Slashdot Mirror


Voyager 1 Reaches Interstellar Space

letxa2000 writes "CNN is reporting that Voyager 1, now some 8.4 billion miles (90 AUs) from the sun, has left the solar system and entered interstellar space by reaching the heliopause. However, whether the probe has reached the heliopause or is just coming close is the subject of two papers to be published in Thursday's Nature Magazine. The probe supposedly has enough nuclear fuel to last until 2020. Will it be able to find anything interesting outside the solar system in the next 17 years?"

565 comments

  1. Agent Smith files for Chapter 11 by KFury · · Score: 5, Funny

    Do you guys have any idea how much RAM had to be added to the Matrix to extend the simulation out that far?!

    1. Re:Agent Smith files for Chapter 11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I work for Nasa and am therefore posting anonymously. While this was not done on purpose, it was by a sole astronaut, and not a decision by Nasa. That astronaut has since been let go.

    2. Re:Agent Smith files for Chapter 11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a linear calculation, not expotential.

      But that would make your comment un-funny.

    3. Re:Agent Smith files for Chapter 11 by temojen · · Score: 4, Funny

      A sparse matrix takes up a lot less memory.

    4. Re:Agent Smith files for Chapter 11 by KFury · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's a constant, since it doesn't need to retain a simulation of the visited path, but yes, it would make it unfunny.

      Also, there would be no judicial system in which Smith would file, nor do Agents use money...

    5. Re:Agent Smith files for Chapter 11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not much really. Neither the probe nor the space it "travels through" actually required any simulation at all. We only needed to simulate the probe's signal back to earth, and the data it "generated", which was merely made up from preconceived expecations, anyway. The humans were happy, and all is right with the world.

    6. Re:Agent Smith files for Chapter 11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you stroll around playgrounds telling little children that Santa Claus doesn't exist? Insensitive clod.

    7. Re:Agent Smith files for Chapter 11 by calethix · · Score: 2, Funny

      Come on now, let's all try to keep our movie jokes in this thread related to ST:TMP. ;)

    8. Re:Agent Smith files for Chapter 11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I believed in Santa Clause until 24 seconds ago, you insensitive clod!

    9. Re:Agent Smith files for Chapter 11 by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Do you guys have any idea how much RAM had to be added to the Matrix to extend the simulation out that far?!"

      The machines just wanted to show off their new Matrix FX card.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    10. Re:Agent Smith files for Chapter 11 by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh man for a second I thought you said the Tooth Fairy didn't exist, I was scared for a second...

      --
      500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
    11. Re:Agent Smith files for Chapter 11 by KFury · · Score: 5, Funny

      "A sparse matrix takes up a lot less memory."

      A sparse matrix also makes a lot less money. Just ask theaters next week when the poor reviews outweigh the sequel buzz.

    12. Re:Agent Smith files for Chapter 11 by Saeger · · Score: 2, Interesting
      A sparse matrix takes up a lot less memory.

      And that's the real reason why Schrodinger's cat is both alive and dead until you peek in the box - it saves space when nobody's looking anyway. And you thought quantum mechanics was complicated.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    13. Re:Agent Smith files for Chapter 11 by slamb · · Score: 1
      > A sparse matrix takes up a lot less memory.

      > > And that's the real reason why Schrodinger's cat is both alive and dead until you peek in the box - it saves space when nobody's looking anyway. And you thought quantum mechanics was complicated.

      If you want to start thinking that way, you can go further than that. There's the uncertainty principle, too - by knowing one thing more precisely, you can't know something else as precisely. (Keeps the memory requirements of the matrix down.) The space-momentum uncertainty relation is the most famous, but there are a bunch of them you can get from a more basic equation:

      (delta A)^2(delta B)^2 >= 1/4<i[A,B]>^2

      In other words, the product of the deviations of two quantum observables is greater than or equal to 1/4 of the square of the expectation value of their commutivity times i. (Crystal clear, right? ;) But it leads to a lot of things like that.

    14. Re:Agent Smith files for Chapter 11 by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      --All I can say is, "WHOOO! Go V'Ger!!"
      (pause)
      --Wait, sorry; that was Voyager *SIX* IIRC, not #1...

      http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/library/ch ar acter/bio/1106317.html

      --Well, at least we won't have to worry about it coming back as a Borg. :P

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    15. Re:Agent Smith files for Chapter 11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you need the path to calculate the signal propagation from the craft back to Earth?

    16. Re:Agent Smith files for Chapter 11 by KFury · · Score: 1

      Don't you need the path to calculate the signal propagation from the craft back to Earth?

      Pah, if you need the path so you can tell how, say, solar wind affects the signal en-route to Earth, then it does become a linear problem. When you consider that solar wind itself has a vector and is constantly changing, then it becomes a squared problem. When you consider that solar wind can't be guaranteed to have a laminar flow and may need a 3D space in order to synthesize its propagation from the sun to the transmission path then you need a 3D space (plus time), so yes, lots of RAM, bankrupt Smith.

    17. Re:Agent Smith files for Chapter 11 by Abreu · · Score: 1

      And yet another Slashdot joke gets repeated into oblivion... Yet this one was funnier than some of the older ones

      --
      No sig for the moment.
  2. to paraphrase by Matey-O · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Will it be able to find anything interesting outside the solar system in the next 17 years?

    Short answer: No.

    Long Answer: "Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space... " -DNA

    --
    "Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
    1. Re:to paraphrase by Carnildo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Detailed answer: Yes.

      Questions that can still be investigated by Voyager include a number of questions about the interaction between the solar wind, solar magnetic field, and interstellar medium, direct measurements of the interstellar magnetic field, the actual composition of interstellar gas, where exactly the heliopause lies, and how it's affected by changes in solar activity. I'm sure there are even more questions that I haven't thought of.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    2. Re:to paraphrase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it even have the equipment to be able to read such things?

      AC - Because you have to, not because you want to.

    3. Re:to paraphrase by hpavc · · Score: 1

      Agreed, its all new news from here on. They didnt even know where it actually began. 30AU? 60AU? 85AU?

      --
      members are seeing something, your seeing an ad
    4. Re:to paraphrase by pclminion · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Better answer: We really hope so!

      Voyager has been moving through space in ways unexplainable by physics. There is a small acceleration that can't be accounted for using known laws. It's almost like gravity doesn't work quite the way we think it does.

      Of course, there is always the possibility that we just can't see the source of the acceleration, and it'll turn out to be something simple. However so far, all proposals put forth to explain it have been shown to be incorrect.

      There is a deeper connection to very important issues in physics. For decades we have been studying the fabled "dark matter" which is supposed to be the cause of the anomalous rotation of the galaxy. The galaxy does not move in ways predicted by the laws of gravity. It is as if there is a huge amount of hidden mass which is influencing its rotation. So far we have not found any of this "dark matter."

      But imagine the possibility. What if dark matter doesn't really exist? What if it's our understanding of gravity that is wrong? This would have profound implications throughout physics. After all our only direct experience of gravity is what happens here on Earth and within the bounds of the solar system. Except that today, we have a probe that has crossed that limit.

      Perhaps the anomalous motion of Voyager will shed light on the situation. I for one would be utterly elated if it turns out we have to rewrite our physics books.

