keep its fucking nose out of education affairs!

    12. Re:This shows how geeky Im am... by geeber · · Score: 1

      Sports don't make money for schools. Sports makes money for athletic departments. Very little of that money every sees it's way into the academic departments.

      Also, science does make money for schools. Competition for Darpa and NSF grants is fierce. Of course some people see this as a down side, as it tkaes attention of professors away from actually teaching.

    13. Re:This shows how geeky Im am... by dolo666 · · Score: 1

      Science SPENDS money. Sports spend and make it.

      Maybe if COMPANIES would spend money on science more than they do, this wouldn't be the case. I guess that's the difference between football coaches and nerdy science professors... when footballers ask for cash, they'd better get it or it's time for punishment!!

    14. Re:This shows how geeky Im am... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      some high schools are now charging between 10 and 100 bucks to participate in any extracurricular activity because there's no budget for them. In related news, the reconstruction of Iraq will cost between 70 and 150 billion dollars.

      Related? How? Perhaps in the sense that in both cases the recipients are being made to pay their own way. That $70-$150B isn't a shower of gifts-- it's being paid for in oil.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    15. Re:This shows how geeky Im am... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Of course some people see this as a down side, as it tkaes attention of professors away from actually teaching.

      Hah! Since when do prof's have to teach anymore? Don't they have grad students to order around?

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    16. Re:This shows how geeky Im am... by StJefferson · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Then the Federal Government should keep its fucking nose out of education affairs!

      Amen, brother.

    17. Re:This shows how geeky Im am... by snake_dad · · Score: 1
      I would rather have a replica of this space probe

      A replica like this?

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
    18. Re:This shows how geeky Im am... by grendel's+mom · · Score: 1
      Geeky? No. Try ignorant.

      If you look at the total revenue brought in by Universities, you will find "science" funding brings in significantly more money than sporting activities (based on data from the Univ. of Colorado, Boulder).

      Further,'science' usually gives back to the student body and surrounding communities by hiring students, engineers, and scientists. Sports does this as well, but not at the same level.

      The Galileo project (via JPL and LASP) put me thru college, paid for my living expenses and gave me my first coding job. While this money didn't go directly to the University (expect my tuition), it provides opportunity and experience.

    19. Re:This shows how geeky Im am... by gfim · · Score: 1

      Is invading other countries mandated?

      --
      Graham
  2. Sounds of the plasma wind by N7DR · · Score: 5, Interesting
    listen to Ganymede's eerie sounding plasma wind

    The reason that it sounds so "eerie" is because it is recorded with a receiver whose channels are harmonically related. A true wideband recording would sound quite different. This is true of the similar Voyager plasma recordings as well.

    1. Re:Sounds of the plasma wind by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 1

      Even with that explanation, it STILL sounds like it was ripped from a bad 60's B-movie where aliens take over the world with lasers that sound like the aforementioned .wav file.

    2. Re:Sounds of the plasma wind by deglr6328 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't....think they used harmonically related channels...? They did have to downsample the original antenna recording to make it audible to us humans but it's still just a direct full spectrum recording from the plasma wave antenna...I think anyway, correct me if I'm wrong of course. I'm pretty sure the reason it sounds eerie is just due to the natural "noises" (actually EM radiation) given off by electrons spiraling around the magnetic field lines of Ganymede, which is thought to be produced by a salty ocean under it's surface. In a sense you're listening to the ocean on Ganymede. :)

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    3. Re:Sounds of the plasma wind by pod · · Score: 1

      Anyone interested in that kind of sound should look into Bad Sector and Arecibo. I believe Arecibo is just a Lustmord side-project, and their discography is full of these kinds of 'nature sampled' sounds and manipulations.

      --
      "Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
    4. Re:Sounds of the plasma wind by deglr6328 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      why have you added me to your foes?

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    5. Re:Sounds of the plasma wind by N7DR · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Now that the audio is no longer slashdotted, I can hear this particular example and agree that this is the wideband audio downconverted. Almost all the audio recordings from Voyager were generated from the instrument operating in channelized mode, although they did do a few in this same wideband mode.

      A similar technique used at Earth would produce very similar results, and would not need to be downconverted, because of the weaker field here.

      At one time there was a very cool audio of ring-plane crossing from Voyager 2 at Saturn (from the Planetary Radio Astronomy experiment, which was sort of the higher-frequency brother of the Plasma Wave experiment), but I doubt that that is available any more.

      Anyway, probably most slashdotters agree that all of these spacecraft have done some pretty cool things.

      Next up... Cassini

    6. Re:Sounds of the plasma wind by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      produced by a salty ocean under it's surface. In a sense you're listening to the ocean on Ganymede.

      But she still fealt that a sea shell was more romantic. Women.

    7. Re:Sounds of the plasma wind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now now, don't whine. You can't be friends with everybody all the time.

  3. It's not the size. It's how you use it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    all this with scarcely more computing power than a late '70s video game

    When it comes to real engineering, the fewer resources you need to meet your goals, the better of a job you did. Throwing in larger processors just to you can brag about the power of a Beowulf cluster of those is just a poor job.

    Less is more.

  4. Goodbye Galileo by intrinsicchaos · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Aim for the stars...and beyond!

    1. Re:Goodbye Galileo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure it's aiming for Jupiter at this point :)

    2. Re:Goodbye Galileo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Aim for Jupiter...and within!

  5. Popular Science Article by ixt · · Score: 5, Informative

    This month's issue of popular science has an article also. Click.

    1. Re:Popular Science Article by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      On that site, they have a link with countdown to impact. It has current simulated images etc, all very fascinating. The link is here.
      My son wants to take the link into school and get the rest of the class involved - my god dont kids make u proud :)

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
  6. Plop! by FrostedWheat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Dropping the spacecraft into the planet just seems wrong! It's like flushing a dead goldfish down the toilet!

    So long Galileo! We salute you!

    *flush*

    1. Re:Plop! by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 1

      So FrostedWheat sez:

      "Dropping the spacecraft into the planet just seems wrong! It's like flushing a dead goldfish down the toilet!"

      Oh, there's a reason that Galileo is crashing into Jupiter.

      The Freemasons want to ignite Jupiter into a star.

      It's all here:

      It's a long chunk of PRIMO crackpottery, but keep reading, you'll get to the good bits about Galileo.

      Just adjust your tinfoil hat accordingly. You don't want THM knowing that you're onto their plans!

      --
      Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
    2. Re:Plop! by niko9 · · Score: 5, Informative

      If the orbiter were left to circle Jupiter after running out of propellant (barring an intervention, this would likely happen within a year), it might eventually crash into Europa, one of Jupiter's large moons. In 1996, Galileo conducted the first of eight close flybys of Europa, producing breathtaking pictures of its surface, which suggested that the moon has an immense ocean hidden beneath its frozen crust. These images have led to vociferous scientific debate about the prospects for life there; as a result, nasa officials decided that it was necessary to avoid the possibility of seeding Europa with alien life-forms. And so the craft has been programmed to commit suicide, guaranteeing a fiery, spectacular end to one of the most ambitious, tortured, and revelatory missions in the history of space exploration.

      That's why they are ditching it in said manner.

    3. Re:Plop! by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 1

      See! The Freemasons are EVERYWHERE! They censored the URL!

      Either that, or I screwed up.

      THIS is the URL I messed up on.

      Sorry about that!

      What is this "The Preview Button" you speak of? Your words confuse me.

      So FrostedWheat sez:

      "Dropping the spacecraft into the planet just seems wrong! It's like flushing a dead goldfish down the toilet!"

      Oh, there's a reason that Galileo is crashing into Jupiter.

      The Freemasons want to ignite Jupiter into a star.

      It's all here:

      It's a long chunk of PRIMO crackpottery, but keep reading, you'll get to the good bits about Galileo.

      Just adjust your tinfoil hat accordingly. You don't want THM knowing that you're onto their plans!

      --
      Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
    4. Re:Plop! by bj8rn · · Score: 2, Funny

      Heh. That article got it all wrong. Actually, the Illuminati are doing this to protect their diamond monopoly - as everyone knows that the core of Jupiter is a giant diamond.

      --
      Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
    5. Re:Plop! by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but what difference does it make? It's still not big enough for some women.

    6. Re:Plop! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dropping the spacecraft into the planet just seems wrong! It's like flushing a dead goldfish down the toilet!

      So long Galileo! We salute you!


      Not to mention that we can't be 100% certain whether or not the materials used in the spacecraft could actually start a chain reaction that spoils the very medium which is being studied. When the space shuttle crashed earlier this year, NASA warned everybody to stay away from the extremely toxic debris. How much material in Galileo is toxic to alien lifeforms (even if they are unicellular) or disruptive to the Jovian atmosphere?

      In the film "Jurassic Park", the mathematician Ian Malcolm mentions that chaoticians want to know whether a butterfly's wings flapping in Central Park can influence weather patterns (*). Methinks that crashing a spacecraft into a planet can cause a lot more influence than a butterfly's wings!

      (*) Can't remember the exact quote.

    7. Re:Plop! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's start worrying about OUR pollution... I think Jupiter is just too large related to a small spaceship.
      Anyway, so long, Galileo, and thanks for all the fish... : )

  7. Remote Detection Indeed by screwthemoderators · · Score: 2, Funny

    Bitterly disapointed, Carl Sagan was never able to detect intelligent life on our planet!

    1. Re:Remote Detection Indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm. Yes. Quite. Indubitably. How insightful.

    2. Re:Remote Detection Indeed by gordgekko · · Score: 1

      Did Mr. Sagan include himself? If so, how would he know intelligent life if he actually detected it?

      --
      You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
    3. Re:Remote Detection Indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      gosh .. you missed the point...

  8. underrated small probe vs. overrated expensive toy by M1FCJ · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I find it strange that such a man made equipment was both underrated and overrated at the same time.

    It promised a lot, then with the failure of the high-gain antenna, it delivered a lot less than expected.

    Both Voyagers sent us a lot less data but the data was publicised much more energetically.

    Since the probe has been plauged by malfunctions for some time I agree it is time to let it go. Bye bye...

  9. Building them like they used to by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Galileo was not cheap. Neither were the Pioneers or the Voyagers. Look at the return on the investment, though.

    NASA has not made a good argument for cheaper = better. The Hubble Space Telescope was flawed when it went up and spent the first three years of its lifespan doing very little compared to its design. We have lost several probes headed Mars. Quality has not been top priority at NASA, and until it is, we're going to continue to see failure after failure, I'm afraid. Galileo wasn't perfect, with deployment problems of its high-gain antenna, but it did not fail entirely, and it did not require humans in suits to go play with it for it to work right. We need that kind of engineering again.

    We need to build them like we used to.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:Building them like they used to by M1FCJ · · Score: 2, Informative
      NASA has not made a good argument for cheaper = better. The Hubble Space Telescope was flawed when it went up and spent the first three years of its lifespan doing very little compared to its design.

      Surely you are not claiming that Hubble was cheap? It was the most expensive piece of mass sent to space. More than 3 billion was spent just to build the thing, not to mention three shuttle missions and millions spent in the operations.

      The science it produced is worth the price but it wasn't cheap.

    2. Re:Building them like they used to by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hubble was not built under the cheaper=better flag. Hubble was built in the same time frame as Cassini and Calileo.

    3. Re:Building them like they used to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but back then NASA had big money pockets.

    4. Re:Building them like they used to by TWX · · Score: 1

      And they're already planning to end-of-life it. It's only been up since 1990. Galileo is being destroyed only because they don't want it to crash into Europa and possibly corrupt the environment there, if there is life.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    5. Re:Building them like they used to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
      Galileo was not cheap. Neither were the Pioneers or the Voyagers. Look at the return on the investment, though.

      yeah umm... all that return.

      All those advances in uhhh... something.

      Well, I'm sure those probes did something besides keep geeky types out of the workforce.

    6. Re:Building them like they used to by Rura+Penthe · · Score: 4, Informative

      What are you talking about. Hubble was not built cheaply. And since its repair it has been one of the best things NASA has ever done. By the time they plan to retire it (~2010 I believe?), it will have been in use for just under 20 years and the Jack Webb telescope should be ready.

    7. Re:Building them like they used to by iabervon · · Score: 4, Informative

      Cheaper or more expensive comes down to the funding NASA gets. NASA spends the money it gets allocated. Half of "cheaper = better" is making the most of the stuff that's been built; Galileo is a prime example of this. What makes it such a great achievement is that NASA kept getting more information out of it, rather than building another expensive probe to send out there. As for reliability of new stuff, NASA recently debugged a system deadlock on Mars from Earth.

      Of course, recent NASA projects haven't been particularly ambitious, because of a lack of sufficient funding for that. However, with a replacement for the shuttle fleet on Congress's minds, and shows of interest in space from Russia and especially China, NASA will hopefully get more funding to do interesting stuff (and to develop the necessary technologies, which are the really interesting results).

    8. Re:Building them like they used to by vondo · · Score: 2
      Galileo is reaching the end of its life. Maybe they could keep it running for another year or two, but they've done about all they can do with it and it is having problems more frequently. Combine that with concerns about Europa and they are destroying it.

