Slashdot Mirror
European Moon Mission Ready for Launch
merryprankster writes "Europe's first mission to the Moon is set for blast off from Kourou in French Guiana just after midnight, local time, on Sunday. SMART
1 will study the composition of lunar rock through X-ray observations. The probe uses a new solar electric propulsion system which converts solar energy its panels into motion via the expulsion of ions. Details at the ESA mission site."
The probe uses a new solar electric propulsion system which converts solar energy its panels into motion via the expulsion of ions.
IMHO that is much more interesting than the mission itself. The less chemical fuel needed to get moving once in space could mean more room for payload.
Beat the weenies to the punch:
I, for one, welcome our new ion propelled masters!
Imagine a beowulf cluster of these!
Natalie Portman could fly one of these to my house anytime!
The lengths people will go to to hurt the ego of chemical-rocket engineers!
Chemical rockets, 70, found dead in their suburban home, truly an American icon.
Obligatory goatse.cx link.
Trolling is a art,
That is just like saying "Why not collaborate with [Microsoft|Sun|etc] instead of reinventing the wheel with Linux".
The answer? Because.
To the moon Alice!
--------
Free your mind.
Why not collaborate with NASA instead of trying to re-invent the wheel?
Because NASA's wheel is square.
Did anyone else picture a TIE figher when reading that description?
... that launched the first Borg!
e.g. "On its long trek through space the cube-shaped probe..."
someone up there can see all the footprints and trash those US people left behind. or find out they didn't. either way. hopefully end some of the theories of what happened before i was born. and get back to better theories... is elvis dead yet or is he enjoying his 78th year of life?
Because otherwise things like this will happen. Competition is always healthy and there's no point leaving NASA with the monopoly on space travel.
What's so bad about offering another perspective toward the whole of the universe?
Turkeyphant
Sure the Ion drive is a really neat addition, but it's soooo slooooow. It's going to take them 15 MONTHS to get there! And the payload isn't really greater at all. It takes longer to get any large loads going. The US space program got people to the moon and back in what...2 weeks? It may be slightly more economical, but it just doesn't seem practical.
Hopefully they can perfect the ion drive, however through this to increase the speed and payload capacity. Then we might have something really cool... (until the anti-matter reactor comes online...)
---- Move SIG...For great justice!
The moon isn't really made of cheese, you know.
Best Windows Freeware
Finally, some innovation outside of the labs. Even if the engine doesn't perform as planned, I give the EU space team high marks for developing new ideas rather than rehashing the technology that has been updated since the 60s.
WURD!!
I understand you guys were seriously pissed when the Ruskies beat you with the first satelite, living thing, man, women, and moon probe though. Sure, you might have got to the moon first, but by anyones count you lost to the Commies 5 - 1!
Because our specific wheel is old and busted. Also we don't look outside the wheel-way of doing things. It was a good wheel for the time it was built. However, we seem to be too fixated on repairing the wheel. There is a whole industry in wheel repair, wheel protocol, wheel contracts etc..
To use your symbolism, instead of building a wheel they are building a sledge - having discovered through wheel-driven exploration Space is covered in snow and bumpy so a sledge is a good option. Yes, the wheel works and is important. But they are under no obligation to bog down thier sledge building team with wheel thinkers.
"new solar electric propulsion system which converts solar energy its panels into motion via the expulsion of ions."
Wouldnt solar powered ion engine be easier to say?
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
Wasn't this already accomplished back in 1992 by a Brit and his dog?
Sorry, couldn't resist. Still, 30 years later you'd think they might just skip the moon and hitch a rid with us to Mars.
--- have you healed your church website?
I say put that fuckin' talking chihuahua on the moon, sans spacesuit.
I would suggest you get a wooden boat.
do you wheely think so?
"SMART 1 will study the composition of lunar rock through X-ray observations" Can't NASA just let the ESA borrow some of their rocks?
This article has recently been linked from Slashdot. Please keep an eye on the page history for errors or vandalism.
Europe's first mission to the Moon is set for blast off from Kourou in French Guiana just after midnight, local time, on Sunday.
SMART 1 will be launched from the European spaceport between 2302 and 2321 GMT. It will be taken into space by European's Ariane 5 rocket, along with an Indian science probe and a commercial satellite.