      Voyager isn't useless yet!

    5. Re:to paraphrase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      solar wind, interstellar gas...

      Hmmm, do stars communicate with farts?

    6. Re:to paraphrase by cens0r · · Score: 2

      Actually it's pretty well understood that our theory of gravity is wrong. It doesn't agree with quantum mechanics. That's the big push in physics right now to find a 'quantum' theory of gravity, or identify the graviton particle.

      --
      Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
    7. Re:to paraphrase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heliopause. Is that something like menopause?

    8. Re:to paraphrase by pclminion · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Well, there's a difference between being correct and being accurate. Yes, clearly our current theory of gravity is not CORRECT because it doesn't play well with QM. However it is a very ACCURATE theory in the sense that it gives answers which match reality exceedingly well (unless you take things to the quantum scale).

      What we're talking about here is a new situation, where the current theories of gravity aren't giving the right numbers even at a macroscopic scale. That is, if there isn't some other hidden force that we can't observe.

      I would personally rather believe that our theories of gravity are wrong, as opposed to thinking the universe is magically permeated with huge amounts of massive stuff that we quite inconveniently cannot detect.

    9. Re:to paraphrase by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      If you read the article apparently it did, but said equipment has sense died. But they expect to be able to get much information simply from telemetry. (Why can't they get the same kinda info on comets and stuff?)

    10. Re:to paraphrase by rritterson · · Score: 1, Funny

      My theory: an alien astronaut has attached a jet to the spacecraft and is now stealing it for further study.

      --
      -Ryan
      AUWYHSTOT (Acronyms are Useless When You Have to Spell Them Out Too)
    11. Re:to paraphrase by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Two reasons:

      1. Voyager is now mostly past the 'comets and stuff'.

      2. Getting useful information about space from telemetry means you have to track an object which you know the properties of. We know approximate mass for most comets. We know exact mass, composition, initial velocity, acceleration vectors and more about Voyager. This means we don't have to guess these in calculations, which means we get quite a bit more detailed info out of them.

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
    12. Re:to paraphrase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Or is towing it away for driving without a license.

    13. Re:to paraphrase by cens0r · · Score: 1

      Well, newton's equations give really good answers most of the time too. It could just be that if we find a theory of gravity that plays well with quantum mechanics it will agree with GR and newton on most things and explain all the other inconsitencies.

      --
      Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
    14. Re:to paraphrase by kabocox · · Score: 1

      I would personally rather believe that our theories of gravity are wrong, as opposed to thinking the universe is magically permeated with huge amounts of massive stuff that we quite inconveniently cannot detect.

      Well, I'd think that the absolute worst thing that could happen is it runs into the edge of the solar system, and it turns out that we are in very large box that would be scary more than anything else though.

      I can accept that there are things that you have to be so far from a star before you start encountering the effects. We've not even fully explored this planet, and we tend to think that we know everything. Gosh, Humans are arrogant.

    15. Re:to paraphrase by phaetonic · · Score: 1

      so maybe in 10 to 15 years, when we might be able to actually have an experiment to prove/disprove string theory, voyager can help?

    16. Re:to paraphrase by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      but there is. If you have a chance to hear a lecture about early universe cosmology, youll quickly realize that the existance of particles only interacting via gravitation and not by weak/strong/electromagnetic force is not only possible, but quite likely.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    17. Re:to paraphrase by Saeger · · Score: 1
      It is as if there is a huge amount of hidden mass which is influencing its rotation.

      My favorite explaination for dark matter: It's advanced ETs who've built Dyson shell sized brains around stars to exploit every last drop of energy.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    18. Re:to paraphrase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      advanced ETs who've built Dyson shell sized brains around stars to exploit every last drop of energy

      Those must be bitchin' solitaire gaming machines!

    19. Re:to paraphrase by MinutiaeMan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, it's my understanding that the Oort Cloud extends several thousand AU's outside the solar system. Those are the objects that come in for a pass near the sun ever million years or so... I'm not sure how far out they've been detected so far, but I'm pretty sure they're way out there.

    20. Re:to paraphrase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is impossible to be 100 percent efficient. If these shells really existed we would most certainly be able to detect residual radiation.

    21. Re:to paraphrase by ElderKorean · · Score: 1

      It is impossible to be 100 percent efficient. If these shells really existed we would most certainly be able to detect residual radiation.


      We do, to us it looks like the radiation emitted by far away stars.

      It's just that our technology isn't advanced enough to see what is really there.

      Like the 'Truman Show' we will find the edge when we run into it. Ever wonder about the coincidences that happen in everyday life.

      We ARE the reality TV show of the universe.

    22. Re:to paraphrase by Proudrooster · · Score: 1

      I would personally rather believe that our theories of gravity are wrong, as opposed to thinking the universe is magically permeated with huge amounts of massive stuff that we quite inconveniently cannot detect.

      Imagine that, the universe might be full of things we can't detect. :) Not too long ago humans couldn't detect, radiation, magnetism, or the strong and weak nuclear forces. Now, because we have discovered some of the fundamental forces of nature we are frustrated becaused we can't come up with a grand unified equation that ties all the (known) forces together and unites Newton, Einstein, and quantum mechanics.

      Physics is a frustrating business these days. QM makes absolutely no sense and the String theorists think they have figured out the Universe but have no hope of coming up with an experiment to prove it. Until then, I am going to hypothesize we are all living the Matrix.

    23. Re:to paraphrase by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I only have one problem with the whole dyson sphere idea. Assuming you are trying to walk around inside it, what is going to keep you on the ground? Not gravity.
      One of the problems we had to deal with in my college physics courses was figuring out the effect of gravity on an object inside a shell, resultant from that shell. And you know the answer we came up with? Zero, Zilch, the gravity from the shell counteracts itself no matter where you are in the shell. Simply put, even though you are might be closer to one spot on the shell, the fact that most of the mass of the shell is now on the other side of you, cancels out the effect of the distance.
      Here is a reference, for those that don't trust me.
      So my point is, why would anyone build a dyson sphere in the first place, unless its just a collector and the people live elsewhere?

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
    24. Re:to paraphrase by Saeger · · Score: 1
      Assuming you are trying to walk around inside it

      Actually, no, far from it. I'm assuming that by the time we have the ability to build such a massive structure, that humankind will have long since evolved beyond the limitations of the fragile human body. Transhumans don't need to waste meatspace.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    25. Re:to paraphrase by monkeyfinger · · Score: 0

      Don't panic.

    26. Re:to paraphrase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I for one would be utterly elated if it turns out we have to rewrite our physics books.

      Oh, no. I worked my ass off to get an A in that class.

    27. Re:to paraphrase by thogard · · Score: 1

      The current theory doesn't work correctly with the Navstar sats (aka GPS sats) and thats at orbital speeds. Every deep space probe is doing things they should be based on funny accelerations and theres that issue of Foucault Pendulums and eclipses.

      For now I'm going on the theory that gravity pushes. Its just as wrong as any other theory and the math still works out. I figure its like navigating as if the world is flat.

    28. Re:to paraphrase by sbszine · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You could spin the shell for apparent gravity and live on the inside equator. There's a ton of lebensraum in a 1AU radius sphere.