      Keep in mind that the environment around Jupiter is a bit more hostile than low earth orbit (where Hubble is).

      I frankly find it amazing that any instrument like this can be built and operated for 15-20 years in such an environment.

    9. Re:Building them like they used to by TWX · · Score: 1

      just a bit? From what I gather, the radiation content makes some of our rectors look like good places to nap. I don't know enough about jovian moon volcanoes to know what effect they have had on Jupiter's near-space environment though, so I am curious as to what physical debris Galileo has been fortunate to avoid...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    10. Re:Building them like they used to by M1FCJ · · Score: 2, Informative

      They are not killing it just for the fun. Galileo hardly functions anymore. The last fly-by didn't generate any usable science data because it decided to sleep for a while just before the fly-by. Radiation has cooked everything inside, the tape drive is not working reliably for years now and I wouldn't be suprised it is actually toast by this time. They are doing the suicide plunge just to make sure they don't contaminate any life as you said, but not to protect the life might exist, because they want to keep it clean for the future when we can actually check if there is life or not and not to get into endless discussions (if we find something) about the origin of the life there.

    11. Re:Building them like they used to by M1FCJ · · Score: 1
      2010? In their dreams. It won't last that long. Not without major refits and probably it won't survive the shuttle fleet's recovery.

      I wonder what will the astronomers of our generation think. A life without Hubble? Unimaginable!

    12. Re:Building them like they used to by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Hubble was not built cheaply. And since its repair it has been one of the best things NASA has ever done.

      One of the reasons its optics were screwed up was because military spy-satellite agencies put a bunch of restrictions on testing the optics.

    13. Re:Building them like they used to by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      We need to build them like we used to.
      Oh? Like the Ranger series with something like 11 straight failures?

      Fact is, we never made 'em like we used to.
    14. Re:Building them like they used to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Rangers that failed were the early ones which were supposed to use balsa (!) surrounding the probe to enable it to survive impact with the moon. Strangely enough, it didn't work...

      The second lot of Rangers, which were basically cameras sent on kamikaze missions towards proposed Surveyer landing sites, were OTOH highly successful.

    15. Re:Building them like they used to by spamchang · · Score: 1

      lack of funding? that's also cause NASA gets hit with pork bills from universities that steals NASA money ostenibly for purposes that will further NASA's mission but really just serves to fund stuff for the universities. it's really disgusting; University at Buffalo (SUNY) just slammed NASA for several million for a new building that will, in no way, help NASA at all. (all the talk of cooperation and such was non evident in the presentation they gave here. be realistic. free money? of course they're going to bare-mininum the the strings.) of course NASA can't do anything about it since the congresspeople (erm, clinton and someone else) made this mandate happen. f*cking politicians, f*cking greedy university stooges. this is how your taxpayer dollars ends up in pork bills.

  10. redundant by Magic+Thread · · Score: 1

    This has already been said. Parent fails it!

  11. deglr6328 is such a poet by MikeCapone · · Score: 2, Funny

    This article almost made me cry.

    1. Re:deglr6328 is such a poet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mis-spelling and capitalizing "sulphur" is definitely poetic :)

    2. Re:deglr6328 is such a poet by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      We americans like the "f" word.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    3. Re:deglr6328 is such a poet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Sulfur" is as correct as "sulphur" ("sulfer" or "sulpher" are right out). Capitalising it is archaic, but not incorrect.

      Yours in brimstone and treacle,

      the Nazi Grammar Fairy

    4. Re:deglr6328 is such a poet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Capitalizing sulfur is archaic, but capitalizing km gives Kelvinmeters.

    5. Re:deglr6328 is such a poet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or perhaps kibometres, meaning 1024 metres. But I'm a grammar fairy, not a science fairy.

      yours in unity,

      the Nazi Grammar Fairy

  12. fair warning by falsification · · Score: 5, Funny

    If Galileo is the spark that lights up the gas giant Jupiter, turning it into a second sun, that will be the last straw. We will then have no choice but to make safety the number one priority at NASA.

    1. Re:fair warning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well apparently that's possible, because Galileo contains plutonium and Jupiter has compressed layers of fusionable material. See this post

    2. Re:fair warning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like on that one ep of SG1 that was on monday?

    3. Re:fair warning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Even if it did go up as an A-bomb, it'd be a little teeny firecracker at best for Jupiter. This is a planet that has storms bigger than the Earth and hundreds or thousands of years old.

      The real danger to Europa isn't from the plutonium, but from any stray extremophile microbes that might survive on or in Galileo. Funny that a bacterium can be more dangerous than a wad of plutonium. Well until you consider malaria, plague, dengue...ok it's not that funny.

    4. Re:fair warning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, this'd be more like the one where the brass foolishly exploded a naquida bomb on a naquida planet and set the whole thing off.

    5. Re:fair warning by Captain+Nitpick · · Score: 2, Funny
      If Galileo is the spark that lights up the gas giant Jupiter, turning it into a second sun, that will be the last straw. We will then have no choice but to make safety the number one priority at NASA.

      We'd also have to put aside all thoughts of a mission to Europa.

      --
      But then again, I could be wrong.
    6. Re:fair warning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Galileo is the spark that lights up the gas giant Jupiter...
      Don't ya need oxygen?

    7. Re:fair warning by sharkey · · Score: 1
      We'd also have to put aside all thoughts of a mission to Europa.

      Wouldn't hurt to open the Vault and get started on a Super Computer Virus, either.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    8. Re:fair warning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Storms never reach the millions of degrees necessary to ignite deuterium, but an A-bomb can.

    9. Re:fair warning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Going to have to start looking if you want a still functional Powerbook 5300 to upload it with. Those things weren't exactly built in the tanklike manner of their predecessors.

    10. Re:fair warning by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      If Galileo is the spark that lights up the gas giant Jupiter, turning it into a second sun, that will be the last straw.

      That would be cool to say to my grand-kids: "I remember when Sun Two was just a planet."

      But if Shoemaker-Levy couldn't do it, then Gali won't either.

  13. Ganymede's eerie sounding plasma wind by kuroth · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sounds to me like the whole moon is infested with Paradroids.

    (For the youngin's, here, here, and here.)

    1. Re:Ganymede's eerie sounding plasma wind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      If I were you, i'd shut up about what you heard, and never talk about it again, ever.

      We know where you live.

  14. Jovian explorer? by bigdavex · · Score: 0, Redundant

    In a mission spanning three decades, the Galileo space probe has answered many of humanity's questions about space and presented us with the knowledge to ask many more which will be answered by the next generation of Jovian explorer.

    Javian explorer? I thought they just changed it Firebird? I'm so confused.

    --
    -Dave
    1. Re:Jovian explorer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shut the fuck up.

      you are no judge of humor.

      hit yourself in the crotch--no one else will go near it.

  15. Data Rate by t_allardyce · · Score: 5, Funny

    "maximum data transfer rate of ~120 bits/s"

    About the same as all those links will have in 5 minutes ;)

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    1. Re:Data Rate by Bob+of+Dole · · Score: 1

      Um, it's NASA.

      They fall into the "More bandwidth than God" category.

    2. Re:Data Rate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? Because everything NASA touches is godly?

      Be quiet. NASA doesn't need more bandwidth than God for its goofy little websites like this. And it doesn't have it. AOL is an ISP. NASA isn't.

    3. Re:Data Rate by Bob+of+Dole · · Score: 1

      NASA's picture of the day used to be the most popular site on the interweb.
      (It's still pretty popular)

      I'm sure serving high-res pictures to a few million people a day doesn't require much bandwidth

    4. Re:Data Rate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NASA has many servers.. while the pic-o-the-day site seems to always be up, I've seen many nasa sites die when linked on slashdot.

      And then most of nasa went down when columbia was destroyed, which could be expected, everyone in the world was trying to access nasas sites.

    5. Re:Data Rate by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      I would hope ground-based web servers at least have better latency than Galileo...

    6. Re:Data Rate by ionpro · · Score: 1
      [root@localhost root]# ping galileo.nasa.gov
      PING galileo.nasa.gov (127.0.0.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
      64 bytes from galileo.nasa.gov (127.0.0.1): icmp_seq=1 ttl=50 time=0.030 ms
      64 bytes from galileo.nasa.gov (127.0.0.1): icmp_seq=2 ttl=50 time=0.018 ms
      64 bytes from galileo.nasa.gov (127.0.0.1): icmp_seq=3 ttl=50 time=0.022 ms
      64 bytes from galileo.nasa.gov (127.0.0.1): icmp_seq=4 ttl=50 time=0.025 ms

      --- galileo.nasa.gov ping statistics ---
      4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 2997ms
      rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.018/0.023/0.030/0.007 ms

      Damn! I knew those NASA spooks were hiding their FTL travel machines! Probably can't figure out the units...

    7. Re:Data Rate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? Because everything NASA touches is godly?

      Well, that is kind of their mission statement.

    8. Re:Data Rate by Josh+Booth · · Score: 1

      Nelson: Stop pinging yourself!
      Millhouse: Ow!
      Nelson: Stop pinging yourself!
      Millhouse: Ow!
      Nelson: Stop pinging yourself!
      Millhouse: Ow!

  16. It's not the size. It's how you use it. by Magic+Thread · · Score: 1, Redundant
    all this with scarcely more computing power than a late '70s video game
    When it comes to real engineering, the fewer resources you need to meet your goals, the better a job you did. Throwing in larger processors just so you can brag about the power of a Beowulf cluster of those is a poor job. Less is more.
    1. Re:It's not the size. It's how you use it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why did you post this twice? It was posted anonymously already (http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=77478 &cid=6888200), did you just decide to karma whore it?

    2. Re:It's not the size. It's how you use it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I didn't write the original. It was a troll; I wanted to see how high a score it would get. But now that the original is at Score:1 and you've posted this reply, I doubt the dupe will survive long.

      -MT

    3. Re:It's not the size. It's how you use it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      It is because they did not have Windows then, otherwise they would have had to reboot couple of times a day!

    4. Re:It's not the size. It's how you use it. by SWTP_OS9 · · Score: 1

      Mad Man Muntz was right!

      "Value Engeering" has been proven correct again!

    5. Re:It's not the size. It's how you use it. by Black+Noise · · Score: 1

      Some would argue it's how long until they come that counts.

      The pictures, that is.

      *cough*

      --

      Cig? No, thank you.
    6. Re:It's not the size. It's how you use it. by S.Lemmon · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually after looking at the link, that wasn't such a bad processor: 6.4 mhz, 16 bit addressing (even with an 8 bit data bus) and 16 general purpose registers. That's way ahead of the average 70's CPU - I was expecting it to be something far less powerful (more like a type of Z80).

    7. Re:It's not the size. It's how you use it. by YetAnotherLogin · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wow. 6.5 milihertz. You're right. That IS something.

    8. Re:It's not the size. It's how you use it. by Listen+Up · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, in 'real' engineering, as long as it is from the United States automotive industry (fortunately this is the space industry) less does NOT mean more, because less also means cheaper, which means lower quality.

      Simple is not always better. Less is NOT always more. Only in very specific examples is your statement correct.

    9. Re:It's not the size. It's how you use it. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      There are Z80s past 6.4 mhz, and I don't know what kind of addressing it has (but the Z80 is somehow related to the 8086 right? Or the 8088? So it should have 16 bit addressing) but I do know that they have a DMA chipset to go with it. It's not a bad chip. In fact they still sell lots of Z80s (they were on the adaptec 2940U for example) and I think you can get an evaluation board for about fifty bucks.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:It's not the size. It's how you use it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The CPU in Galileo is an 1802.

      The first computer I learned to program was a Cosmac ELF, which had an 1802 CPU and 256 bytes of RAM. No ROM or disk drive of any kind, but it also had a low-res black-and-white video chip and RF modulator that let it be connected to a TV. Programs had to be entered directly into memory as machine language, using a hexadecimal keyboard. I got to the point where I could enter -- from memory -- a program to play 'Greensleeves' on the built-in speaker. The first original program I wrote generated dial pulses. I hooked the ELF to the telephone line using a relay, and used it to call my sister, who was sadly unimpressed with my new-found hacking skills.

      1802 had 16 registers, but it was a really awkward architecture. Z80 is probably a more powerful chip. I think the only reason the 1802 was popular in space probes was because it was the first CMOS CPU, and one of the few available in a radiation-hardened version. I can only imagine writing error-correcting code in 1802 assembly language (shudder).

    11. Re:It's not the size. It's how you use it. by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      The Z80 was designed to be compatable with Intel's 8080, which preceeds the 8086/8088 (similar CPUs, but the 8088 accessed memory externally in 8 bit chunks, the 8086 in 16 bit chunks, the two were entirely software compatable.) The 8086/8088 for some reason were never directly compatable with the 8080.

      Most 8 bit CPUs, the 8080, 8085, Z80, 6502, 6800, and 6809 among them, had an external 8 bit databus and 16 bit address bus. The 6502 is the only one of those that actually didn't use 16 bit registers (or doubled-up 8 bit registers) for the purpose (personally I think the 6502 was a nightmare to program as a result, but there are people who swear by it.)