It will take 15 months for SMART 1 to reach the Moon. On arrival it will enter into polar orbit enabling it to view the Moon's surface from every angle.
The probe will then spend six months combing the lunar landscape for signs of frozen water and will map the distribution of surface minerals and chemicals.
"Despite decades of research, we have never fully discovered what the Moon is made of," says Manuel Grande at UK's Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, who built the spacecraft's X-ray spectrometer.
Complete picture
The Apollo missions provided an opportunity to analyse only limited areas of the Moon near its equator. More recently, NASA's Lunar Prospector probe used a gamma ray spectrometer to create a global map of heavy metals such as iron on the Moon's surface.
SMART 1 should complete the picture. Its X-ray instrument will determine the distribution of metals such as magnesium, aluminium and silicon. These will produce different X-rays after absorbing the Sun's rays.
Apostolis Christou, research astronomer at Armagh Observatory in Northern Island, says this is the most important aspect of the mission.
"We need the global picture to test the theory that Moon was once covered with a molten ocean," Christou told New Scientist.
X-ray observations could also provide the first glimpse of a type of Moon rock - the lunar mantle - which may be exposed at the Moon's surface in what is the largest crater in the Solar System.
A more complete picture of the Moon's mineral composition could help confirm the theory that the Moon broke off from the Earth due to a huge collision with a Mars-sized object in the past.
Blue jet
Another spectrometer will be used to search for the infrared signature of frozen water hidden in the shadows of lunar craters. This instrument may also detect frozen carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide on the surface of the Moon.
Crucially, surface water ice could eventually provide supplies for permanent bases on the Moon.
Even while the probe is travelling towards its target it will not lie idle. Its X-ray spectrometer will be pointed towards bright comets in order to test the theory that solar wind can excite the gas surrounding these mysterious bodies causing them to emit X-rays.
On its long trek through space the cube-shaped probe will test a revolutionary solar electric propulsion system. Electrical power generated by the craft's solar panels will be used to excite xenon, which will generate thrust by emitting a blue jet of ions.
Smaller engine
Ion propulsion systems are less powerful than conventional chemical rockets but can run for ten times as long using the same mass of propellant. This makes it possible to reach a target with a much smaller engine, reducing overall launch costs dramatically.
SMART 1 is miniscule compared to many spacecraft. It weighs 367 kilograms and measures one metre on all sides, although its solar panels will unfurl to measure 14 metres across.
The mission is part of a European Space Agency drive to reduce the cost and complexity of its space projects. These missions will all be identified by the title SMART, meaning Small Mission for Advanced Research in Technology.
Plus its overpriced and not meant for travel beyond the local neighborhood.
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
Also, what's interesting is that they managed to do this without requiring any nuclear batteries, or heaters. NASA claim to be concerned about safty, but only the ESA can make their probes 100% safe by not launching any plutonium into orbit in the first place.
More players means more ways of doing things. Cooperation can be good -- but so can competition. Competition allows various new technologies and ideas to be tried. A cooperative monopoly can strangle a field.
Possibly the biggest problem with NASA is that it has stifled innovation in the field. When one organization dominates a field the way NASA does, it's difficult to get alternative ways of doing things developed. The dominant group dismisses out of hand any thing they haven't developed. They tend to drive off independently minded people. Problems go unnoticed for longer periods of time.
Many of us welcome competition for NASA -- be it private or governmental. I salute ESA for it's independence -- and for trying out ion propulsion.
"Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- B. Franklin
They've been used as thrusters on satellites for years, and of course NASA's Deep Space 1 was powered by one back in the late 90s.
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
1. post your question to the manufacturer of your 'robotic rods'.
2. change the chemical content of the paint on your boat.
3. present the open source code and schematics to an organization like sourceForge.org, were people that have time to solve problems like this can suggest solutions. this is a major cost savings here.
4. personnel plug here; email me at 'com.intel at verizon.net', i've worked on industrial robotics and most likely the discharging can be solved with just a little bit nueral processing from fishermen like myself.
good fishing to ya'
Why makes oneself reliant on NASA wheels, when one could have a home grown wheel industry with all the spinoff products that it generates.