      --

      Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling

    29. Re:to paraphrase by Progman3K · · Score: 3, Insightful

      According to Wikipedia, you're right; Oort Clouds are postulated to extend 50,000-100,000 AU from their stars.

      That would effectively put Voyager outside the heliopause but still within Sol's Oort cloud.

      I like the end of the Wikipedia article:

      It is thought that other stars are likely to possess Oort clouds of their own, and that the outer edges of two nearby stars' Oort clouds may sometimes overlap, causing the occasional intrusion of a comet into the inner solar system.

      The reason I find this significant is that I remember hearing that it is believed some comets might be the ferriers of organic material, life even, from other stars and solar systems, and they may even be what seeded life here, in this solar system.

      So I hope they scrubbed down Voyager properly before launching it, otherwise countless years from now, it could crash-land on a planet somewhere and the microbes it is carrying (if they survived the trip) might

      - Have no effect
      - Seed life on a world
      - Cause a plague that kills all indiginous life on another planet because their immune systems are unable to cope with the microbes.

      Which do you think will happen?
      I'm taking bets.

      --
      I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
    30. Re:to paraphrase by benzapp · · Score: 1

      Ahh, the future... I can't wait. I get to simply exist. Whoopie!

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
    31. Re:to paraphrase by Saeger · · Score: 1
      Yeah. You get to exist for as long as you want, in the form you want, in the reality you want, with a vastly expanded mind ... Booooooooring! heh.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    32. Re:to paraphrase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/

      gravity is not what we think it is, in string theory

    33. Re:to paraphrase by jpkeating · · Score: 1

      The chance of it reaching another planet is roughly 0.00000000000000083956 in a septillion. The chance of it surviving atmospheric entry, and of its microbes surviving millions of years of space radiation as well, is vastly smaller.

      If it did make it, though, it could seed life on a very young, wet world that was primed for life but hadn't produced any of its own. This would be a very short window of opportunity -- Earth seems to have had life just as soon as it could.

      If it landed on a planet with life, it couldn't cause a plague because alien life, while probably broadly similar in its chemistry, would still be too different for them to interact. Infection requires familiarity, and the use of the same genetic language. The chance of infection is the same as the chance that intelligent alien beings speak an intelligible form of English. The microbes also couldn't spread on such a planet because it couldn't possibly compete against indigenous life, which would be far better adapted to conditions there.

      So either way, no effect.

      This is also why we needn't worry about our getting infected by extraterrestrial life (and why extraterrestials couldn't breed with humans). Interstellar grains have been found in our atmosphere, and have been raining from the sky for the whole history of our planet. If any carried microbes that survived the trip, they didn't survive the competition, otherwise we would have a kingdom of life with completely different biology from all the others. Conceivably they seeded life here, but I doubt we needed the help -- where there is water, life will form, and right quick.

    34. Re:to paraphrase by jpkeating · · Score: 2, Informative

      for more, see Discover on tweaking the theory of gravity, and Sky & Telescope on evidence against it.

    35. Re:to paraphrase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pardon if this has already been asked.

      how are we measuring the distance voyager has traveled? i assume a simple measure of the comms is the only option available, which means, perhaps it's not our understanding of gravity that's skewed so much as our conception of time?

    36. Re:to paraphrase by KjetilK · · Score: 2, Informative

      Voyager has been moving through space in ways unexplainable by physics.

      Any references I can read? astro-ph will do fine... :-)

      So far we have not found any of this "dark matter."

      Oh yes, there are many detections of massive astrophysical compact halo objects in our galaxy, P. Popowski et al, and there is also a lot of work going on to use the same ideas to look for similar bodies in other galaxies. In fact, the microlensing ideas were first proposed for extragalactic studies by Chang and Refsdal in an article in Nature in 1979. The funny thing about this is that it doesn't matter what kind of matter it is, as long as it is gravitating. Also, it is easier if it is clumped, but it doesn't need to be.

      Shameless plug: My thesis: Gravitational Microlensing of Quasar Clouds: Detectability in a Worst-Case Scenario.

      I for one would be utterly elated if it turns out we have to rewrite our physics books.

      Would be cool! :-)

      Voyager isn't useless yet!

      That's true! Just venturing off into the unknown is really interesting. I'd love to go there myself... :-)
      --
      Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
    37. Re:to paraphrase by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      QM makes absolutely no sense

      What are you, some kind of lame brain like old Albert?

      Just go with many worlds & there's nothing hard about QM at all. Well, appart from the math of course. :-)

      ObSF Quarantine, by Greg Egan. Whoops wrong forum.
      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    38. Re:to paraphrase by Bill+Quayle · · Score: 1
      Any references I can read? astro-ph will do fine...:-)

      I think he's talking about an anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer spacecraft of around 8.5x10^-8 cm/s^2 that was first reported several years ago. As far as I can tell, whether or not this effect can be explained by conventional sources is still a subject of some debate. I'm not an expert on the literature, but some references that talk abut the issue are J.D.Anderson et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81,2858(1998) and L.K. Scheffer, Phys. Rev. D 67,084021(2003). These articles provide some estimates of the size of the anomalous acceleration and some attempts at explaining it using conventional physics. A quick search on lanl turns up, for example, this paper along with numerous others.

    39. Re:to paraphrase by yelts1n · · Score: 1

      What if it's our understanding of gravity that is wrong? This would have profound implications throughout physics. After all our only direct experience of gravity is what happens here on Earth and within the bounds of the solar system. Except that today, we have a probe that has crossed that limit.
      This couldn't be more wrong. Have you ever heard of Hulse-Taylor pulsar? I think you need to read about the history of gravity before you start taking the pop-science seriously.

    40. Re:to paraphrase by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      Two contentions with your argument.
      One its been shown that some strands of bacteria can handle space radiation quite well, millions of years, I don't know. But still possible.
      Also simularity is not as nessesary in the world of bacteria as it is with viruses. A foreign virus would likly have absolutly no effect as the DNA would be too different. But many bateria can florish on almost any type of nurishment. It might not be able to infect the beings there but it could definitly compete for food.

    41. Re:to paraphrase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You want, if possible - and there is no more insane "if possible" - to abolish suffering. And we? It really seems that we would rather have it higher and worse than ever. Well-being as you understand it - that is no goal, that seems to us an end, a state that soon makes man ridiculous and contemptible - that makes his destruction desirable. The discipline of suffering, of great suffering - do you not know that only this discipline has created all enhancements of man so far?"

    42. Re:to paraphrase by Abreu · · Score: 1
      The chance of infection is the same as the chance that intelligent alien beings speak an intelligible form of English.


      Oh, come on! The aliens already know english, they have been listening to our tv and radio signals for the last 50 years! Thats certainly enough time to learn a language.

      Of course, by now they are addicted to japanese game shows from their observation base on pluto (nod to Douglas Adams)

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    43. Re:to paraphrase by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      I only have one problem with the whole dyson sphere idea. Assuming you are trying to walk around inside it, what is going to keep you on the ground?

      It wouldn't be a solid sphere. If it's made up of a large number of asteroids/planets, then people can live on them, and the star is still mostly surrounded.

      The idea of a dyson sphere that is a solid shell is a bad idea. Partly because of gravity problems (spinning helps, but that would only work near the equator), and it would be much harder to build.