      I think the big advantage this processor has that most mass-market eight-bitters never had were 16 registers. The only chip that springs to mind like that of approximately that era is the 68000, and that wasn't 8 bit and while I can't date it exactly I'm pretty certain it wouldn't have existed when Galileo was built. Indeed, while it was announced in the late seventies, I'm not even sure it entered production in that decade.

      Sadly Intel's current offerings are still stingy on the register front...

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    12. Re:It's not the size. It's how you use it. by tgrigsby · · Score: 1

      It was only that slow because some schmoe accidentally bumped the "turbo" button, slowing it from 10 MHz. This is the same guy that didn't take the little twisty wire off the high gain antenna when taking it out of the Radio Shack package and installing it....

      --
      *** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
    13. Re:It's not the size. It's how you use it. by Felis+Rex · · Score: 1

      What I don't understand is... with such successes using such (now) old technology... what could we achieve with something that would be relatively modern in comparison? Like, say, from 1996 even? Why are we not doing more along these lines now that we have 64 bit super-hyper-ultra-mega processors in comparison? We don't even need to be sending a 32 GHz processor out there... we could use the ones that are being thrown away by the truckload every day and still whip the pants off the ones that are from the 70's....

      --
      "it's only after disaster that you can be born resurected" - My friend Dave
    14. Re:It's not the size. It's how you use it. by demonbug · · Score: 1
      When it comes to real engineering, the fewer resources you need to meet your goals, the better of a job you did.



      Reminds me of what one of my CivE (yeah, I don't know what I'm doing here either) profs said to us (though he was probably quoting someone else):
      Engineering is the art of building something for $1 that any idiot can build for $2.

    15. Re:It's not the size. It's how you use it. by chris_sawtell · · Score: 1

      The "Cosmac 1802" was a wonderful little machine which was very unfairly panned by the technical press of the day. Too difficult to program they said. What rot. They must have been absolutly dumboes. I made a 64 channel 8 bit telemetry system based on it during the late '70's early '80's. It worked well for many years monitoring a local authority's water supply tanks an pipelines. I used 3 of the registers and about 30 or 40 bytes of ROM to implement a FORTH machine inner intrepreter. Only one byte of program code to jump subroutine! The whole kit drew about 20 mA, if that, when in standby. Most of that was used by the EPROM. The project did not warrent the more expensive C-MOS ones. A complete telemetry computer in only 2 kilo-bytes ROM and 256 bytes RAM powered by Solar cells. Try to do that with the fancy chips availalable today.

  17. Re:Time.... to die. by mOoZik · · Score: 1

    Isn't it "memories fade in time like tears in rain"?

  18. My WinMP wants lic authority for Ganymede song by Glasswire · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...does anyone know the URL for the Ganymede Dep't of Intellectual Property?

    1. Re:My WinMP wants lic authority for Ganymede song by Magic+Thread · · Score: 0, Troll

      You should use Linux!

      Microsoft sucks!

  19. $1.5 billion well spent by bshroyer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There's also a bit of dissention currently about the decision to crash the probe. Apparently, there's enough plutonium on board (34 pounds!) that we'll be donating to the Jovian depths.

    I'm not sure I like that idea.

    --
    The cure for cancer is coming: Reovirus
    1. Re:$1.5 billion well spent by slovin8 · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yes, I'm sure we don't want to pollute Jupiter and its surronding space with harmful gamarays and neutrinos!

    2. Re:$1.5 billion well spent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er ... you do realize that the same argument could be applied w.r.t. Earth, right?

    3. Re:$1.5 billion well spent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. The United States is the first (and only) to use nuclear weapons on a foreign enemy.. twice.. and now is the first to nuke another planet? Sweet.

    4. Re:$1.5 billion well spent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's an interesting question, and an interesting responsibility (is it ok to end a plutonium-powered probe into orbit around another planet? Even if the answer is "yes", the question needs asking each time). Robert Forward's book

      • The Flight of the Dragonfly
      describes an evolved culture of intelligent gaseous creatures living in a gas giant planet. It is awfully big, though, so perhaps they'll forgive us. And of course if it accidentally crashed into Europa we'd be really screwed, so it's the lesser of two evils (or more accurately the least of a set of five or more).

      As a side note, between that and

      • Dragon's Egg
      /
      • Starquake
      , Forward did the best job I've ever seen of describing really alien aliens, with their own thoughts and societies to boot (are there any comparable books by other authors?). Ironic because his handling of human dialogue and situations was awkward as hell in those books. ;)
    5. Re:$1.5 billion well spent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gah, I'm dumb. Yes, I really do know what the UL tag is. Need more caffeine.

    6. Re:$1.5 billion well spent by Abcd1234 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Holy crap. That is the dumbest thing I've ever read. First, Jupiter is HUGE. I mean *really* huge. Bigger than you can conceive! To be more specific, Jupiter is around 4.18591697 x 10^27 pounds (thank you Google Calculator). Yes, that's 4185916970000000000000000000 pounds for you folks that don't understand scientific notation.

      Now, Nasa is planning on plunging 34 pounds of Plutonium into the planet. That's 3.4 * 10^1 pounds. Hmm... 10^1 versus 10^27. Do I need to say more? I mean... honestly, this is friggin' ridiculous!

    7. Re:$1.5 billion well spent by ToKsUri · · Score: 1

      and whats that for us who dont understand 'pound notation' ?

    8. Re:$1.5 billion well spent by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Heh, I originally had the figured in kilos, but I figured the 'mericans would have an easier time of I converted. In kilos, we have:

      ~1.5 x 10^1 kg of Plutonium versus a Jovian mass of 1.8987 x 10^27 kg.

    9. Re:$1.5 billion well spent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Not that I don't agree, but it's interesting to note the possibility that there may be *no* plutonium or other heavy elements whatsoever within the gas giant planets - not one atom. So there might be infinitely more next month.

      Truth is, we don't know what will happen. "Nothing" seems like a statistical certainty (and is my bet), but it's only a guess in the end. We monkeys do monkey around a lot with things we don't fully understand, after all.

    10. Re:$1.5 billion well spent by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      Well, I think the grandparent poster is more concerned about the loss of 34 perfectly good pounds of plutonium, which could have been put to better use.

      Or maybe he's just worried about the native Jupiterians getting WMD :)

    11. Re:$1.5 billion well spent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jovian's not Jupiterians.

    12. Re:$1.5 billion well spent by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1
      Not that I don't agree, but it's interesting to note the possibility that there may be *no* plutonium or other heavy elements whatsoever within the gas giant planets - not one atom. So there might be infinitely more next month.

      Given that Jupiter is the largest gravitational vacuum cleaner in the solar system aside from the sun itself, that is highly unlikely. I'm sure that in 4 billion years of sucking up copious quantities of asteroids, comets, space dust, stray moons and other assorted junk, that far more than 34 pounds of highly toxic heavy metal isotopes have been mixed in.

      Jupiter probably does only contain trace amounts of plutonium because it has no naturally stable isotopes. Any plutonium that Jupiter does have now is probably due to things like recent chance encounters between uranium atoms and stray neutrons. Howver, the current amount is certainly not zero.

      Within a few thousand years all of the space probe's plutonium will have transformed into other elements, so Jupiter's actual plutonium content will return to exactly what it is today.

    13. Re:$1.5 billion well spent by solarrhino · · Score: 1
      (are there any comparable books by other authors?)

      I couldn't really say, as I haven't read Forward. I remember a friend claiming that H. Beam Piper wrote the most believable aliens she'd ever encountered. Personally, I think Stanislaw Lem's depictions of aliens are the most likely - completely unknowable, and unavoidably (and usually fatally) incompatible.

      --
      "Lord, grant that I may always be right, for Thou knowest that I am hard to turn" -- A Scots-Irish prayer
    14. Re:$1.5 billion well spent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that's a good point. Maybe we should charge the Jovians for it. Or better still, get them dependent on it for power, then jack up the rates. It's perfect if they don't have any of their own. The first space probe is always free.

    15. Re:$1.5 billion well spent by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Apparently, there's enough plutonium on board (34 pounds!) that we'll be donating to the Jovian depths."

      And you assume there's no plutonium down there already because...?

      I mean, it's not like the plutonium has a chance in hell of hitting something solid (or even liquid) inside of Jupiter as one big chunk, what with Jupiter's vicious, constant winds...

    16. Re:$1.5 billion well spent by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

      Because it doesn't exist a lot in the nature. It is a man-made substance. You get it by fissioning uranium and also plutonium has an short half-life (only 24 thousand years). Compare it to Uranium (uranium-235: 713,000,000 years, uranium-238: 4500,000,000 years.).

    17. Re:$1.5 billion well spent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As the grandparent of this post points out, there is likely to be plenty of plutonium within Jupiter somewhere. Uranium is a natural substance and Jupiter likely has _SOME_ in its core (and by 'some' I mean a incredibly massive amount by our standards). Since all the uranium is probably clumped together, being gas giant and all, it's extremely likely that some of it has fused (not fissioned as you say) into plutonium. And again, by 'some' I mean an absolutely massive amount. 30-odd pounds are no big deal.

      Now... that said... there is an interesting problem if gaseous life exists on Jupiter that we don't yet comprehend. We could, maybe, be damaging that life by our actions and that's NOT ok. But since it's the lesser of two evils, the other being risking an impact on Europa where we believe there is one of the highest probabilities of life of the other bodies in our solar system, it's probably the right decision to make.

      Besides, anyone who believes that the spacecraft won't be vaproized before it even hits a solid or liquid object probably needs to reexamine what we do and don't know about Jupiter.

    18. Re:$1.5 billion well spent by ramk13 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also, engineers are trained to downplay risks. They consider a risk of one in a million insignificant. But to a layperson who has seen the results of thousands of environmental accidents where the risk was supposedly very low, one in a million seems quite possible.

      That is the one the stupidest views on 'risk' I've heard. Risk is risk. One in a million IS low! 'results of thousands of environmental accidents' What the hell is he talking about it? It doesn't matter how many accidents you've seen, it matters how many accidents you seen compared to the number of things you've tried. *That* is an esitmation of risk. I don't understand the point this guy is trying to make.

      Even worse:

      Of course, how can we get anyone to be concerned about the possible harmful effects of dumping our radioactive waste on other worlds when modern science condones illness, cancer, and even deaths if they advance a technology or turn a profit. Our culture has made it OK to release a drug if the side effects "only" kill two percent of the users under certain circumstances.
      (idealist alarm rings) There is no such thing as a world without risk. If your risk of dying in a car accident is WAY more than one in a million, but does that mean we should outlaw driving?? Does this person not get in their car? You trade some level of risk to _actually_ do something.

      On top of this, what does the guy advocate we do? The plutonium has to go somewhere. Do you store enough fuel to launch it out of the solar system? Isn't that still 'pollution?' I'm sorry but the basis for the argument is a *little* weak.

      Cool link from an insurance company that shows different levels of risk.

    19. Re:$1.5 billion well spent by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      Well, there wont be any plutonium because plutonium has no isotope with 10^8 year decay time. everything is already decayed.
      But im totally positive that there are billions of tons of uranium in jupiter....

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    20. Re:$1.5 billion well spent by Fenris+Ulf · · Score: 1
      The Flight of the Dragonfly describes an evolved culture of intelligent gaseous creatures living in a gas giant planet
      No, that was Saturn Rukh. Flight of the Dragonfly was about intelligent amorphous creatures living on the ocean of a roche world. (You usually find FotD in the extended form called "Rocheworld").
    21. Re:$1.5 billion well spent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah! Thanks for reminding me. I've never read the extended version - read it a loooong time ago.

      I credit that book with helping me understand infinity. Also Dragon's Egg with helping me understand the concept of number (mainly, that it's a concept, ie. artificial, and the entirety of mathematics springs forth from it in a marvel of pure self-consistency...which is both a good thing and a bad thing ;).

    22. Re:$1.5 billion well spent by voidware · · Score: 1

      Can a planet actually have weight? I figured it would just have mass?

    23. Re:$1.5 billion well spent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forward's are kind of like that, actually (so different as to be unfathomable), but his simulation of contact is less pessimistic. He employs the old saw about mathematics being a universal language to give his human characters a way to relate to the alien ones. I'm not sure I agree with that oft-used scifi premise - math is pure abstraction, to be sure, but our development of it procedes from human experience. Because it has no reality it also has no constraints, so there would be an infinity of different kinds of mathematics. It may be that alien thinkers use math that's even more alien to us than their habit of eating pure energy or spontaneously splitting into component atoms.

      I'll look into Piper.

    24. Re:$1.5 billion well spent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference is more semantic than real. Weight is with respect to something else. Mass is inherent. If you have mass and there's another body to interact with, you have weight.

      Think of this; if a planet didn't have weight, what would keep it in orbit around a star?