I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but NASA used ion propulsion on the Deep Space 1 mission several years ago. Yes, cool technology but like most stuff it's been researched for years and used before.
We tried that before. The US doesn't like sharing its technology. The result is that trhe EU would get none of the fringe benefits of developing spacecraft.
x-raying the Moon rocks brought back by the Apollo missions.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
We'll know if the USA actually went to the moon or if that was just a hoax, unless this is a hoax as well. I guess this time I can break out my telescope.
The Moon!
Stop fishing for crabs with electronical fishing rods. It frustrates you and it annoys the crabs.
Fish instead for steelhead and when they are electroplated with manganese by the random discharges of your capacitors, you can sell them for a premium price.Furthermore Grasshopper, do not curse your luck for the plating on your hull. Instead, give thanks for your good fortune that your fishing boat is not filled by amorous electric eels that are attracted by your discharges.
"MY hovercraft is full of eels, too!!"
You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
"Math in a song is good."-Linford
The article mentions that it is lightweight, only 367kg but NASA's first lunar orbiter weighted 386kg. So 40 years later we have a 19kg savings and it takes 15 months to get there. I love progress...
$#!^ happens, but why does it always have to happen to me???
After all, the US can't let someone else get 'back' to the moon first.
The SMART 1 is going into Lunar polar orbit with 14 meter solar panels unfurled. With the solar wind push aiding on one side and opposing on the other will the ion engine have enough thrust to counter the effects of the solar wind?
Maybe, if they did half-turns of the solar panels on every orbit they could elongate the orbit enough to break free or perhaps make Earth one of the axis points. ???
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
While it is nice to see ION engines gain more momentum in the industry do they really have a place in short duration/distance missions?
If its passed off a as a proof of concept it would make more sense but the article doesn't imply that.
Considering the limited distance it would probably been more efficient to use an established propulsion system and get the scientific results sooner. Now, because of their choice any findings are unnecessarily delayed.
On a high note, its good to see they are not replicating the work done by the previous NASA probe - seems scienctists are much better at getting along than their governments.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
We just have to give it time. Yeah, right now, ion propulsion isn't the most efficient or fastest way of travel. But given more use, more people will be interested in perfecting it. Remember when solar panels had such low energy converstion rates? They're much better now. I could give a million other examples, but you get my point. We can't rely on the old methods of travel forever.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
Yes, ESA is very nationalistic. It consists of many nations... Anyway, who is reinventing what wheel? Should we not test ion propulsion simply because Nasa did it before already? Did it work so badly that we should avoid it?
To Americans: Russia is a European country.
Wouldn't it just be easier to create a giant trebuchet and hurl the pod into space???? If anything it'd be a nifty Junkyard Wars project :)
And while you're there, would you pick up some of that nice, green moon money for me -- Royce McCutcheon!"
NASA invented it, NASA tested it, what's the point anymore?
I'm quite baffled by the number of posts in this thread that seem to suggest that an ion drive is something new and invented by the ESA. Hell, Deep Space 1 was the first probe ever to employ this propulsion and it was a NASA probe.
Solar panels work great when you're this far into the solar system. From Mars and beyond the solar intensity is much lower and solar panels would need to be prohibitively large and heavy to provide the same amount of power as a 45 pound radioisotope thermal generator.
Because if you refuse to listen to them they start to mime.
I actually laughed at that
The ion engine was invented at HRL Laboratories in California in 1961 funded by NASA. HRL continued to work on the engine into the 70's.
Right on. NASA really DO need the competition, given things like this.
You have to understand that there is more than one reason for using ion engines. Some include, reduced cost, reduced complexity, proving the improved technology really works and extending the mission life. The final one it important, since what usually ends a probe's mission is component failure or more often running out of fuel. As long as there is a star in our Solar system, then SMART 1's mission can last a good while. The only thing that could extend the mission even more is an xenon collector and an extended mission budget.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Fish the american way: with dynamite! Go to space the american way: with a big ass rocket. Travel through space the american way: with another big ass rocket. When your mission is doomed, die the american way: in an explosion! Better to go out with a bang!
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
Sorry, but your telescope is a hoax too. It's really just a poster-mailing tube with plastic wrap over both ends.
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
In arrogant france, mimes watch you!
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
"No way! That's great.