    44. Re:to paraphrase by jpkeating · · Score: 1

      OK, I soften the "couldn't possibly" in talking about Earth bacteria's chances of competing on an alien planet. But unless the alien world had very similar chemistry, they would stand a very poor chance, not even considering their low numbers, poor viability after eons of being battered in space, and inability to swap genes. The possibility does exist, but they would only stand a decent chance on a world that is just getting going. It may have happened here. If so, viable life should still be arriving. But if it is, it's not surviving long enough or in enough numbers to have been noticed yet.

      The absence of alien life here is pretty good evidence against life being able to survive naked travel in space, then colonize a new world. And the simplicity of the first bacterial fossils, plus the clear relatedness of all life, is good evidence it didn't happen in the past.

      Another thought is that alien organisms would stand the best chance on a pristine new world, but they would have to be anaerobic, which on a world mature enough to produce spacecraft will be few, and living in odd buried corners from which they couldn't hitch a ride. The things most likely to hitch a ride are least likely to survive once they reach a new home.

      Still, comet and asteroid impacts have sent many a chunk of Earth flying into the void, with attendant bacteria able to survive at least the trip into space, so the cosmos ought to have a thin dusting of hibernating microbes.

      NASA has sent up aerogel to collect comet dust. We could use the same stuff to troll for alien microbes as well, and find out for sure. It might take a fair bit of the stuff and years of scooping, but it could be done from Earth orbit, and stand at least as good a chance of success as the SETI project.

    45. Re:to paraphrase by juhaz · · Score: 1

      How does that explain dark matter? Assuming those shells are built from ordinary matter, they don't increase gravity a bit.

      Or are you hinting that there is actually 90% more stars in universe but we can't see any trace of them because they are encased?

    46. Re:to paraphrase by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't those two possible sources be quite different in spectral makeup?

      The one would have very red-shifted spectral lines. The other would be lower-temperature black-body radiation with spectral lines consistant with a close object.

      I believe there is a Dyson sphere FAQ out there which derives the expected spectral output of such a sphere.

    47. Re:to paraphrase by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Where do you think the 3 degree cosmic background radiation comes from?

      While a convenient explanation, you could just as easily attribute it to millions upon millions of dormant "baby black holes". Same thing.

      oooo maybe Pioneer 10 is rushing headlong into Nemesis, Sol's partner black hole?!?!?!?! Quick call the Coast Guard!
      </poor humor>

  3. 26 years.... by tekiegreg · · Score: 1

    Wow I should only hope to make a piece of code that lasts so long (the best I did is 3), a true testament to what a bunch of nerds with some ingenuity (and money) can really do. These days it seems we have the genius, but surely not the money. Oh well...

    Can only hope some day we catch up to Voyager. Either with a probe that could pass it up, or NCC-1701 :-)

    --
    ...in bed
    1. Re:26 years.... by leerpm · · Score: 1

      Wow I should only hope to make a piece of code that lasts so long (the best I did is 3), a true testament to what a bunch of nerds with some ingenuity (and money) can really do. These days it seems we have the genius, but surely not the money. Oh well...

      Sssh.. You missed your calling with the guys who wrote the software with the Y2K bug in it!

    2. Re:26 years.... by DJTodd242 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Can only hope some day we catch up to Voyager. Either with a probe that could pass it up, or NCC-1701 :-)

      More likely it'll be blown to smithereens by Klingons.

    3. Re:26 years.... by pyros · · Score: 2, Funny

      don't you mean it will swallow up one of their war ships?

    4. Re:26 years.... by inode_buddha · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes... kinda feeling old (I just turned 36) but I remember when Voyager was launched. It was emotional then, and its emotional now. Think: back then, 640k was a *lot*, and the standard logic was 7xxx series TTL chips. Dunno what CPU, but I doubt it was anything so advanced as a Z-80. Dunno what firmware either, if any - coulda been hardwired. Can't remember shit here.

      Now, if you ask me: That's a beautiful piece of engineering, that we're still getting some use from.

      It's already had some sensor damage, etc; the main question is how long the remaining sensors hold up, IMHO.

      *...sniff...*

      --
      C|N>K
    5. Re:26 years.... by dotwaffle · · Score: 1

      didn't the klingons destroy it in star trek 2 or something? or 5... one of the weird ones.

    6. Re:26 years.... by doconnor · · Score: 1

      The software on Voyager has been maintained on updated over the years. Probably almost all of the orginal code has been replaced.

      They used to boast that Voyager worked better near the end of its primary mission then when it launched because of the improved software.

      You have to admit the hardware has done well.

    7. Re:26 years.... by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

      It was Pioneer 10 that the klingons destroyed at the begining of the star trek movie who's name shall not be spoken...

      --
      "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
    8. Re:26 years.... by raodin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That was a different Voyager.

    9. Re:26 years.... by stevesliva · · Score: 1

      You should hope to never have to work woth code that lasts so long, because chances are nobody's around to fix it.

      I just reported a massive memory leak (up to 40MB per command... actually got the memory footprint up to a couple gigs before it stopped working) in a software tool that I use... the bug resolution was "That's been around since 1996. We don't have the people to fix it." I guess we're not selling it, so it's okay...

      --
      Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
    10. Re:26 years.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      didn't the klingons destroy it in star trek 2 or something? or 5... one of the weird ones.

      No, in Star Trek V a Klingon ship destroyed some random earth Probe. One of the Pioneer probes was destroyed by the Klingons in ST:TMP

    11. Re:26 years.... by Ella+the+Cat · · Score: 2, Informative
    12. Re:26 years.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      These days it seems we have the genius, but surely not the money.

      I disagree.

      I think we have a lot of arogance. Look at the Dot Bomb. Lot's of 'genius' and tons of money.
      Result: failure

    13. Re:26 years.... by AchmedHabib · · Score: 1

      damn, those had to be some rough code reviews before uploading it.

    14. Re:26 years.... by sketerpot · · Score: 1
      Fortunately, all Klingon warships are equipped with tripolar nondeterministic subspace acid reflux capacitance nihilisti-coils. They'll just self destruct and BLOW UP VGER!!!!!

      I never did like that movie....

    15. Re:26 years.... by c.emmertfoster · · Score: 1

      Was that the blasphemous one where they found "God" in the "center of the galaxy?"

      That movie had some great moments, regardless of the terrible ending.

      --
      We can neither love nor pity nor forgive. If you make a slip in handling us you die!
    16. Re:26 years.... by inode_buddha · · Score: 1
      Thx for the info, nifty looking chip, esp. the radiation hardening. Still getting all nostalgic here. *-sniff-*

      BTW, who the *FUCK* thought my (previous) nostalgic post was worthy flamebait?

      --
      C|N>K
    17. Re:26 years.... by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

      *puts fingers in ears* LA LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING LA LA LA LALameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

      --
      "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
    18. Re:26 years.... by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      --You sir, are a True ST Geek.
      *bows and leaves*

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    19. Re:26 years.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've noticed it's easy to mod something as X but when you hit moderate it appears as Y, something to do with the widget keeping focus, you move down the page thinking "job done", but the widget intercepts your keystrokes and changes the moderation. No-ones's fault, but it makes me feel better when someone mods me as such. - Ella the Cat

  4. Goodness... by swordboy · · Score: 5, Funny

    They've gone to plaid.