    25. Re:$1.5 billion well spent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't uranium have found its way to the "bottom" of the planetary accretion disk? That is, wouldn't it pretty much be all in Mercury, Venus, the Earth and Mars? I figured the gas giants were gas because they were basically composed of the flotsam of the early solar system. Or am I way off base?

      I can see Jupiter being a big vacuum cleaner, but I'm not sure how much uranium is flinging around the solar system. Iron and nickel, sure. Even then, I'd probably expect that stuff to end up whizzing around Jupiter and the other gas giants rather than falling into them, and accumulating to create those nice big rocky moons (or icy rings).

    26. Re:$1.5 billion well spent by MarcQuadra · · Score: 1

      And what ELSE would you have done with it? Seriously, almost every device that goes into space has a radioactive component in it somewhere, and many come back to earth, people need to get their heads around the idea that there's radioactive stuff in all our soil, and it's mostly naturally occuring.

      Coal power puts tons of naurally occuring uranium into the air we all breathe every day. Now I'm not saying we should stop caring, but we have to understand that radioactive isotopes are all over the place and a little extra 'sprinkling' isn't really that dangerous, especially on a planet half way across the solar system.

      --
      "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
    27. Re:$1.5 billion well spent by Nightpaw · · Score: 0, Redundant

      You're a dick.

    28. Re:$1.5 billion well spent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A ratio is by definition unitless.

    29. Re:$1.5 billion well spent by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      The problem isn't have 34 pounds of fissionables. The problem is having 34 pounds of fissionables in one nice big lump, then subjecting it to massive pressure, hence starting an uncontrolled nuclear reaction.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    30. Re:$1.5 billion well spent by Josh+Booth · · Score: 1

      No there's not, there's only 32 lb. on board. I lived near the lauch site for a while and...

      Knock Knock!!!
      Crash! [door falling to the ground]

      Don't Move!!

      Hey, who are you guuy pft mft ffm!!
      fda#R#$543 NO CARRIER

    31. Re:$1.5 billion well spent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so far i've heard various weights mentioned for the mass of plutonium: 43kg, 39 kg, and 32kg.

      Does anyone know about the possibility of a fissile reaction being triggered -is there sufficient mass & pressure?

      As i understand, a fissile reaction is necessary for a fusion reaction. it has been pointed out to me that Jupiter is over 80% hydrogen. I don't want to be alarmist, fortunately we've sunk satellites into gravity wells before and fussion has never happened. i'm just wondering if a fissile reaction will occur.

    32. Re:$1.5 billion well spent by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that might set off an explosion that would be perhaps one thousandth of one percent as powerful as the explosions that happened when comet Shoemaker-Levy crashed into Jupiter a couple of years ago. What a catastrophe!

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    33. Re:$1.5 billion well spent by Scott+Carnahan · · Score: 1

      Weight is a measure of force (usually the amount necessary to keep an object from falling through the ground). Mass is a measure of the amount of matter in an object. They are fundamentally different.

      Think of this; if a planet didn't have weight, what would keep it in orbit around a star?

      Planets don't have weight - the mass of the star bends spacetime around it so that the planet's geodesic appears circular. In the planet's frame, it is essentially following a straight line.

      --
      "Your notation sucks!" -- Serge Lang (1927-2005)
    34. Re:$1.5 billion well spent by Idarubicin · · Score: 1
      I'm not sure I like that idea.

      Well, where do you suggest that we put Galileo? It doesn't have the ability to soft land anwhere in the Jovian system, and it lacks the propellant to get out of Jupiter's gravity well.

      The decision to deliberately deorbit Galileo and drop it on Jupiter was made so that Galileo wouldn't make an uncontrolled landing (crash) on Europa--potentially contaminating the only other liquid water in the solar system with Earth life.

      It seems the best option. As other posters have noted, the Jovian atmosphere is big. The probe will be sterilized by heat from drag as it descends, and its plutonium will be dispersed. Yes, one could suggest that we're not being the best of neighbours, but this doesn't seem like an unreasonable choice to make. Rough calculation--forty pounds of plutonium evenly distributed through Jupiter's mass corresponds to less than one extra atom of plutonium for every ten tons of Jupiter... There's a natural background level of radioactivity within Jupiter's atmosphere, and we won't perceptibly affect that.

      Last, recall that Jupiter took a fully-fledged comet impact a few years ago and didn't blink.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    35. Re:$1.5 billion well spent by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Ah, but was the energy released by said comet impact of the type to start a fission reaction?

      I don't think there's anything to worry about either, myself.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    36. Re:$1.5 billion well spent by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it would. But you have to take into account the mass of jupiter. Even if he has only a 1% of the uranium density of the earth, it still translates to a giant amount.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    37. Re:$1.5 billion well spent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a dick.

      I find it funny that it got moderated Redundant. Offtopic, flamebait, or troll I could have understood. But redundant? The moderator makes it sound like Nightpaw was stating something everybody knew anyway. I guess that is not the intention.

    38. Re:$1.5 billion well spent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Makes my point. The guy is clearly a dick.

      Nightpaw

    39. Re:$1.5 billion well spent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy is clearly a dick.

      So are you.

  20. colonization by gregeth · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From the article: "Obliteration is precisely what nasa intends for the spacecraft. The reason is that Galileo may still harbor some signs of life on Earth: microorganisms that have survived since its launch from the Kennedy Space Center, in Florida, in 1989. If the orbiter were left to circle Jupiter after running out of propellant (barring an intervention, this would likely happen within a year), it might eventually crash into Europa, one of Jupiter's large moons. In 1996, Galileo conducted the first of eight close flybys of Europa, producing breathtaking pictures of its surface, which suggested that the moon has an immense ocean hidden beneath its frozen crust. These images have led to vociferous scientific debate about the prospects for life there; as a result, nasa officials decided that it was necessary to avoid the possibility of seeding Europa with alien life-forms." But I always thought it would be great to colonize another planet with earth's bacteria. :) But really, wouldn't doing something like that possibly help to set the stage (a ways off) in the future, when we can send a manned crew out towards Jupiter. Just think if we sent hundreds of probes containing simple life like bacteria, maybe we could help to create a more hospitable place. Of course, then you have to worry about the pesky part about it being mostly ocean(frozen nonetheless).

    1. Re:colonization by Drachemorder · · Score: 1

      If you contaminate Europa with Earth organisms, and later send a probe to Europa to attempt to detect signs of life, you might detect the contaminants and mistake them for alien life. And then of course you have the whole "Prime Directive" debate: do we want to alter the course of development of whatever alien life there may be?

  21. Eyes for an eye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Ironically, Galileo Galilei spent his own last eight years under close house arrest. To pile on the irony, he spent the last five of them blind, in part because he was prevented from consulting a doctor. Maybe these past eight years of clear vision can help make up for that in a small way. But I doubt it.

    1. Re:Eyes for an eye by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
      Ironically, Galileo Galilei spent his own last eight years under close house arrest.

      This is referenced at the end of the New Yorker article:

      "Galileo Galilei only got house arrest by his sponsor the Roman Catholic Church for discovering things they didn't want to be true, whereas our Project Galileo gets a death sentence from nasa for its greatest discovery: the prospect of life on Europa."
      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
  22. Re:second post by CrazyGringo · · Score: 0

    Galileo, Galileo, will you do the fandango?

  23. Re:naww by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

    geez. what a complment, thanks! :-)

    --
    - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
  24. THANK GOD! by happyhippy · · Score: 5, Funny

    One less satellite to gain intelligence and come back looking for its creator.

    1. Re:THANK GOD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anybody but me understand this reference?

      Vger, Decker, Kirk Unit... its all good!

    2. Re:THANK GOD! by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Of course there is... wait, there are people who *don't* understand this reference? Damn... I am getting old. :)

    3. Re:THANK GOD! by happyhippy · · Score: 1

      KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNN!

    4. Re:THANK GOD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      V'ger? You young whippersnapper. I was thinking of Nomad.

    5. Re:THANK GOD! by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      That's pretty much what I was thinking.
      Anyone who's into startrek of any kinda has at least watched the first 3 movies...

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    6. Re:THANK GOD! by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Actually, Nomad wasn't trying to find it's creator in that episode... it wa trying to sterilize "error", or something like that.

    7. Re:THANK GOD! by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      Resistance is fubar. All your base will be laminated!

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
  25. Transcipt from last Galileo probe by andy666 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here is the transcript of the last Galileo probe to "land on" Jupiter:

    Time Event
    ________ _____
    11:04 a.m. Coast timer initiates probe operation
    12:46 p.m. Orbiter flyby of Io (~1000 km) (No imaging or spectral data collected)
    2:04 p.m. Energetic Particles Investigation (EPI) begins measuring trapped radiation in a region previously unexplored.
    5:04 p.m. Probe entry and data relay
    5:05:52 p.m. Pilot parachute deployed
    5:05:54 p.m. Main Parachute deployed
    5:06:02 p.m. Deceleration module jettisoned
    5:06:06 p.m. Direct scientific measurements begin
    5:06:15 p.m. Radio transmission to orbiter begins
    ~5:08 p.m. Visible cloud tops of Jupiter reached
    5:12 p.m. Atmospheric pressure the same as Earth's sea-level pressure
    5:17 p.m. Second major cloud deck is encountered (uncertain)
    5:28 p.m. Water clouds entered (uncertain)
    5:34 p.m. Atmospheric temperature equal to room temperature on Earth
    5:46 p.m. Probe enters twilight
    6:04 p.m. End of baseline mission. Probe may cease to operate due to lack of battery power, attenuation of signal due to atmosphere, or being crushed.
    6:19 p.m. Orbiter ceases to receive probe data (if still transmitting)
    7:27 p.m. Ignition of Galileo main engine (49 minute duration) to insert into Jovian orbit

    1. Re:Transcipt from last Galileo probe by Bowie+J.+Poag · · Score: 1



      7:28 p.m. Cocktails will be served on the observation deck, followed by a live performance from Las Vegas singing sensation Wayne Newton.

      8:28 p.m. Happy Hour (all drinks $2)

      9:28 p.m. Last Call

      10:28 p.m. Say What Karaoke

      --
      Bowie J. Poag

    2. Re:Transcipt from last Galileo probe by bj8rn · · Score: 1

      11:59 p.m. (one minute before collision) The Second Coming of the Great Prophet Zarquon

      --
      Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
    3. Re:Transcipt from last Galileo probe by cactopus · · Score: 1

      Why do I start to get the feeling that Cloud City could be a reality.... atmo pressure of earth at sea-level.... room temperature... hmmm so we have to keep it between 5:34 PM and 5:12 PM... now we just have to find Billy Dee Williams and elect him governor in a manner similar to the Gray Davis deal ...

      MMMm Smooth Cloud Liquor

    4. Re:Transcipt from last Galileo probe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although you are visibly karma whoring, that's still the coolest thing I've read all day. Cheers.

  26. Parent is a copy&paste troll, mod down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was originally said here.

  27. probes die, shuttles die quicker by dAzED1 · · Score: 1

    every so often we send a shuttle up, and sometimes it explodes/etc. Why can't we just send some more probes like this? The whole crap with sending people up just doesn't work - we're not getting any better at it. We should instead just send unmanned flights. Imagine the cost savings.

    Yeah, the ISS is a great dream...but...what's the point? Zero gravity labs can be mimiced here on earth far cheaper and safer. Sending one shuttle up has an extremely HUGE environmental impact. In mere moments a search brought up some decent points about further problems/inefficiencies. The technology of today is, in theory, much higher than what we had years and years ago. Its time we took our current system, did something like sell it to the chinese (they'll get it anyway, we might as well make the money), and build something with technology newer than 30 years ago. They still use 386 cpu's in the damn thing. Its time to put the entire fleet to rest, and stop paying to maintain it. Just because the cold war is over doesn't mean we don't need to do more than send people up and watch them explode - we need to still push the envelope.

    1. Re:probes die, shuttles die quicker by dave420 · · Score: 1
      Zero gravity labs can be mimiced here on earth...

      Sure, but for only about 40 seconds at a time. That's not very useful if you want to study something in zero-gravity for more than 40 seconds, say something growing, or an animal doing something.

      Also remember that just because a scientific experiment is being performed doesn't automatically require humans present. The Beagle2 probe, which will land on Mars later this year, contains lots of scientific equipment for in-situ analysis.

      Even so, NASA needs people in space. Science almost demands it. Scientists can do a lot up there. However, sending people to space as political leverage or to make good TV footage is a serious mis-use of technology, which could have been used to further humanity.

    2. Re:probes die, shuttles die quicker by rascalb · · Score: 1

      "Shuttles die quicker"? You forget that in the entire history of NASA, there have only been 17 fatalities. It is true that 14 of them were on shuttles, but I think that just came from not having a mission and/or funding. During the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo era, NASA had a clear mission and plenty of money to do it. Now, or at least before the Columbia incident, NASA was basically told, "Go do small stuff, as long as it is cheap." It was amazing the amount of begging that NASA had to do in order to get the money to take part in the ISS. What NASA needs is to finally retire the Space Shuttle, as they were supposed to do a while ago, but also hurry up and make that space plane that they have been talking about to shuttle people to and from the ISS, and then build/assemble future large manned spacecraft up there for a return to the moon, and eventually Mars.