We landed on the moon!!!"
Because if you refuse to listen to them they start to mime.
In space, no-one can hear you mime.
It has reachtion wheels and hydrazin thrusters (for unloading) to counter disturbances such as solar pressure.
I worked within the project....
People have been talking about ion propulsion for decades- how's this revolutionary? I know we've had working engines for some time, and that the first probe using one was launched some time ago (sorry, I don't remember details). I also know that some high school seniors I know built a working ion propulsion engine- the output was microscopic, but that's expected. Really, though, they did; I've seen it! Apparently, it wasn't that hard for them, either. So, please remind me how an ion propulsion system is revolutionary when one can be built for little money.
"73% of quotes on the Internet are made up" -Ben Franklin
The SMART-1 Mission will map the composition of rocks across the whole surface of the moon, not just the sites visited by Apollo (inc far side & south pole, which may have H2O). Also with higher resolution/more sensitive instruments than previous craft.
It is true that ion drives are not that exciting in terms of time for a moon mission - although it does reduce weight. An ion drive to the outer solar system could reduce payload and travel time too, because the drive can fire almost continuously..
"You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
No hoax, but they'll find that the moon has since been colonized by the McDonalds/Starbucks joint project which reached the moon in 99 and have set up a variety of lunar franchises for mystery-meat and moccachino craving space-travellers.
Solar electric propulsion is hardly new. It's been used for getting communications satellites out to their final geosynchronous orbits for a number of years now, and NASA demonstrated using solar-powered ion engines for interplanetary primary propulsion on Deep Space 1 back in '98.
What ESA is claiming is new about this mission is that they'll be combining ion propulsion with gravity assist maneuvers. AFAIK that hasn't really been done yet (although I know some guys at JPL who're working on it), and given how difficult it can be to work out low-thrust trajectories in the first place I would imagine that successfully throwing gravity assists into the mix would be a significant acheivement.
They're launching on an Arian 5. I give them 3 to 1 odds it's vaporized before it gets past 200k feet in altitude.
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
And what if its gets wiped out by micro meteors 14 months into its journey. One good pebble coudl turn one of those solar panels into a big hunk of grabage.
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~"The Borg can't be French. The Borg actually win battles."~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Napoleone di Buonaparte. - Nuff Said
Without France, Americans would still be saying "Cheerio my good slave, old chap".
without France more U.S. soldiers are going to Die in the desert.
Time to take a long view. Freedom fries was yesterday's shits and giggles.
~~I went to battle M.C. Escher, but drew a blank...~~
Uranium, Plutonium? In space? Sounds like WMD! INVADE!!!
Propulsion Unit...
Confusing for "Solar Powered Segway"
The reason ion engines are a good thing is because they are so efficient. But they also have their share of problems.
;) I did my senior thesis on a solar electric propulsion Mars mission, and I find it to be far more interesting than most people seem to.
The figure of merit for rocket propulsion is specific impulse (Isp). It is a measure of unit thrust per unit mass of fuel consumed per unit time. Conventional (chemical) propulsion, such as solid rocket boosters, have an Isp in the 200 - 300 range. But they generate many many thousands of kilonewtons of thrust. That's why we use them for launching things out of gravity wells.
Ion engines, on the other hand, have Isps from 2000 - 3500 (though the higher end of that range is only test-stand stuff right now). They, however, produce only millinewtons of thrust, and cannot be used for fast orbit transfers or launches. But they can be made small. Very, very small, with correspondingly small amounts of fuel, which is pure joy for aerospace engineers trying to design robotic missions.
Unfortunately, they are also power-hungry little buggers. A single ion engine can use a kilowatt of power while running...and they must be running all the time to generate enough delta-v to have an effect on the course of a spacecraft. (Delta-v is the measurement of how much of a change in a velocity vector is necessary to effect the desired change in course, and mission designers begrudge every cm/s...every maneuver burns propellant, and there are no gas stations in space.) There are only two ways to get power in space right now: solar cells, and some form of nuclear decay. Only solar cells have a good enough power/mass ratio to run ion engines, and as missions proceed farther out from the Sun, array area must be bigger, which adds mass. It's a tricky balancing act.
For this mission, however, the craft will always be close enough to the sun to generate the power it needs fairly easily. (Except when it's in shadow, but that's why we have storage batteries.)