    --

    Life is the leading cause of death in America.
    1. Re:Goodness... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Offtopic

      Was the Moderator on Crack? That parent is pretty funny....

    2. Re:Goodness... by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 1

      They've gone to plaid.

      Offtopic? Who the hell modded that off topic??? - Gone to plaid is a reference to ludricous speed taken from spaceballs.

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    3. Re:Goodness... by Liselle · · Score: 1

      I never post humor unless it's as AC for that very reason. Personally, I always err on the side of moderating up something that needs to be seen, not modding down something I don't understand. They'll pay for it in M2, no worries.

      --
      Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
    4. Re:Goodness... by NanoGator · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Offtopic? Who the hell modded that off topic??? - Gone to plaid is a reference to ludricous speed taken from spaceballs."

      I'm surrounded by assholes!

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    5. Re:Goodness... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're all assholes, sir!

    6. Re:Goodness... by AchmedHabib · · Score: 1

      Yes but I believe that there was only one major asshole.

    7. Re:Goodness... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep firing assholes!!!!

    8. Re:Goodness... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, of course you are. Almost everybody you encounter has one. Duh.

  5. you never know... by Major_Small · · Score: 1

    we probably won't find anything too groundbreaking, but there's always new pictures and small findings that can lead to new theories and such that will be interesting to anybody who likes astronomy... for example, they recently found out that black holes create sound...

    1. Re:you never know... by Polly_was_a_cracker · · Score: 2, Funny

      Is it the same sound as one hand clapping?

      --
      I have a Cig, but do you have a light?
    2. Re:you never know... by Major_Small · · Score: 3, Informative

      actually, kinda... it's the sound of a deep bass, which the human ear can't hear... they found out because they noticed it shifted planets and stars along it's wave... check it out here: space.com

    3. Re:you never know... by yiantsbro · · Score: 1

      But only when under observation

    4. Re:you never know... by badman99 · · Score: 0

      Don't you need air to create sound ? If so how could a black hole create sound ? Is PooPoo one word or two (Homer Simpson)

    5. Re:you never know... by anonamussone · · Score: 1

      Don't you need air to create sound ? If so how could a black hole create sound ?

      no, you dont need air to create sound. you need vibration. you also need molecules to transmit those vibrations to a reciever. sound travels very well in water, and while there are bubbles, there certainly isnt what i call air. molecules are the key, and space certainly contains enough of those. it might not transmit sound audible to the human ear, but it does transmit sound.

    6. Re:you never know... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      I have a Cig, but do you have a light?

      Gotta light, Mac?

      No, but I do have a dark brown overcoat.
      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
  6. Heliopause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Heliopause
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

    The heliopause is the boundary where our Sun's solar wind is stopped by the interstellar medium.

    The solar wind blows a "bubble" in the interstellar medium (the rareified hydrogen and helium gas that permeates the galaxy). The point where the solar wind's strength is no longer great enough to push back the interstellar medium is known as the heliopause, and is often considered to be the outer "border" of the solar system.

    The distance to the heliopause is not precisely known. It is probably much smaller on the side of the solar system facing the orbital motion through the galaxy. It may also vary depending on the current velocity of the solar wind and the local density of the interstellar medium. It is known to lie far outside the orbit of Pluto. The current mission of the Voyager 1 and 2 spacecraft is to find and study the heliopause.

    An alternative definition is that the heliopause is the magnetopause between the solar system's magnetosphere and the galaxy's plasma currents.

    1. Re:Heliopause by ThrasherTT · · Score: 1

      Thanks for this. I mean, it really was hard to click the link in the story.

      --

      All Your Memory Are Belong To Java
    2. Re:Heliopause by Jesrad · · Score: 1

      Since 'helios', in heliopause, means the sun, shouldn't this mood changing phenomenon actually affect the sun, and not the space probe ?

      Maybe that's the reasons for all those solar flares lately...

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    3. Re:Heliopause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless, of course, it's Slashdotted. Fucking jackass.

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

      But it doesn't seem to be. Shithead.

    5. Re:Heliopause by red+floyd · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is slashdot. Nobody clicks on the links in the story.

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
    6. Re:Heliopause by MindNumbingOblivion · · Score: 1

      I would say karma whore, except for the obvious problem that this "whore" has posted anonymously.

      I guess the corect term therefore is "karma slut"?

      --
      #define CLUE 0
    7. Re:Heliopause by Stonent1 · · Score: 1

      This is slashdot. Nobody clicks on the links in the story.

      No... Everyone opens the link in a new tab / browser window but they never get around to reading it. Ergo... Slashdot effect.

    8. Re:Heliopause by Greeneland · · Score: 1

      It is interesting in that during the press conference they mentioned that the boundary may be moving by as much as 15 AU. Also, they expect that we will cross the boundary many times. As it moves we will continue to 'ride the wave' as they put it.

    9. Re:Heliopause by DongleFondle · · Score: 1

      Thank God someone put it in terms I can understand. Anyone want to try Heliopause for Dummies?

    10. Re:Heliopause by TopShelf · · Score: 1

      Another way of saying it is that Voyager has now gone Into the Void...

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    11. Re:Heliopause by Silh · · Score: 1

      According to the NASA release, it's the heliosheath that's possibly been reached, not the heliopause.

      The heliosheath is the area between the termination shock and heliopause. It looks like there's some debate about whether the termination shock has actually been crossed or not, but I guess they're agreed that certain readings have changed.

      See also an APOD about this.

      --
      -- Silhouette
    12. Re:Heliopause by ruiner13 · · Score: 1
      "...the heliopause is the magnetopause between the solar system's magnetosphere and the galaxy's plasma currents."

      No shit sherlock! Everyone knows that! Say it again and I'll kick you so hard in your magnetospheres it'll make your plasma currents come out your mouth.

      Or, I need to stop drinking.

      --

      today is spelling optional day.

    13. Re:Heliopause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank God! Here I was thinking of menopause and it's effects on V-ger. Would explain alot :)

      (no, seriously!)

      (nah, just kidding)

    14. Re:Heliopause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice reference - I was just reading that thread...

  7. So I guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...it isn't going to reach the delta quadrant anytime soon?

    1. Re:So I guess... by escher · · Score: 1

      That depends on your definition of "soon", now doesn't it...

    2. Re:So I guess... by mcbridematt · · Score: 1

      We are the borg. We will assimulate your little probe. Negotiation is irrelivant, your probe will be assimulated.

  8. Of course we know what it will find by sielwolf · · Score: 3, Funny

    Aliens too stupid to wipe off some space dirt to realize the dang thing isn't named VEEEGERRRR!

    --
    What is music when you despise all sound?
    1. Re:Of course we know what it will find by stratjakt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How did it get so fucking dusty in the vaccuum of space in the first place?

      The whole thing sounds made up.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    2. Re:Of course we know what it will find by sielwolf · · Score: 1

      All I knows is that I can get another 17 years of Karma mileage from that joke! Not like folks 'round here are too concerned about dipping multiple times from the Well of Funny. ;P

      --
      What is music when you despise all sound?
    3. Re:Of course we know what it will find by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      How did it get so fucking dusty in the vaccuum of space in the first place?