      --
      "Nothing is impossible to someone who is impervious to reason."
    3. Re:probes die, shuttles die quicker by rpj1288 · · Score: 1

      sure, there's problems with the shuttle. we do need a new one. but we cant just give up on manned space flight. What if the Wright brother's had given up on building a flying machine because it was too risky? Everything's risky. You can just sit at home and wait to die of age, or you can get out there and do something worthwhile. I might get killed doing something worthwhile, but hey, I'd rather die doing something than sitting at home waiting for death to come. Astronaughts know the risks. They know its dangerous. The dead would not want us to give up manned space flight.

      --
      Marvin knew: "Think of a number, any number..."
    4. Re:probes die, shuttles die quicker by d3am0n · · Score: 1

      we need to leave, what's the point of sending up unmanned probes to look at what where we'll never go? We send up people to test out technologies and feasabilities of sending up people and colonizations of extra terestrail bodies. Plus its a sighn, possibly the greatest sighn of our species, the pinicle of our acheivements that we can physically leave this planet at will. We have a culture that is interested in utility, but utility without purpose is worthless. We need to goto space because it is our purpose and goal, and we have worked on everything so hard for so long, we died to be there among the stars.

  28. Re:naww by MikeCapone · · Score: 1

    I'm adding you to my friend-list :)

  29. Plutonium Pollution by MinutiaeMan · · Score: 1

    Yeah -- someday, when we start harvesting diamonds from the erstwhile core of Jupiter, some of it will be radioactive with all that plutonium we dumped in!

    1. Re:Plutonium Pollution by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "someday, when we start harvesting diamonds from the erstwhile core of Jupiter"

      Wouldn't it just be cheaper to make our own?

  30. Communications potential of space probes? by -tji · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In other similar stories, they always mention the small trickle of data that these crafts can return. I always wonder if this represents some physical limitations, or just the state of technology at the time of the probe. If they had more communications potential, they could return all kinds of data, images, even video. Anyone know of background info on space communications?

    How do the new probes compare to these old ones in terms of communications capabilties? What sort of xfer rates can new ones support?

    What are the limiting factors in space communications? Is it the power of the transmission, under the power limitations of the craft?

    1. Re:Communications potential of space probes? by isomeme · · Score: 1

      Galileo's terrible data rate is due to a failure to fully deploy its main (high-gain) antenna early in the mission (apparently a rib stuck on the umbrella-like unfolding dish). As a result, all probe communication has been done through the backup low-gain antenna. It's really astonishing that they've done as much with Galileo as they have; many people initially considered the loss of the HGA a mission-killer.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
    2. Re:Communications potential of space probes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Every form of communications, from talking to someone in the next cubical to receiving pictures from interplanetary space probes, is bound by Shannon's Theorem, which describes the relationship between a channel's bandwidth and signal-to-noise ratio and how much information you can communicate on that channel.

      Galileo was equipped with a high-bandwidth communications link capable of doing a much better job with image transmission, but its antenna failed to deploy. Because higher-bandwidth channels have a higher noise floor, a consequence of Shannon's Theorem is that higher-bandwidth wireless communications requires higher effective radiated power. Without the high-gain antenna, the normal image-transmission link was useless. As a result, the project engineers had to reconfigure a low-power, low-bandwidth auxiliary link to do the same job.

      It was actually really cool (and really lucky) that they could do that at all.

    3. Re:Communications potential of space probes? by JamesGoldman · · Score: 1

      A bit of both. The rate is proportional to the distance over which it has to be transmitted. The last communication from Voyager 2, for example, had a signal power in the microwatt range by the time it reached the Earth and a data rate in the order of a few bytes per minute. Of course, by then it was actually leaving the solar system. Jupiter is much closer in, but still is very far away. I also suspect that the enormous radiation around the planet will play a part.

      Following improvements in technology, though, new equipment does start with a higher trasmission rate. The images from Mars Pathfinder were transmitted an order of magnitude faster than those from Viking, if memory serves.

    4. Re:Communications potential of space probes? by el-spectre · · Score: 1

      I would imagine that it is a combination of technology of the day, long wavelengths needed and low power to generate them.

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    5. Re:Communications potential of space probes? by ilyag · · Score: 1

      As far as I understand, the main antenna of the probe simply jammed when opening. So, NASA had to use some secondary antenna that was never designed for communication with Earth. Hence 120 bits/second.

    6. Re:Communications potential of space probes? by vondo · · Score: 1
      As I recall, Galileo had a failure of an antenna which severely limited its data rate. But, yes, the data rates are not advancing very fast. Probably a power budget issue. This talk (beware, 20 MB) has a plot (page 3) showing the growth of bandwidth b/t Earth and Jupiter. In the 80's-90's there was a real plateu. Now it is rising again, but nowhere near as fast as terrestrial networking.

      Basically (also from this talk) what NASA is planning is to increase the CPU power of probes and to do more of the data analysis on the probe sending back higher level, more refined data. (This is possible since the current commercial electronics are intrinsically radiation resistant.)

    7. Re:Communications potential of space probes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe one of the main problems is large enough power supply. RTG Generators of a size feasible to mount to a space probe just can't provide enough Wattage to supply a high bandwidth transmission system. I was under the impression that was one of the big issues the Prometheus nuclear space iniative was looking to address.

    8. Re:Communications potential of space probes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are the limiting factors in space communications? Is it the power of the transmission, under the power limitations of the craft?

      In a word, yes. All of the other factors are really secondary. Take a look at how much effort geeks waste on attempting to get an 802.11b WiFi signal to go a whole mile. Then contemplate the fact that Jupiter is five hundred million times farther away. And that you are working against an inverse-square law for your radiated power, not simply a linear one, so it's really 250 thousand trillion times as difficult.

      If you have a power supply that puts out a given amount of power, the faster you signal, the less energy there will be in each bit. One bit per second gets one second's worth of power in that bit. 1 Mbps gets one millionth of that power in each bit. The less energy per bit, the harder it is to pick it out from noise. The two things you can do are to transmit more slowly, or to put more total power into the transmission*.

      The reason Galileo has plutonium dioxide (not raw plutonium metal) on board is to provide heat. The stuff is naturally warm. That heat is converted into electricity for power. It's not a nuclear reactor; it's an "RTG", for Radioisotope Thermal Generator. The guys at NASA don't use these things because they're Dr. Evil; they use them because they need power in a compact, energy-dense, low-maintenance, and durable form.

      * There's also forward error correction. NASA makes heavy use of error-correcting codes, which can be viewed as having a "coding gain" that is effectively the same as putting more power into the useful bits, whether by slower transmission or more powerful transmitters. And the reason NASA uses those big radio telescope dishes in the Deep Space Network for receivers is that those are the most sensitive and lowest-noise receiving antennas we can build, so the tiny, tiny signals from space probes don't have as much noise to contend with.

    9. Re:Communications potential of space probes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, it's actually really inept that for a billion dollars they can't produce a working probe. ( = probe that meets its high-level specifications). We're not talking a failed-to-deploy antenna on 2% of the units (a pretty high defective rate). We're talking that there's only ONE unit, they have a billion 70s dollars to produce it, and they can't make it work to spec. That's incompetence.

    10. Re:Communications potential of space probes? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      no, it's actually really inept that for a billion dollars they can't produce a working probe.

      IIRC, they concluded that the problem was likely due to the waiting time for launch due to the first shuttle disaster backlogging launches to years. The lubricant hardened over time.

    11. Re:Communications potential of space probes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These is the kind of shit that makes me want to listen just a little to people who want to privatize shit. You don't hear private companies building a billion-dollar anything that blows up/falls into Mars because of a unit-of-measurement misunderstanding/fails in part to deploy because it wasn't brought back up to par after being shelved for awhile/burns up 7 Americans in the stratosphere.

      The financial liability would be huge, and such kinds of companies watch their asses.

      If NASA were a private company, it wouldn't dare consider sending up any of the current generation space shuttles manned one single time more.

      However as it stands, it does.

      But because it's not, it can be incompetent.

    12. Re:Communications potential of space probes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That's 'cos you don't hear about private companies launching Mars probes.

      You know, the private sector seems to be more than capable of making cock-ups that cause millions of dollars worth of damage. Every trunk line cut, for example.

    13. Re:Communications potential of space probes? by kgp · · Score: 1
      The design data rate for Galileo with the high-gain antenna was 134 kiloBIT per second. The NYer fact checkers missed the 8x larger claim for 134kbyte/s rate in the article :-)

      For the more semi-technical details see this article

      Most NASA PR contained the following paragraph:

      Galileo's high-gain antenna was to have provided a 134- kilobit-per-second real-time data rate from Jupiter. Had no improvements been made in the Deep Space Network, only a 10-bit per second data rate would have been possible with Galileo's small low-gain antenna for most of the mission. With these improvements, however, along with the changes made on the spacecraft, further increase the downlinked data to an effective rate of 1,000 bits per second.


      RTF New Yorker article for the full story of the software effort that saved Galileo.
  31. Re:naww by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

    neat i'll do the same

    --
    - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
  32. Duh by I'm+Galileo · · Score: 1

    Dude, I did a lot of other stuff too. People just don't appreciate enough :(

    1. Re:Duh by I'm+Galileo · · Score: 1

      I discovered that your satellite you call 'Moon' has phases for example. Then NASA go and name some lameass vehicle with sticks sticking out with my name. Then they use up my name of centuries of planned achievements.. I couldn't trademark it you know. Where's a SCO lawyer when I need one?

  33. WRONG. by StewedSquirrel · · Score: 1

    Actually, if you will notice, this post came BEFORE the other one. That leads me to conclude that the OTHER one is copied.

    Stewey

    --
    There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
    1. Re:WRONG. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Foolish Earthling. Totally unprepared for the effects of time travel.

  34. Re:naww by MikeCapone · · Score: 1

    Haha. Great.

    Will you marry me?

    :D

  35. Re:Government sponsored hoohaw by bj8rn · · Score: 1
    Is this patriotism, or a waste of time?

    It's patriotism, as true patriotism (and true belief) can only be external, on the outside. The recital is a ritual. It's not directed at you who recites it but at the state - you show the state that you are patriotic and loyal to it, even if you actually don't believe it (you just do it because you're told to - "the law is the law"). The state knows, of course, that you don't actually mean what you say, but it's always wise to check those who either don't recite the 'prayer' or are a bit too eager (the true believers are always the ones who are suspicious).

    --
    Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
  36. Why not send it back to Earth? by Bowie+J.+Poag · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Here's a thought. ...Send it back to Earth, send a Shuttle up there, grab it, return it to Earth, and analyze it for signs of life.

    Having spent 10+ years floating around, it might have picked up a thing or two, and might lend some creedence to the panspermia thoery of how life started on Earth. If space is "dirty" with life, surely some of it would have clung to Galileo...?

    Other than being massively radioactive, and something that would piss alot of hippies off if we actually DID bring it home, it would make for good science.

    --
    Bowie J. Poag

    1. Re:Why not send it back to Earth? by Phanatic1a · · Score: 2, Informative

      Send it back to Earth

      Um...how? That would require a truly ridiculous amount of delta-vee, and it's pretty much out of gas.

    2. Re:Why not send it back to Earth? by LMCBoy · · Score: 1

      It doesn't have the fuel to make the return trip to Earth (much less fuel for braking into Earth orbit once it got back here!)

      It would be really cool to see it in the Air & Space Museum, though. Well, except for all the latent radiation.

      --
      Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
    3. Re:Why not send it back to Earth? by Ignis+Flatus · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, that's brilliant. The only human life left on the planet will be colicky babies and Sterno-drinking winos.

    4. Re:Why not send it back to Earth? by Bowie+J.+Poag · · Score: 1


      Huuuuuge longshot, feel free to shoot it down:

      Really, really intricate slingshotting. Jupiter has enough moons that, concievably, you could just whip that sucker around until you hit a suitable trajectory to make it back to Earth.

      It would take a shitload of calculus, and hundreds of years, but... Hey, got a better idea? :)

      --
      Bowie J. Poag

    5. Re:Why not send it back to Earth? by Bowie+J.+Poag · · Score: 1

      But thats how Earth is now, anyway. :)

      --
      Bowie J. Poag

    6. Re:Why not send it back to Earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're going to have enough problems when Voyager comes back.

    7. Re:Why not send it back to Earth? by Phanatic1a · · Score: 1

      I doubt it. It's very deep in a biiig gravity well right now; the "suitable trajectory" probably does not exist.

    8. Re:Why not send it back to Earth? by RasputinAXP · · Score: 1

      Karma sacrifice time:

      Right, except for the fact that it would never be able to escape from the Jovian system, let alone get back here?

    9. Re:Why not send it back to Earth? by DasBub · · Score: 1

      Unlike most people here, I actually got the reference.

      I read your book you magnificent science-fiction-writing bastard!