Ion propulsion is an old technology, incidentally. It's been around in some form or another since the 60's. It's only recently that it became economical, though.
I could go on for pages, but I'm unconvinced anyone wants to see that.
-Carolyn
Like Daddy always said: if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The US is getting back into the space program and rehashing apollo, america's space penis (aka, ego) has been threatened by europe and various other countries willing to get into space.. The US doesnt want to be outshone by some 3rd world nations, it wants to be the king of the ring again, and wants to keep dominance in space, I made a post like this before on the apollo news thread.
like I've said, whatever gives us new and improved technology, if it werent for the last space race, we wouldnt have the internet or modern day computers, or velcro..
because technically, right now, we're still using old technology in the computer field and internet field.. we should be years ahead of what we're currently at, but thanks to monopolies like microsoft, we havent, it's like how the aerospace industry works.. a company with technology years ahead of everyone else get muscled and bullied by the monopolizing companies (northrop, boeing, etc) and usually dont get any attention, there's this one company that uses new technology and aircraft years ahead of anything boeing or northrop can make and they get the cold shoulder, mainly do to the fact that their technology doesnt blow up 3rd world countries in an efficient manner, so politicians and the military ignore such technology, sad fact really, what's used in aerospace is technology that is 50 years old, but it's still peddled..the SR-71 was a leap in technology, but after that, we dropped back in technology... new things scare people too, maybe that's it too, who knows..
anyways, let's pray that we dont get another ego race and hatred towards each other over this.
Their next probe is headed your way! Due to be launched in 2005 it should be able to make it there by mid 2379.
This sig is worse than my last.
And they are not racing anyone, they just want to get there.
Besides, it gives the joint Alien-American-Russian crew at Moon's dark side base enough time to cover up everything and go for well-deserved vacation in Phobos.
Maybe it can take some pictures of that American Flag and the tire tracks while it's up there.
Don't know what good it'd do, since the conspiracy theorists would simply say something about the pictures being covertly doctored by the French government after the the probe landed in order that they might get back in bed with the U.S Government..
They'd get more Fox News airtime, but at least we'd have a few converts.
Ion engines are a mature technology. They have existed since the 60's, and are currently used for stationkeeping on a great number of satellites. They performed far beyond expectations on NASA's Deep Space 1 mission in 1998, and are a logical and economical choice for any mission of relatively low mass where time is not a critical factor--which it is not in this case.
-Carolyn
Like Daddy always said: if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.
Sure the Ion drive is a really neat addition, but it's soooo slooooow.
That's why any good imperial trooper knows you use twin ion engines.
Why is the US supporting a convicted war criminal?
Because the US didn't convict him, and they don't care about what the rest of the world thinks, no?
M.
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
Aerobraking, similar to that imagined in Arthur C Clarke's 2010: Odyssey 2. I gather the physics is fairly sound, as NASA used it for precisely this purpose a couple of years ago.
As long as there is a star in our Solar system, then SMART 1's mission can last a good while
Unfortunately, however, our solar system contains only one star, meaning that solar powered engines lacked redundancy...
(YES, that's a JOKE...)
Life is short: void the warranty.
What exactly is innovative about this mission? It is the same mission as flown by Clementine years ago. Solar electric propulsion is commonplace. Here are some spacecraft that have flow them to date:
I don't think this story is slashdot worthy.
an ill wind that blows no good
Perhaps more useful information for those of us at high risk of mime-exposure: "In the dark, no one can see a mime."
It was about time Europe get itself a special effects industry capable of faking lunar missions. The USA perfected this technology in the late sixties and look how profitable the American movie industry is now.
moderators.
Why do you mod a picture like that funny? You sick perverted bastards almost made me empty my stomach on the keyboard.
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
Steven Spielberger invented the moon in 1982! He's laughing at you about it!
Apparently the big issue here is X-Ray mapping of the moon...
3
However, the Chandra team exactly announced that recently: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=1255
I'm not familiar with the details, but is there gonna be a real improvement on resolution (or maybe in term of surface) ?