      Apparently God is as good a housekeeper as I am....

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    4. Re:Of course we know what it will find by hornrimsylvia · · Score: 1

      c'mon there are like 37.5 veeger jokes in this thread. 2001 didn't come true. we celebrated HAL's birthday, but was he ever BORN? the matix jokes are however still quite fresh.

    5. Re:Of course we know what it will find by xconslash · · Score: 0

      That was Voyager 6.

      --


      .sig error: carrier signal lost.
    6. Re:Of course we know what it will find by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

      Just to point out, it was Voayger 6 in ST:TMP, and the story was it fell through a black hole, so who knows what sorta gunk got stuck on it in there.

      --
      "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
    7. Re:Of course we know what it will find by ShieldWolf · · Score: 1

      I can't believe you just admitted to knowing that. :P

      --
      just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
    8. Re:Of course we know what it will find by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine a beowulf cluster of dusty funny wells ;-)

      In soviet russia, the dusty wells make fun of you

    9. Re:Of course we know what it will find by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aliens too stupid to wipe off some space dirt to realize the dang thing isn't named VEEEGERRRR!

      Well, they were machines, and they were probably running Windows 3000 Pangalactic Edition. Need I say more?

    10. Re:Of course we know what it will find by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did it get so dusty in the vaccuum of space in the first place?

      The whole thing sounds made up.
      ------

      Err, you do realize that that only happend in a Star Trek movie, right? So, err, yes, it was made up...

    11. Re:Of course we know what it will find by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      --From what I've read, "space" isn't exactly a "vacuum" - I think ION engines or Bussard ramjets or something are designed to run on space dust.

      (/me keeps lid on wanting to post Obligatory Spaceballs Vacuum joke)

      --I asked Jeeves "what kind of rocket engine runs on space dust" and got this:
      http://tarkus.pha.jhu.edu/~ethan/d26.html?o =0

      (( Excerpt; emphasis mine: ))
      [[ The final specifications for Project Daedalus called for the spacecraft to visit Barnard's star (which was thought to have planets) at a distance of about 6 light years. (snip) The mission would last about 50 years and would therefore have to include repair robots to fix the inevitable problems that would arise on such a long flight. The main problem in flight would be collisions with tiny dust grains. At speeds of over 30,000 km/sec each grain will hit with enormous force. The Daedalus Project proposed using a shield of Beryllium with a thickness of 0.7 cm. By the end of the journey this shield would be considerably thinner.

      (snip)

      It's clear that this mission falls well short of carrying people to the stars. Perhaps the only way to do better is to avoid carrying fuel. One proposal along these lines was the Bussard ramjet, which was based on the notion of scooping up interstellar gas. It has gradually become clear that this will not work. The gas is too diffuse, and the energy spent scooping it up dwarfs the return one gets from using it in a fusion reactor.
      ]]

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
  9. Even if it does, will it be able to tell us? by yndrd · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What's the range of communications for the probe? When will we lose our connection (if we haven't already)?

    1. Re:Even if it does, will it be able to tell us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Communicades travel at the speed of light..

    2. Re:Even if it does, will it be able to tell us? by Carnildo · · Score: 3, Informative

      What's the range of communications for the probe? When will we lose our connection (if we haven't already)?

      No one knows for certain. A number of factors enter in, including the ability of Voyager to keep its antenna pointed at Earth, the amount of power left in the radiothermal generator, the size of radio telescope available for communicating with it on Earth, and possibly unknown effects from the heliopause.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    3. Re:Even if it does, will it be able to tell us? by leerpm · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, the US government has a secret message it uses to identify this point:

      "Can you hear me now? .. Can you hear me now?"

    4. Re:Even if it does, will it be able to tell us? by kfg · · Score: 1

      Communicades travel at the speed of light..

      Yes, but the power of dark overcomes it. Something about introverts being really square, or something. I'm not sure, I was pretty stoned the day they talked about that stuff.

      KFG

    5. Re:Even if it does, will it be able to tell us? by fhpaterek · · Score: 0

      Reading the site about the Deep Space Network, a link on de Voyager site, they should be able to keep up with it for quite a while longer.

      This thing really boggles my mind. I still remember my dad showing me the pictures and the map of the universe in National Geographic. This thing was huge in the 70s and still boggles the mind. Space exploration needs to become exploration again, millions reading papers and watching the tv because of something we are doing in space.

    6. Re:Even if it does, will it be able to tell us? by N7DR · · Score: 5, Informative
      What's the range of communications for the probe? When will we lose our connection (if we haven't already)?

      For many years I was a co-investigator on Voyager (actually, technically, I suppose that I still am; I have never been notified that the status ever changed). Anyway, the best guess when I was an active participant, throughout the 80s and half of the 90s, was more-or-less the year 2010. That was predicted to be the year at which the always-decreasing power output from the transmitter, the ever-increasing distance and the more-or-less constant sensitivity of the DSN (Deep Space Network) system combined to reduce the received signal to the point where it the bit rate at which information could be extracted was too low to be useful.

      The general supposition was that funding would be eliminated before that date.

    7. Re:Even if it does, will it be able to tell us? by Not_Wiggins · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I suppose if they felt they were still getting useful information from the probe (ie, it was "looking" at something "interesting" with sensors that still worked), they could always launch a relay-type satellite... just like a network repeater.

      Good thing they have several years to decide both if they:
      A) want to have/fund such a thing
      B) are getting new information worth collecting

      Heck... who knows where our terrestrial (or even space-stationed) receiver technology will be in 5 years; perhaps we'll be able to pick out the signal from here, no matter how weak nor how noisy.

      --
      Diplomacy is the art of saying, "Nice doggie!" until you can find a rock.
    8. Re:Even if it does, will it be able to tell us? by jdray · · Score: 1

      This is going to sound like a joke, but I wonder if SETI@Home is geared to ignore signals from Voyager. I can just see it (from 2015): "Ooh, I've got something. It looks like a probe. Aliens are coming, just outside the heliosphere!" (I know, I know. Don't be like that.)

      --
      The Spoon
      Updated 6/28/2011
    9. Re:Even if it does, will it be able to tell us? by imsabbel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      you cant launch a relay satellite. Remember, the falloff is r^2. Even the best engines would take about 10 years to place a satellite halfway between voyager and earth.
      that would be 2015 or so. Now the energy density at the point of the satellite would be 4 times as high as on earth, BUT there is no way you can stuff a reviever on a satellite who as 5% of the sensitivity of a earth based reciever. Remember, on earth you could use 300m at arichbo. For 4 times the signal power, you would still need a 150m dish to get the same signal strenght.
      And there is no way to get something like that in position.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    10. Re:Even if it does, will it be able to tell us? by Chicks_Hate_Me · · Score: 2, Funny

      ping -t voyager Duh!

    11. Re:Even if it does, will it be able to tell us? by alphakappa · · Score: 1

      The signals, however weak can still be useful, but that depends on the technology being used for data transmission too. Spread spectrum communications can make use of terribly weak signals in noisy environments and still extract useful information. Can someone provide data on the kind of communication system being employed on the Voyager?