    10. Re:Why not send it back to Earth? by beebware · · Score: 1

      Well, it took a strain, but I managed to get the reference as well. 2010: Andromeda Two wasn't it? ;)

    11. Re:Why not send it back to Earth? by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Close, The Andromeda Strain

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    12. Re:Why not send it back to Earth? by Chairboy · · Score: 1

      This wouldn't work for the same reason that you using a shopping cart to do a 'slingshot' maneuver off earth wouldn't, not enough energy.

    13. Re:Why not send it back to Earth? by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Well, it took a strain, but I managed to get the reference as well. 2010: Andromeda Two wasn't it? ;)

      I'm an idiot, aren't I? :)

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    14. Re:Why not send it back to Earth? by MarcQuadra · · Score: 1

      We'll get right on it once we figure out how to hit my car with this hammer hard enough to get it to the west coast. Do you think they packed enough fuel in this thing to accelerate it back to earth and then slow it down to relative speeds for it to catch orbit? I think not. These things are engineered for one-way missions.

      --
      "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
  37. Good... by Cyno01 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I'm glad they decided to destroy this, unlike some of our other probes. We all know what happened when V'Ger came back, who knows what Galileo could have done.

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
    1. Re:Good... by SWTP_OS9 · · Score: 1

      You forgot about Andromida Strain... Oh that was a intentional grab of space bugs!

  38. Like that matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I doubt the DeBeers people will weep for the shortened lives of whatever slaves they send to mine Jovian diamonds.

  39. three decades? by Chromal · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's mission spanned three decades? Uhm. 1989-2003 = 14 years. Three decades = 30 years. Galileo was active is less than half of three decades, and its useful mission was even less of that. Yeah, 1989-2003 technically means 80's, 90's, and 00's, but calling that "three decades" is assinine, misleading, and vaguely dishonest.

    1. Re:three decades? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      11 years can span three decades. Just like at the north poll a singl step can span a dozen time zones. It doesn't mean shit, but then again, we're talking about something related to Carl "lots of zeros" Sagan. After the endless "imminent astroid threat" stories, no one believes anything that comes from the astronomer's anymore.

    2. Re:three decades? by el-spectre · · Score: 1

      hence 'spanned', not 'lasting', I guess. You gotta give the marketing folks a few breaks, they gotta make it sound good.

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    3. Re:three decades? by M1FCJ · · Score: 5, Informative

      Galileo was supposed to be launched from the shuttle. When Challenger happened, it delayed Galileo for years. It's design phase started in late seventies, building took the early eighties but it had to be put to storage until they could find the launch equipment. This delay is also one of the reasons why Galileo cost this much. It isn't cheap to build one of these babies, let alone the clean room storage area.

    4. Re:three decades? by WoTG · · Score: 1

      Yeah, my first thought was that I had suddenly aged by about a decade! I remember the launch was sometime during my primary school days... so the math didn't quite add up. Perhaps once R&D time is included it gets up to 3 decades (rounded up)?

    5. Re:three decades? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, yet another thing to thank the Shuttle for...

      loss of Skylab

      multi-year delay in launch of Galileo (which arguably caused the high-gain antenna failure)

      multi-year delay in launch of Hubble

      run-down of US expendable launcher capability

      ISS left half-finished and half-manned for goodness knows how long

      And of course the loss of fourteen astronauts, the only NASA astronauts to have been lossed during flight missions.

      I hope the thing never flies again...

  40. Mod troll down by Magic+Thread · · Score: 1

    Parent is not really Galileo, but a fake. Note the low UID. The real Galileo is this one.

  41. Nuke it from orbit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the only way to be sure!

  42. Re:Question Galileo couldn't answer by xenoandroid · · Score: 0

    You!

  43. speaking of replicas... by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

    "but I would rather have a replica of this space probe in schools/colleges than any number of sports trophies. The amount of hard work and dedication required to do things like this should inspire our youths, instead of their current role models" We could start a replica project for it, and make Galileo scooters to probe the neighbourhood! Hey, if people do it with the Star Trek Enterprise, so can we!! http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/03 0905/170/562a3.html&e=5&ncid=1756

  44. Re:naww by deglr6328 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    haha :)! dude, you better watch out, I like guys!

    --
    - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
  45. Last transmission from Galileo by Morlenden · · Score: 2, Funny

    E, si muove!

    --
    "Slapping people is fun." - Starla Grady
    1. Re:Last transmission from Galileo by snake_dad · · Score: 1

      Or "liberate tutemae ex inferis"

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
  46. Okay, I'll tell you. by MickLinux · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    60 km. Well, the 4 loop 1-miler on your race course in track and field is always called the "1600 m dash", so 1.6 km = 1 mile. Therefore, 6.4 km = 4 miles, so 64 km = 40 miles. 60 km is 1/16 less than 64, and 1/16=.0625, so multiply that by 10 (.625) and 4 (2.5), and we get that 60 km = 37.5 miles. Easy, when you think about it.

    That general method is actually quite useful in general. I've used it to convert liters to gallons (well, a pint's a pound, the world around, g = 32.2 ft/sec, 1 in = 2.54 cm, and water is 1.99 sl/ft^3), and other interesting calculations.

    Thing is, though, it's necessary to practice doing these things in your head.

    Otherwise, you won't be a geek.

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
  47. Re:Please tell me.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guess you'll never find out. Oh well.

    P.S. - the metric system isn't just used by the Euros. It's used by EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE FUCKING WORLD, other than you Reagonomics types. You might want to read up on that.

  48. Re:Question Galileo couldn't answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ironically enough, like a whole load of methane.

  49. nasa budget by sniggly · · Score: 1

    Why is there a space shuttle when launching stuff by rocket arguably is cheaper and when we can have such ubercool projects such as galileio! More money to the scientists, less to the politicians!!

    --
    Of those to whom much is given, much is required.
  50. Re:Please tell me.. by lysium · · Score: 2, Funny
    How on earth am I to interpret > 60 Km?

    That's 60,000 meters. Glad I could help.

    ========

    --
    Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
  51. Re:Oxygen != Life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you know another way to get an atmosphere with lots of molecular oxygen, we'd love to hear it.

    There was no oxygen atmosphere on Earth before life. Oxygen is the most abundant element here, but because it's so fond of oxidising things, you don't find it free unless some active process is constantly pumping it out. Like, green plants that need carbon to grow and found a handy source. Venus, for instance, has a carbon dioxide atmosphere, because there are no plants to convert it. Leave oxygen in the presence of most anything else and it'll all get bound up.

    So yes, seeing oxygen in a planetary atmosphere is a strong indicator of life there. Seeing it in a so-called planetary nebula, not so much, but that's a whole different environment (and it's notable that even that oxygen will be bound up well inside a million years).

  52. Passing down the technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So my question is: If this was done with 1970s technology .. Where are the instructions so I can make my own space probe today?

    Sure, I will need to colaborate with others for the initial push into space and replace some of the more exotic, expensive materials with homegrown equivalents.

    I could make a www.spaceprobeclub.com and people from around the world could pool resources to buy a launch (or make one) then our probes could play around and interact in some kind of drifting pool safely outside of a degrading orbit. Might make for a great hobby for a few years, months .. whatever we could manage.

  53. Re:Please tell me.. by Soul-Burn666 · · Score: 1

    Why don't you use the excellent program called "units"?

    console -> units

    (or if u'r on windows, then cygwin -> units)

    --
    ^_^
  54. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  55. trollish karma whoring by gregfortune · · Score: 1

    Sneaky, twisted little bugger. He copied an earlier comment and then "someone" anon posted to the earlier comment and said it was a copy-paste dup and pointed to this as the original.

    Check out the orignal and look at the first comment and then look at the post I'm replying to. Check the dates/times carefully.

    Also note that an anon is already posted in this thread pointing out the problem, but already is modded down. Hopefully my extra point allows a few more people to see what's going on...

  56. Re:naww by MikeCapone · · Score: 1

    haha :)! dude, you better watch out, I like guys!

    You've probably heard about this.

    If you happen to live in Canada near Ottawa, then maybe I'll consider asking my girlfriend if she doesn't mind ;P

  57. plasma wind? by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 2, Funny
    "(listen to Ganymede's eerie sounding plasma wind)"

    Anybody else listen to that and go "HEY! That sounds like seagulls!"

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  58. Damnit, beat me to it. by reality-bytes · · Score: 1

    I was going to point out that its Jovians too :)

    Frankly, I think people should have more respect; what would you feel like if someone crased 34lbs of plutonium into your back yard!

    --
    Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
  59. Real Last transmission from Galileo by brodin · · Score: 1

    My god, it's full of stars!

    or more topical

    My god, it's full of SARS!

  60. Dont underestimate 120 bits/s by Fellgus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "maximum data transfer rate of ~120 bits/s"

    Let see. 120 bits/sec for 8 years... thats about 28 gigabytes of data. Not that bad.

    --

    -larsch

  61. Watch Galileo yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Download and run celestia, the 3D space simulator. It has a pretty model of Galileo in it; fly over to it and you'll get a pretty good idea of its orbit and how things look from its point of view.

    1. Re:Watch Galileo yourself by 3dvideo · · Score: 1

      thanks! a very cool program! d

      --
      stereoscopic multimedia pioneer view3d.tv
  62. Re:naww by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop it, you two, you're bringing tears to my eyes.

  63. Re:underrated small probe vs. overrated expensive by vondo · · Score: 1
    Both Voyagers sent us a lot less data but the data was publicised much more energetically.

    Agreed, but the Pioneers and Voyagers were out there early and were sending back spectacular photographs, which is what the public gets enthused about. By the time Galileo was there, that'd been done several times, so the public was less interested. And they probably don't care at all about the geology of the moons or the make-up of the atmosphere.

    I don't know that we should expect anything else.

  64. That's my 40th birthday! by Frodo420024 · · Score: 1

    I'm turning 40 on Sept 21st. Does anyone know a more exact time for the plunge that I can make out a toast in memory of this wonderful machine?

    --
    I'm in a Unix state of mind.
    1. Re:That's my 40th birthday! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/countdown/

  65. Re:Please tell me.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    60km is around 300 furlongs, which is around 3000 chains, or almost 12000 rods, or about 12 and a half leagues, or 324 cables.

    Glad to be of help.

  66. Re:Time.... to die. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It's like this:
    I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. C-beams glittering in the dark by the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.

    One of the most mesmorizingly beautiful few sentences in cinema, IMHO. Especially how Rutger Hauer (Roy Batty) delivered it.

  67. Party! by ajs · · Score: 1

    Ok, when a dead president's birthday rolls around we all take a day off work and cook hot dogs in the back yard with the kids.

    Dammit, this is far more worthy! I say we all take a moment out of our lives on the 21st and declare it a one-time national engineering/geek/space/technologist holiday; get our our barbies; relax a bit and pour yourself a glass of bubbly and toast the good folks at NASA.

  68. Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NCAA conducted a two year study found that most schools only broke-even.

    Here's an article.

  69. Is manned flight really necessary ? by motox · · Score: 1

    Results like these pose once more the question if manned flights ( with the risk of human life loss ) are really -necessary- at this point in time, or if remote controls ( and "remote presence" ) technologies are enough to conduct the operations and experiments...

    1. Re:Is manned flight really necessary ? by Space+cowboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who cares about the risk to human life ? Seriously, Who ? Presumably the only people who *should* have a say in it (the astronauts) are happy about it, or they wouldn't have spent many years of their lives striving towards that goal!

      Anyone else worrying about it is just a busybody, stirring things up for their own agenda, in my not-so-humble opinion.

      For any great venture, there is normally great risk. The first people to do anything monumental (like, say, fly an aeroplane, break the sound barrier, climb the tallest mountain, dive to the deepest ocean depths, go to the moon, land on mars) almost always take their lives into their own hands. It's a risk/reward tradeoff.

      You have to respect that decision. You've certainly got no right to gainsay it solely on those terms. Now, if you'd said "it's too expensive", "what's the point ?", or "I don't think we should venture off our planet", you would have had an argument - a bad one (again, imnsho), but an argument nonetheless.

      Personally, I think you're just using the human-life thing as an emotional prop to argue against space exploration for other reasons. Hey, maybe I'm wrong...

      Simon.

      --
      Physicists get Hadrons!
    2. Re:Is manned flight really necessary ? by motox · · Score: 1

      I am not against space exploration at all, on the contrary think it is a necessary evolutionary step, I just thing that humans should be sent where really necessary, not as a "stunt" or where a remote controlled lab would prove more effective and/or economic. While i respect an astronaut "decision", i think the whole space exploration thing its of global importance and shouldnt depend on a single person's ( although respectable ) will.

  70. WHere are the animations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aren't there any animated videos/clips of the trips of these spacecraft as they glide through space and approach the planets? I would like to have them as screensavers...

  71. Like Tears in the Rain by murr · · Score: 1

    [...] it has caught snowflakes of Sulfur Dioxide as it flew through the plume of an erupting volcano on Io, snapped pictures of comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 as it smashed into Jupiter's atmosphere

    Yes, but what about the attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion and the C-beams glittering in the dark near the Tannhauser gate?