The purpose of the mission is to flight-test technologies. for the ESA web site,
"SMART-1 is the first of a series of 'Small Missions for Advanced Research in Technology' designed to test key technologies for future spacecraft. It is Europe's first mission to the Moon. Among the new technologies to be tested is the solar-electric propulsion which will power the spacecraft to its target. SMART-1 will help solve such questions as how the Moon came into being and whether there is water there."
So efficiency in getting scientific results is not a priority here...
"Europe's first mission to the Moon is set for blast off from Kourou in French Guiana just after midnight, local time, on Sunday."
Which local time, you timezone-insensitive clod!
Convicted by whom is the relevant question.
You object to Sharon, but support Arafat?
an ill wind that blows no good
Actually, Ion engines have been used in space since early 90's but primarly as station keeping thrusters for satilites. You are correct that competition is good for NASA, but at this very moment, the Air Force is funding the Ion Space Propulsion Lab where I am currently doing my PhD research.
Are they going to use the same stage sets that were used for the Apollo project? Seems like it would be important to look consistent.
I hope they add some special effects, maybe some living rocks that shoot lasers, or holes in the surface that suck astronauts up in plumes of moon dust.
I love sequels!
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
It means that they can launch a vehicle on top of a commerical GEO booster, and that the vehicle can make its own way out of geostationary orbit into lunar orbit.
I don't think any launches will be done exactly this way - it's more efficient to use thrust deeper inside a gravity well, so you can get more deltaV from the same fuel by boosting into a highly elliptical orbit (e.g. a geosynchronous transfer orbit) and then do all your burns near perigee, which raises your apogee but keeps your perigee down at LEO altitudes until you finally hit escape velocity or a lunar capture trajectory.
finally, we get to look at the alien bases on the other side of the moon.
reach the moon in months... looks like the work of the french to me
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
I know, and I would like to correct everyone on that issue too. But with the kind of thinking that anything NASA have done, no one else should do since it's already been done, would make it pointless to have competition in any area. And what could hurt if research is taking place in more than one place? Perhaps new ideas and more experience would follow. Soviet was the first to carry out manned space missions - should no one else do it, then? Or should they, only not with rockets?
"(Astronauts on five Apollo missions left RTG units on the lunar surface to power the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Packages.)"s /npsm3. htm
You can read more about it here:
http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/ianu
you are good!
Thanks for using up all of the obligitory ./ responses you insensitive clod!
It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
... I think custration is the best answer for you.
I'll make sure I send couple of people over
...we are at war and don't have to concern ourselves with such trivialities.
Why is this insightful? This is funny.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
European Moon Mission Ready for Launch
Europe is bigger than knew, if they have their own MOON!
So here we have the Europeans going to space when our space program is just sitting there, doing nothing? We should make sure NASA is properly funded so that we can have Moon missions and, finally send people to Mars! We can do it, all we lack is the will! The benefits to such a mission would more than repay the expense.
It is inexcusable to allow our space program to stagnate for lack of funding. Our society is better than that!
I hear they aren't really going, they are just using the USA's sound stage from the last "missions".
--replacning tin foil hat.
Really, we did this. Don't remember names or dates, though.
I really don't know much about the matter, except that the only thing you could have done to make your post even less credible was to post it as an Anonymous Coward.
Keep this up and the other guy don't even have to say anything to win the argument...
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
They must! Cause last I checked NASA already had an ION engine probe that visited a meteor (to lazy to find link). The mission is already complete, and they actually landed the probe on the meteor (asteroid whatever) at the end of the mission. So I don't know how the ESA can claim to be the first, must be some fun little technicality they're using. And the NASA one had automatic onboard navigation too. Using pictures of the stars to figure out position.
Soviet was the first to carry out manned space missions - should no one else do it, then? Or should they, only not with rockets?
I think the parent meant that once the US has attempted something, noone else should be allowed to try.
It's the only way that post even gets coherent.
Though it is still stupid, of cource.
By being the first to reach the moon, the Europeans will be able to show the entire world their inherent superiority!
If SMART 1's ion engine is of long duration, i.e. a sufficiently long power supply it may make something possible that's never been done before, an extended Lunar orbit.
What most people aren't aware of is that orbiting the Moon is an inherently unstable proposition. An orbit close enough so that the Moon can actually prevail over solar or Earth influence runs into the problem of mascons, mass concentrations that tend to accelerate and then drag any object in a lunar orbit. The end result is that without regular correction the object would lose orbital velocity and crash into the lunar surface within a month.