      --
      "When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail." - Abraham Maslow (1908-1970)
    12. Re:Even if it does, will it be able to tell us? by snake_dad · · Score: 1
      According to recent space.com article they expect Voyager to run out of fuel in 2020. Some instruments have already shut down because there is no longer enough energy available to heat them all, and still communicate with Earth.

      Some more interesting stuff there too, appearantly the scientists do not agree yet about the meaning of the latest incoming data.

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
    13. Re:Even if it does, will it be able to tell us? by pokeyburro · · Score: 1

      8.4 billion miles = about half a light day.

      So as of this writing, no, it can't hear you.

      --
      Lately democracy seems to be based on the skybox, the Happy Meal box, the X-box, and the idiot box.
    14. Re:Even if it does, will it be able to tell us? by snake_dad · · Score: 1

      You can read all about that on the SETI@home site. A lot of manmade noise has to be taken into account when looking at promising signals. So far every really interesting looking signal has turned out to be man made.

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
    15. Re:Even if it does, will it be able to tell us? by StewedSquirrel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      First of all, the primary issue with the signal falloff is the SIZE of the reciever. Launching a sattellite doesn't exactly solve that problem, because the sattelite's reciever would have to be *nearly* as large as the VLA or the big "lake sized" earth-bound dishes.

      I think it has more to do with the sheer size, than the sensitivity of the reciever. The "noise" from the Universe will eventually eat the signal and with the combination of decreasing power and increasing distance, I think xmit power will fall off faster than some "technology" (new filters, transforms, etc etc)

      Squirrel

      --
      There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
    16. Re:Even if it does, will it be able to tell us? by Pentagram · · Score: 1

      How about launching a probe in the direction of Voyager to create a relay? If it accelerates fast enough it should be able to keep within communication distance.

      And when we start to lose contact with the new probe we can launch a new probe in the same direction and begin to create a communication chain across the universe :)

    17. Re:Even if it does, will it be able to tell us? by gad_zuki! · · Score: 3, Funny

      >When will we lose our connection (if we haven't already)?

      Its good until 2005 when the FCC Broadcast Flag rule makes recieving the signal illegal without a DRM upgrade.

    18. Re:Even if it does, will it be able to tell us? by adeyadey · · Score: 1

      It looks like they think they can keep going until 2020 now, at which point they may not have ebough power for the instruments..

      http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/interstellar .h tml

      --
      "You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
    19. Re:Even if it does, will it be able to tell us? by N7DR · · Score: 1
      I suppose if they felt they were still getting useful information from the probe (ie, it was "looking" at something "interesting" with sensors that still worked), they could always launch a relay-type satellite... just like a network repeater.

      Not really very practical. You'd need something that had a larger antenna aperture than one of the (large) DSN stations. It's hard to imagine what Voyager could be detecting that would support this sort of thing. If it really was detecting something vutally important, I suspect that it wuold be far less expensive to upgrade the DSN (note, I didn't say it would be cheap, just less expensive than trying to do the same thing from Earth orbit). And, to your other point, the DSN receivers already operate at extremely low noise floors; the only practical way to enhance their ability to receive weak signals is to increase the aperture.

  10. communicating? by wankledot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    if it does find anything, how long before it's out of earshot for us? Are we able to hear from it up until that last bit of fuel is spent?

    --
    My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
    1. Re:communicating? by tekiegreg · · Score: 1

      Well the JPL website says 2020 before the reactor can no longer power itself, I presume we can keep contact until then by just simply building bigger transmitters and receivers if/as needed (again like in a previous post of mine, assuming we have money).

      --
      ...in bed
    2. Re:communicating? by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 3, Informative

      The fuel is for communicating, not for moving.

      There's no friction in space. It can travel forever in its current direction. When the fuel runs out in 2020, we won't be able to hear from it.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    3. Re:communicating? by fuqqer · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I presume we can keep contact until then by just simply building bigger transmitters and receivers if/as needed

      Sure dude,
      We'll just drive the repair truck out to the site and slap on a newer larger transmitter? It's 8.5 billion fucking miles away, how exactly do you propose making a larger transmitter for the thing and getting it ther? Oh wait...the robotic arm and onboard smelter, and onboard chip fabricator?
      I'm not saying they couldn't just push more power to the transmitter though.
      Oh and the receiver item....Sure, since we use the Deep Space Antenna grid to field communications for this thing, I'm sure we'll just throw a few more antennas into space. Anybody got a slingshot nearby?
      Developers who are not thinking (like this chump) are the reason our jobs are getting outsourced to India. Grrr...end rant.
      Now, I'm sure that NASA engineers (who are loads more intelligent than the parent poster at www.codesweep.com) would know to throw enough fuel in the thing to last long enough to get Voyager out of communication range, or fill it up with as much fuel as possible, to give it the longest life possible.

    4. Re:communicating? by javiercero · · Score: 1

      There is gravity... which can slowdown or some times speedup the prove. Also the vacuum is not 100% perfect, as there can be traces of hydrogen or helium in a lot of the univers, and maybe the so called dark matter (although its interaction with the prove would be mostly gravitational) that could slow down/modify the prove's path due to actual friction!

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

      hahaha, who's the chump without the brain here......

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

      I think you are the reason jobs are going to India..

      He was talking about bigger tranmitters and receivers on earth.

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

      you are a moron, thanks for the laugh. If you're going to rant about something so minute, then you might want to read it over and comprehend the post first. Obviously he was talking about the transmitters and recievers on earth.

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

      And besides, freejake.com isn't exactly all that either, 3 links, an email and some pics of you....lots of programming talent there :-p

    9. Re:communicating? by sedawkgrep · · Score: 1

      Jeez...did you even read what you were typing? I'm reading your post, wondering what the hell the proof is that you keep incorrectly mentioning.

      --
      Is that a salami in my pants or am I just happy to be me?
    10. Re:communicating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Voyager's 1 and 2 also have chemical fuel on board. Used for keeping the hi gain antenna pointed in the right direction.

    11. Re:communicating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It can travel forever in its current direction.

      That is, until a stray chunk of debris decides to cross paths with it.

    12. Re:communicating? by hazem · · Score: 1

      I suppose we could build bigger/more sensitive receivers here on Earth to recieve its weakening signal. And we could also build larger transmitters to push a stronger signal back to make sure it can still hear us.

      Of course, maybe we'd be better off spending that money on newer probes.

      Either way, it's above my pay grade.

    13. Re:communicating? by leeward · · Score: 1

      Umm, the "Deep Space Antenna" is located here on earth. Actually there are three of them; one in Goldstone California, one in Canberra Australia, and one somewhere in Spain. To receive weaker signals, make the antennas bigger. That was done previously when NASA realized that the spacecraft were working so well, that they wanted more sensitivity to get more data from the Saturn encounter. Those many spectacular Saturn pictures we received were partially a result of a crash program to upgrade the antennas to make them bigger, along with the addition of newly developed low noise maser (hopefully that is spelled right) receivers.

    14. Re:communicating? by wankledot · · Score: 1

      Woa dude calm down, I think he was talking about the Rx/Tx here on Earth, not the ones on V'ger.

      --
      My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
    15. Re:communicating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      There's no friction in space.