    Time to die

    1. Re:Like Tears in the Rain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As much as I was moved by the reference, it's up to *us* to insure that the data returned by the Galileo probe is not forgotten. Go to photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov, download the images, and display them, pass them around, etc. Then, to risk another space movie reference...

      Remember!

  72. Paging Hollywood by AlecC · · Score: 1

    If the probe had been a human instead of a lump of hardware, Hollywood would be fighting for the fim rights. Unwanted as a child, shuffled from unwilling carer to unwilling carer, finally sent onto its career by a distinctly second rate route. Suffered a dreadful injury as a result of it early-life neglect. But despite all this, triumphed against the odds and earned unimaginable scientific wealth. Now on its deathbead, surrounded by grieving friends and relatives.

    Which raise the question: where is its successor? Hollywood will need the sequel: "Galileo II: The return to Jupiter".

    But seriously, this one probe, seriously broken, seems to have done more good science than ISS is ever likely to do. And yet the successor has been canned for lack of funds. While not absoultely anti ISS, it does seem that value-for-money has got a bi distorted. Even on the emotional level, the human achievement of fixing and reprogramming the crippled spacecraft is something to be proud of.

    --
    Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
  73. second sun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/JUPFULLx.htm
    artic le summary- galileo may cause jupiter to ignite into second sun.
    granted, some scientists thought the first nuke test might ignite the earth's atmosphere at the time and this led to some heated (no pun intended) internal debate according to richard feynman. of course our atmosphere isn't made from hydrogen and helium, or contain seas of liquid or metallic hydrogen. a little 2010 anyone?

    1. Re:second sun? by falsification · · Score: 1

      No, it can't. Jupiter does not have enough mass to sustain a fusion reaction on its own. Therefore it will not become a sun. Period.

    2. Re:second sun? by Teancum · · Score: 1

      I would have to concur. There is no possible way that, assuming you detonate a 1 Gigaton (Naquada-enhanced warhead...aka Stargate SG-1) nuclear warhead intentionally in the compressed Hydrogen atmosphere of Jupiter, could you cause a sustained fusion reaction to occur. Let's assume for the moment that you are also going to use a strategy developed during the Cold War of Stair-stepping the warheads in unison to further enhance the effect by making a ring of gas that would be compressed by a ring of these 1 GTon weapons. Also assume that these weapons are built to withstand pressures equal to that of the bottom of the Marianas Trench (one of the deepest spots of any ocean in the world). That way the explosion takes place deep in the interior of Jupiter where Hydrogen is naturally compressed.

      A very small amount of the environmental hydrogen might possibly also get fused with the Tritium (the usual Hydrogen isotope used for thermonuclear weapons) in the nuclear explosion, but I think much more would go into the reaction that was installed with the original warhead. Imported all of the way from Earth. I doubt that even an explosion like this of (since I'm going totally off the wall here anyway) say 60-100 of these warheads going off simultaneously would even be detected on Earth with the Palomar telescope. Keep in mind that Jupiter is a very big place. The Giant Red Spot is larger than the entire Earth.

      The article in question discusses how the RTG is going to be causing an explosion. I think that importing a sphere of Liquid Oxygen and having THAT explode is going to have a much larger impact on a potential fusion reaction...and provide much more energy.

      What is going to happen with the RTG and its radioactive metals is that it will disintigrate upon hitting the atmosphere, and without an ablative heat shield (like with manned spacecraft...let's not get into Shuttle tiles here) it is simply going to completely disintigrate into a blob of molten metal, and depending on the reentry speed probabally break up into several hundred "rain drops" of metal spread out in a cross-sectional area about the size of Manhattan Island. Yeah, sure, the metal will be radioactive, but who cares? Comet Shoemaker-Levy did much more damage (and again, was more likly to cause a "nuclear fireball" than this stuipid piece of metal).

      The RTG is a concern when at the launch pad, because theoretically a mis-launch could spread the fresh radioactive material all over Miami (or pick your favorite big city nearby/on the flight path from the Kennedy Space Center...assuming the worst software glitch and terrible flight control operators). I don't think even this would be that much of a concern, and certainly couldn't be any worse than that downwinders in St. George, Utah who were downwind from real nuclear blasts. They had problems but it wasn't a long-term problem, and people did live and have kids afterward. More than likely the RTG would stay together as a unit (even with an explosion of the Shuttle).

    3. Re:second sun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      interesting. of course, gunpowder isn't explosive until you put a match (or equivalent) to it.

    4. Re:second sun? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      The image is perfect though: Two NASA controllers, looking in disbelief at their monitors, and a small, bright, circle just about visible in the sky at 3.30EDT.

      One turning to the other: "You idiot! You just blew up Jupiter!"

      The other mumbling "Holy crap. How do we explain this?"

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re:second sun? by wolverine1999 · · Score: 1

      It doesn't need the mass because of the hydrogen elements in the air which are susceptible to a fission reaction. That could jumpstart a fusion reaction, according to the paper linked above which you did not read.

      We will see on Independence Day (Sep 21) what happens, won't we..

    6. Re:second sun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if the NASA controllers did it on purpose?

      To create a second sun?

      An experiment?

      2010 anyone?

    7. Re:second sun? by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Yeah.... please read 2010 again.

      Jupiter (in the story) was ignited with Von Neumann machines that artifically increased the core density of the planet. The entire planet was covered with the 1 x 4 x 9 oblisks. Mr. Clarke knew it would take much more than a small hunk of metal to do something like that.

    8. Re:second sun? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      One of the comments made in the article is that if Jupiter does ignite, Earth's going to be hit some 13 weeks later with a huge quantity of Helium and Hydrogen, cast off from the initial explosion. That has the potential to wipe out all surface life from the planet.

      So if NASA (or the Illuminati, to quote another of the conspiracy theories going around the 'net) has really decided to ignite Jupiter deliberately, then they're taking an awfully big risk...

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  74. Not exactly. by Bowling+Moses · · Score: 4, Informative

    Science does make money for schools. When we get a grant for doing science, the department and/or the university gets a cut. So if a lab gets a $600,000 grant, they'll probably actually get to see only $200,000-$300,000 of it or so, depending (greatly) on the university. For instance, in the grant administration booklet for my university it looks like 49% of a grant goes directly to the university for "Facilities and Administration." Then there are another 70 pages of crud I'm not going to look at which nibbles away the grant further. Given an article in the student paper last year saying with pride that the football team was now one of the few in the country to be so profitable as to hit the break-even point and my university's perverse overspending on athletics and consistent underfunding of maintenence and faculty pay (2nd lowest in the country, baby!), I imagine "Facilities and Administration" is simply a euphanism for "Athletics Department."

    If you just look at a university's budget and see X income from grants and Y from ticket sales and etc., and expenditures X/2 for research and 2Y for athletics (after all, only men's football and basketball programs ever have a hope in hell of ever reaching the break even point--sad but true for now) then athletics are just a drain on the university. But I'm not so blinded by my intense hatred of the Athletics Department to say that it doesn't bring in money--it just does so in a very roundabout way. Private donations are very important to the survival of the university. People might donate becuase of a sense of pride in the university or out of nostalgia, but while academic research doesn't rank high on most people's minds for either of these two things, the old football and basketball teams often do. Similarly, a good sports program may grease the wheels a bit for what little funding we get through the state. How much income from private donations and the state can be indirectly attributed to athletics is very hard to say. Does it surpass research grants? Probably at some universities. But it is worth noting that there are schools that do just fine without athletics and still get piles from grants, the state, and private donations.

    1. Re:Not exactly. by parvati · · Score: 1

      >Science does make money for schools. When we get a grant for doing science, the department and/or the university gets a cut. So if a lab gets a $600,000 grant, they'll probably actually get to see only $200,000-$300,000 of it or so, depending (greatly) on the university. For instance, in the grant administration booklet for my university it looks like 49% of a grant goes directly to the university for "Facilities and Administration.">

      Scientific grants are responsible for several million dollars in annual revenue at large research universities. However, while overhead is computed as a percentage of a grant, it's not actually taken out of the grant money that a researcher receives. If a grant is for $500,000 over five years, the researcher will receive $100,000 a year, and, on top of that, the funding agency will give the school about $49,000 annually to cover overhead costs such as electricity, lab space, etc.

  75. What about intra-solar system signal repeaters? by tstoneman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have always wondered about NASA being able to create a set of intra-solar system repeaters that they would send out into space, and have them simply repeat signals back from our spacecrafts. That means we could still pick up signals from such spacecrafts as Voyager and Pioneer spacecrafts by having the repeaters send them back to Earth.

    As well, this would eliminate the need for high-gain antennas of the likes of what Galileo needed... they could do with a smaller antenna that would need to reach the repeater, and would decrease overall mission risk.

    1. Re:What about intra-solar system signal repeaters? by niko9 · · Score: 1

      I have always wondered about NASA being able to create a set of intra-solar system repeaters that they would send out into space, and have them simply repeat signals back from our spacecrafts. That means we could still pick up signals from such spacecrafts as Voyager and Pioneer spacecrafts by having the repeaters send them back to Earth.

      I'm guessing it's cheaper and less risky to build super sensitive reciever dish antennas here on earth. Remeber, radio waves travel at the speed of light, and that's a finite speed, so no matter how many repeaters you sent up, they still have to make the journey back, and that takes time.

      And the longer any craft will go out into space, the longer it will take for that signal to come back.

    2. Re:What about intra-solar system signal repeaters? by bschmitt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I was under the assumption that radio waves traveled near but not the same as light. As for the repeaters, they would need some type of orbit, they cannot just float around out there. I too have thought about the possibility. But I would imagine that they would need to orbit another planet, as they wouldn't be able to orbit the sun.

    3. Re:What about intra-solar system signal repeaters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Radio waves are the same thing as light waves, microwaves, x-rays, gamma rays - you get the idea. The "speed of light" is really the "speed of electromagnetic radiation". Same old c.

      As for the relay satellite idea, the only way I can see it being practical is if you had one hell of a lot of satellites in each of several concentric orbits around the sun. Otherwise you face the likelihood that your relay satellite will be farther away from an outer solar system source than the Earth is, much of the time. And the thing about expanding concentric orbits is that each satellite will only be able to sweep a small portion of it. Basically the logistics seem pretty impossible.

    4. Re:What about intra-solar system signal repeaters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the ideas floated around to 'salvage' Galileo when the Galileo antenna failed to open was to send a 'repeater' craft into Jupiter orbit, just to act as a link to the Earth.

      But the multiple step improvements in the data-flow back to Earth from the Low-Gain antenna allowed about 60% of the original estimates of the amount of data to be recovered. These involved improvements at almost every step of the data chain, from the data compression and onboard storage on Galileo, to improvements in the DSN dishes back here on Earth. Based on these improvements, a 'repeater' in Jupiter orbit was not needed.

      BUT, NASA is using some 'repeaters' already. The last couple of Mars orbiters have had the capability of relaying data from surface probes back to the Earth. Beacause the last lander crashed, I don't think that the capability has been used, but we have two landers on the way that should be able to use them. And JPL/NASA has some pretty big plans for a 'network' using IP that links many spacecraft around the Solar System. I think that Vint Cerfwas one of the people working on that....

    5. Re:What about intra-solar system signal repeaters? by stevelinton · · Score: 1

      It's an interesting idea, but the numbers just don't work out for covering the large distances across the Solar system. Let's try and work through them:

      For the sake of easy numbers lets talk about the forthcoming Cassini/Huygens mission to Saturn, which is more or less 1 billion (10^9) miles away.

      Now, suppose we wanted to reduce the distance between repeaters by a factor of 10, which would boost the signal by a factor of 100. At that point a 30ft antenna on the repeater satellite, would be as useful as a 300ft Deep Space Network dish on Earth, if, and it's a big if, we could put as good a set of amplifiers and signal processing equipment on the repeater (and power it) as we use on Earth.

      So, we need a chain of repeaters 100 million miles apart. Most of them will have to be in solar orbit (there aren't enough planets). Since the time taken to orbit the sun varies with distance from the sun (28 years for Saturn, 12 for Jupiter, 2 for Mars, etc.), they will not stay nicely lined up. To guarantee 100 million mile ranges, you would need a "necklace" of repeaters spaced every 100 million miles or so apart around the orbit. So, for the first circuit inside Saturn, we need 2*pi*(900 million miles)/100 million miles = about 55 satellites. In total we would probably need upward of 300 of them, and this is just to give the same quality we get with 300ft antennae on Earth.

      Basically the solar system is too big, and it's so much cheaper to make the antennae and amplifiers on Earth better, that inter-planetary relays is unlikely ever to win.

      What does work is planetary relays: communications satellites in orbit around planets. They are so much closer to satellites exploring that particular planet that even quite small antennae give excellent communication (indeed, one can reuse technology developed for satellite phones, shuttle comms, and so on, on Earth). Then the commsat, with less other work to do, can carry a large antenna and powerful transmitters. With a few commsats you can also avoid irritating problems like not being able to talk to your landers when they're on the wrong side of the planet.