NASA used Ion propusion in their Deep Space 1 craft, and used it to take pictures of an asteroid, back in 1998. Maybe new for Europe, but it's been tried and tested already.
I wonder if any scientists onboard that project are also interested in testing Velikovsky's theory about a giant comet hitting the Earth, which went on to become the planet Venus. Supposedly the lot of his evidence wasn't scientific; rather, it was based upon ancient myths and legends and arbitrarily combined with otherwise unrelated facts. From what little i gathered, his views were refuted by the "scientific community." I really have no idea.
All very interesting though!
I don't want to be a dick,
but you mean weight would be a problem lifing off, not once in space...right?
WTF? Over?
One of my thesis advisors is a technical consultant on Genesis. I heard this from *her* supervisor, who is one of the project leads.
Genesis is going to capture a bunch of particles, and return to Earth so that they can be analyzed. It has a lid which is open now, collecting ions and such, which will snap shut for the flight back to Earth and reentry. The spacecraft body is of a similar design to other missions, and the contractor only had to make minor changes to it for this mission.
Shortly after Genesis launched, a NASA employee asked a contractor how to they were going to open the lid to get the samples out. The contractor was confused, then alarmed after he found out that the NASA employee was serious. Turns out that there is no provision for getting the spacecraft open...the latches are on the inside of the lid, and spring-loaded. They snap into place, and are not designed to be opened.
So now NASA is working on ways to cut the aluminum latches that *don't* generate all kinds of heat, electricity, and/or aluminum powder to contaminate the samples....
Truly an "oh, shit" moment in engineering.
-Carolyn
Like Daddy always said: if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.
Even though there are million of rocks floating in the general area from Earth to the moon, the chances of a small probe hitting a large enough chunk would be close to nothing.
Space is large with very little inbetween.
You'd think that by this point someone at NASA would have been geeky enough to name a lunar probe Alice.
I don't even want to here name submissions for probes to Uranus.
--"Sorry for the inconvience." Gods Last Words to his Creation
DNA, So Long and Thanks for all the Fish
Hehe..
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
Not a surprise - the US is a capitalist nation, and would prefer to sell the technology if the EU wants it and not just give it away for the benefit of all - after all, the US spent billions developing it (you know, the old Open Source vs Closed Source argument).
I like to think of NASA like Microsoft - bloated, inefficient, and owner of a _LOT_ of patents and trade secrets they'd love to share for a couple of billion yearly.
but you mean weight would be a problem lifing off, not once in space...right?
No, weight is still a problem in space. (Unless you're trying to make a pedantic joke based on the irrelevant of any "weight" outside a gravity field)
If a vehicle is heavy on the earth, that means it's massive, and although weight "vanishes" in space, the mass remains.
That mass will fight against the manuverbility of the vehicle for the rest of it's life. Every thrust it makes will need to be proportionally bigger to account for any additional mass.
No need to design a complicated solar array when a simple RTG will do. They are essentially solid state with no moving parts at all, making them very easy to assemble on the surface of the moon.
Additionally I am unfamiliar with the efficiency and durability of Lunar era solar cells, it may well be that the RTG was a more reliable power source.
The US doesn't want to sell the technology. They want to keep it to themselves since they can make more money selling shuttle flights than selling the technology, mush like MS can make more money selling copies of Windows than they ever could selling a comprehensive source code licence. The EU gets nothing out of that apart from putting their satellites and probes in space. Building your own means you get satellites into space, and something to sell
The outside view is really poor, but the inside was rated the best space resort in the quadrant for three consecutive decades.
Put another man on the moon, then I'll stifle the yawn.
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
The EU community doesn't re-invent the wheel, does building and probing the wheel with new technologies discovered at 1990-2003 that at 1960 did not exist.
open4free
is it like the pin-ball game?
open4free
plz i need credit card
These are xeon ions, not money ions. Your friends might be able to make an ion engine for a few bucks - that's the difference between yous guys and real engineers.
Real engineers know how to inflate the price of this 'science project' into the millions.
Idiot.
Someone mod this down too!
Xaotik Designs