      This is already being done for Mars, various ESA and NASA orbiters are relaying communications for various landers. In a small way, it was done for Jupiter and will be done at Saturn, in that the Gallileo and Cassini orbiters did (or will) relay data from the Jupiter entry probe and the Titan probe. It might be possible for the planned JIMO to be left in a suitable orbit to act as a relay for future probes. Since it will have nuclear power and ion engines it should be capable of long life.

  76. Re:Please tell me.. by MobileC · · Score: 1

    What's that in Librarys 'O Congress?

    --

    Fran
    :):):)
    1st 1st Poster of the new Millennium!

  77. Next probe to use Ion propulsion? by rune2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's interesting to note that Galileo's successor (the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter) will use Ion propulsion powered by a nuclear reactor. I believe that this is a first time a spacecraft has been nuclear powered. The Deep Space 1 mission proved that Ion thusters (which operated off of electricity provided by solar panels) were a faster and more efficient method of propulsion, especially over very long distances such as for exploration outside of our solar system.

    See the pdf on the fission technology

  78. Re:Oxygen != Life by LrdHlmt · · Score: 1

    Oxygen is the most abundant element here

    Actually it's Nitrogen (around 70% or something)

  79. Re:Please tell me.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know... but maybe you should stop by there and pick up a dictionary.

  80. A new life by thanjee · · Score: 1

    Isn't that how life was started on earth? :)

    --
    Saying your OS is the best because more people use it is like saying MacDonalds make the best food
  81. Ob Bladerunner Reference by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 2, Informative

    "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die." --Roy Batty, Blade Runner

    --

    They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
  82. Monoliths? by annisette · · Score: 1

    With 34 pounds of plutonium crashing into our jovial planet Jupiter, with the velocity and mass to find near center, pressure, we may have our second sun. Credit to A. C. Clark 2010 Space odyssey for the Idea yet we may not need a couple of million monoliths. I feel a milion to one odds in outer space is very small. We should'nt leave our little poops along the way of our space exploration. Are we being watched by our LGMs? most likly and I can see them shaking their heads and saying "What a bunch of multi-colored earth trash"

    --
    I eat my grapes at room temperature, cuz the cold ones hurt my teeth
  83. Re:Oxygen != Life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nitrogen is the most abundant element in the atmosphere. However, oxygen is the most abundant element in the Earth's crust, making up nearly half of it by weight. It's just all bound up with other elements. Think of how many compounds contain oxygen, even leaving aside simple oxides.

    When you add in the amount in the atmosphere and the truly enormous amount in the oceans (half as much as hydrogen by atoms, but eight times as much by weight), that's a whole lotta oxygen. The tough part really is getting it to stay still by itself - that took a billion years of planetary evolution all on its own.

    I was fudging a bit, because iron is actually the most abundant element in the Earth by weight. The core is pretty much locked away, though, and a large part of the reason for its total mass is that it's the heaviest element present in any quantity (once a star begins to fuse iron to make heavier elements, it dies in seconds). Oxygen is heavier than most of the other common elements too, but not to the same degree.

  84. omg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    omg whats linux?

  85. Re:Oxygen != Life by Space+cowboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Err, no. There is a lot of nitrogen, but there's a lot more oxygen. The 78% figure for nitrogen is in the gaseous atmospheric form of N2 (whereas oxygen (O2) has 21%).

    On the other hand, apart from the masses and masses of oxides present in the earth's makeup, there's a fair amount of water (H20) around on the planet, which is far denser than the atmosphere... There's a fair amount of nitrogen around too, lots of organic compounds have N in them, but lots also have O in them, so that probably roughly balances...

    I'd say there was probably more iron than oxygen though - AFAIR(emember), most of the Earth's core is iron, hence the magnetic field...

    Simon

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
  86. Goodbye, Galileo... Hello, Galileo by EuropeanGuy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Galileo will be Europe's own global navigation satellite system, providing a highly accurate, guaranteed global positioning service under civilian control. It will be inter-operable with GPS and GLONASS, the two other global satellite navigation systems. A user will be able to take a position with the same receiver from any of the satellites in any combination. By offering dual frequencies as standard, however, Galileo will deliver real-time positioning accuracy down to the metre range, which is unprecedented for a publicly available system. It will guarantee availability of the service under all but the most extreme circumstances and will inform users within seconds of a failure of any satellite. This will make it suitable for applications where safety is crucial, such as running trains, guiding cars and landing aircraft. The first experimental satellite, part of the so-called Galileo System Test Bed (GSTB) will be launched in late 2004. The objective of this experimental satellite is to characterize the critical technologies, which are already under development under ESA contracts. Thereafter up to four operational satellites will be launched in the timeframe 2005-2006 to validate the basic Galileo space and related ground segment. Once this In-Orbit Validation (IOV) phase has been completed, the remaining satellites will be installed to reach the Full Operational Capability (FOC) in 2008. The fully deployed Galileo system consists of 30 satellites (27 operational + 3 active spares), positioned in three circular Medium Earth Orbit (MEO) planes in 23616 km altitude above the Earth, and at an inclination of the orbital planes of 56 degrees with reference to the equatorial plane. Once this is achieved, the Galileo navigation signals will provide a good coverage even at latitudes up to 75 degrees north, which corresponds to the North Cape, and beyond. The large number of satellites together with the optimisation of the constellation, and the availability of the three active spare satellites, will ensure that the loss of one satellite has no discernible effect on the user.

  87. Re:second post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thunder bolts and lightning, very, very frightening.

  88. If a freakin' comet... by Nick+Driver · · Score: 1

    ...couldn't light up Jupiter, the measley small amount of fissionable fuel onboard Galileo won't stand a chance.

    1. Re:If a freakin' comet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, a comet is mostly made of water ice. There probably isn't very much plutonium out past the Kuiper belt, or even in the outer solar system.

  89. September 21st by nacturation · · Score: 1

    On the 21st of this month the Galileo Space Probe, which has been orbiting Jupiter for nearly eight years, will plummet fatefully into the crushing pressures and searing heat of that planet's interior.

    And isn't September 21st the first day of Fall? How appropriate.

    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  90. Re:Please tell me.. by grozzie2 · · Score: 1
    How on earth am I to interpret > 60 Km? How many miles are that?
    One of the great things about /. the headline says it all. 'News for Nerds'. Even some of the callous and trolling commentary tends to come from relatively intelligent, educated, and to some extent 'informed' folks. That is after all the stereotype of a nerd is it not ?

    Another great thing about the typical /. nerd, there is one thing they ALL know. When you see a reference to something you dont understand, just cut and paste it into google, and bingo, an instant explanation.

    To delve a little further into the stereotype, another reason most of the commentary seems to come from intelligent and educated folks is for a (obvious) reason. Nerds tend to be intelligent and educated. Part of the education process, is learning that there ARE other systems of measurement in use in this world, and pretty much everybody in the engineering world knows, the metric system is predominant in this world, and it's REAL reason for being so is because it is SLIDE RULE FRIENDLY. If you know how to shift decimals, and wiz the ruler back and forth a bit, metric makes a LOT more sense than any system that has no common basis with anything.

    So I guess the real question becomes...

    If one is not sure how to convert 60KM to a 'more understanding' measurement in thier head, and incapable of plugging it into google, to let google do the hard work for you, have you possibly mistaken /. for www.rednecks.us ?

    k, i'm gonna go crawl back under my rock and slip into some asbestos clothing now.....

  91. Amazing Accomplishments vs. Stupid Mistakes by whereiswaldo · · Score: 1

    I find it amazing how some of the spacecraft humans have launched have gone beyond the call of duty and provided us with enormous amounts of information, while some have been smashed to bits due to miscalculations before their journey really began.

    What can we learn from this? Maybe that we should keep sending crafts into outer space and, overall, things still work out to the benefit of mankind?

    1. Re:Amazing Accomplishments vs. Stupid Mistakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe that the United States - or at least NASA - should switch to the Metric system already.

  92. But who wrote the OS? by rjch · · Score: 1
    And all this with scarcely more computing power than a late '70s video game and a maximum data transfer rate of ~120 bits/s over a distance of more than 600 million Km.
    I'm betting that Microsoft didn't write it's operating system.
  93. Absolutely must fund JIMO by tjstork · · Score: 2, Informative


    JIMO, or Jupiter Icy Moons Orbitor, is the planned successor to Galileo. It will carry with it a nuclear electric propulsion plant. With this much power on board, the spacecraft will not only be able to get to Jupiter much more quickly, it will be able to bounce powerful radar waves off of Europa and measure the thickness of Europa's icy crust.

    Nuclear power in space is important, and will allow us to get to other planets quickly.

    --
    This is my sig.
  94. Re:Time.... to die. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Right. I'm almost tempted to actually create a /. account. Just so I could boldly state what a ratbastard is --the moderator who rated a Phillip K Dick quote as offtopic.

    Reality is that which, after you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

    Kinda like ACs.

  95. Re:Time.... to die. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it a PKD quote? I don't think it's in the book (which I have right here). Most of that movie isn't, actually. ;)

    A PKD quote could be as offtopic as anything else, and I'm sure PKD would be the first to say so. But offtopic mods are a pretty pointless expenditure of mod points.

  96. Re:second post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Magnifico!

    Mamma mia, mamma mia...

    Here I go again - my my, how could I resist you?

    Wait a minute...

  97. Re:Oxygen != Life by tanya2526 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "So yes, seeing oxygen in a planetary atmosphere is a strong indicator of life "

    the reverse isn't necessarily true - if you don't see oxygen then it doesn't imply that life is absent. life forms can be based on other fuel-cycles.

  98. Error in calculation by ender1598 · · Score: 1
    It actually comes out to 3.5 gigabytes.

    Google Calculator

    --
    There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those that understand binary and those that do not.
    1. Re:Error in calculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  99. 3 decades? by gevmage · · Score: 1, Redundant

    The slashdot article mentions the Gallileo's mission lasting "3 decades". However, as the nasa.gov link states, Galileo was launched in 1989, 14 years ago. The author must be confused with Voyager I and II, which were launched in the 70's.

    --
    Craig Steffen
    http://www.craigsteffen.net
  100. Thank you Bill! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Without your MBASIC, Galileo would never have succeeded.

  101. What!? That's terrible! by clambake · · Score: 1

    So after all these years he's still being pressured by big, pompous gas-bags? When will the guy get a break?

  102. New Yorker Obit by veg_all · · Score: 1

    Well, I submited this, but the periodical referenced didn't have enough geek cred. Nonetheless, the article actually has a lot of technical detail. Check it out.

    --
    grammar-lesson free since 1999. (rescinded - 2005)
  103. Re:Please tell me.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The metric system is what scientists and engineers are using. Get real. As if anyone would be able to tell what a mile is, or a pound, or a furlong... hahaha.

  104. The real reason the antenna broke was politics by jesterzog · · Score: 1

    Galileo was equipped with a high-bandwidth communications link capable of doing a much better job with image transmission, but its antenna failed to deploy.

    It's worth pointing out that although the reason the high gain antenna failed was because it didn't unfold properly, the reason that it had to unfold in the first place was more related to politics.

    Galileo had to be designed to fit into the shuttle cargo bay, and then propel itself out of orbit after being let loose and placed into space, because various political heavyweights had decided that the shuttle should be used to launch it. Making the antenna foldable added even more complexity to an already incredibly complex machine. Having the launch delayed due to Challenger exploding just added to the complexity of the whole operation, and the antenna failed.

    The Cassini probe, later launched to Saturn, was designed with a fixed antenna that didn't need to unfold, and launched from the top of a much more suitable rocket. It hasn't suffered anywhere near the same sorts of problems because it simply doesn't have as much complexity that can potentially break.

  105. Shame they couldn't keep it by 01101010001010001010 · · Score: 1

    It's a pity that probes like Galileo, and other space objects like Mir couldn't have been pushed out to space, rather than destroyed. In a few decades time when we have decently fast travel within the solar system, the Smithsonian will be really disappointed that we didn't try and leave these things somewhere where we could pick them up again later.... Oh well....

  106. New Yorker article by Benwick · · Score: 1

    The New Yorker article on the same subject (the Galileo probe, that is) kept me awake for two hours after I finished it in bed... Goodbye, Galileo.

    I also want to note that I think this is probably the first time Slashdot has ever referenced a Philip Roth book... Goodbye, Columbus.

  107. Sports Require No Intelligence by turgid · · Score: 1

    Compared to science, sports requires very little intelligence. That's why sports are so popular. They appeal to the less than average, average and above average. Science only appeals to the above average. To joe sixpack, science is elitist. Sports are not. It really is that simple.

  108. Re:Oxygen != Life by LrdHlmt · · Score: 1

    narrow was my view .. I was thinking about atmosphere only.

  109. In other news ... by DonalGraeme · · Score: 1

    Elton John rededicates his song "Candle in the Wind" to the Galileo space probe, superceding it's dedication to Marilyn Monroe and Princess Diana. Early reports suggest the lyrics of the chorus may be modified to say "And it seems to me you lived your life / Like a candle in plasma wind."