      Oh, yeah? _You_ try sharing a battered smuggler ship with a flea-bitten wookie, a hillbilly brother/sister couple, an Alzheimer's patient with a light saber, and two gay robots.

    16. Re:communicating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget about the smooth talking black man. He helped make things pretty interesting too.

    17. Re:communicating? by weiyuent · · Score: 1

      The fuel is for communicating, not for moving. There's no friction in space. It can travel forever in its current direction. When the fuel runs out in 2020, we won't be able to hear from it.

      Well, there are two "fuel" sources. The radiothermal battery is used to power the electronics (and is what is expected to expire in 2020). And your standard chemical propellants are needed for attitude control to point the antenna or instruments in the right direction. When either of these run out...then Voyager becomes useless. And there is friction in space -- it's just negligible in this case.

    18. Re:communicating? by juhaz · · Score: 1

      Sure dude,
      We'll just drive the repair truck out to the site and slap on a newer larger transmitter? It's 8.5 billion fucking miles away, how exactly do you propose making a larger transmitter for the thing and getting it ther? Oh wait...the robotic arm and onboard smelter, and onboard chip fabricator?


      Since you're obviously too fucking stupid to understand, he's talking about earthbound transmitter. Pioneer's having trouble receiving? Can't build bigger receiver since it's 8.5 billion miles away? No prob, just build a bigger transmitter HERE with more power.

      Of course that's still not too easy or (especially) too cheap.

      Oh and the receiver item....Sure, since we use the Deep Space Antenna grid to field communications for this thing, I'm sure we'll just throw a few more antennas into space. Anybody got a slingshot nearby?

      And as mentioned, Deep Space Antenna grid is very much down on Earth. It's name comes from what it is listening, not from location.

      And ironically, this numbnut is trying to paint someone as stupid while his own mental prowess seems QUITE pathetic. Way to go, maybe you'll need to be looking at that mirror and wondering who was it again is causing that outsourcing.

    19. Re:communicating? by fuqqer · · Score: 1

      Ok, smart guy...

      I admit, I was wrong about the deep space listening network. (opens mouth and temporarily inserts foot)
      Taking foot out now...

      1) If Voyager is passing out of the Solar System into a region of space that has less material than the greatest vaccuum man has ever made. This means there's virtually nothing to interfere with signal transmission out there. Meaning there won't be much signal degradation once it passes this barrier
      2) Signal attenuation due to distance is on a logarithmic scale, meaning that the further it gets away, the signal loss in dB is less and less. Again, meaning there isn't going to be much signal degradation for the next 17 years.
      3) Offtopic slightly but, Since the antenna on Voyager is directional, the more out of whack it is over there, the less chance you have of getting signal to and from. Bigger antennas aren't going to help if the signal is hitting the antenna from the wrong direction. Anything done on Voyager's end would have lots more effect than anything done here.

      Here is a link to a free space loss calculator. What it would show you is that the scale of free space loss in logarithmic. EG. Attenuation of signal is less and less the further it gets from Earth. Try taking a look at the difference in signal loss between a trillion miles, a billion miles, and a million miles. There are only going to be about 6dB of signal loss if Voyager doubles its distance in the next 17 years.
      Here is a link about Voyager and its 23 watt radios and directional antennas.

      In essence, building some really big antennas down here will do just about dick. You can try and paint me as numbnuts, but you'd be wrong.

  11. Yeah but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... does it run Linux?

  12. heliopause? by spongebobsquarepants · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't it have read "...Voyager 1 has reached menopause?"

    1. Re:heliopause? by MerlynEmrys67 · · Score: 1

      I really want a Beowulf cluster of these though

      --
      I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
  13. V-ger? by Typingsux · · Score: 0
    V-ger?

    --
    The above post is an editorial, the poster cannot and will not be held responsible for all or in part for it's contents
    1. Re:V-ger? by NoNine · · Score: 0

      Concise and stupid. I like that (as would most /.'s).
      Content rating: -infinity + .1

  14. Not too long in the distant future... by twoslice · · Score: 1

    Voyager will meet a green man with pointed ears....

    --

    From excellent karma to terible karma with a single +5 funny post...
    1. Re:Not too long in the distant future... by DJ+Spencer · · Score: 1
      You sure it's not a taco that craps ice cream??

      You have to admit, that'd be pretty damn cool...

    2. Re:Not too long in the distant future... by Disavian · · Score: 1

      Yes, he will meet the Almighty Yogurt! (Spaceballs allusion for the uninformed) All your sig are belong to us

  15. I reach interstellar space... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...every weekend when I use my bong. Far out man.

  16. Elvis? by Treacle+Treatment · · Score: 0

    So Elvis has left the building
    and Voyager 1 has left the solar system

    -- TT

    --
    TT
  17. Heliopause by mongoks · · Score: 4, Funny

    Voyager 1 has reached heliopause and is now experiencing hot flashes and irritability. Hormone replacement therapy has proven innefective thus far.

  18. Fuel running out by CausticWindow · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What is this fuel used for? Just for communicating, or does it still need acceleration? If it's just for communication, couldn't they make it last longer by increasing the intervals between each time it communicates?

    --
    How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
    1. Re:Fuel running out by KFury · · Score: 1

      It's just used for sensors and communication, but it's a nuclear fuel, and it's goiong to decay whether we use the energy or not. Plutonium's half-life is Plutonium's half-life, and there's not anything we can do about that...

    2. Re:Fuel running out by ThogScully · · Score: 1

      I should hope its doing more than just communicating its existence to us. While it may not need to accelerate (it may, I don't know), it does have various instruments on it for measurements and observations, so that it has something to communicate to us beyond a simple "Hello."
      -N

      --
      I've nothing to say here...
    3. Re:Fuel running out by BengalsUF · · Score: 5, Informative

      Voyager uses a radioisotope thermoelectric generator for its power. This means that radioactive decay of its fuel creates heat, which is used to create power. That fuel's going to decay no matter what, so you either use the power or lose it.

    4. Re:Fuel running out by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      It's only got a few things it needs to do: keep the antenna pointed (roughly) at Earth, run the few instruments still active (the camera, for example, has been turned off), and occasionally communicate.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    5. Re:Fuel running out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we can stop global warming why can't we do anything about this Plutonium business?

      We need to donate more to Greenpiece and Ralph Nader.

    6. Re:Fuel running out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the thermocouples are what are wearing out first. The heat generated by the decaying plutonium has decreased since launch, but is still substantially similar to what it was 20 years ago.

    7. Re:Fuel running out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, "Helo World" is so different.

      Plus it still has to talk to the stupid wales.

    8. Re:Fuel running out by KFury · · Score: 1

      If we can stop global warming why can't we do anything about this Plutonium business?

      We need to donate more to Greenpiece and Ralph Nader.


      Yes, because sending $1000 to Nader will make voyager last longer.

      (Huh?)

    9. Re:Fuel running out by zakezuke · · Score: 2, Informative

      What is this fuel used for? Just for communicating, or does it still need acceleration? If it's just for communication, couldn't they make it last longer by increasing the intervals between each time it communicates?

      I believe they are talking about the nuclear battery that's onboard to power it's 20watt transmitter. Near as I remember the decay of plutonium causes heat which keeps the craft warm and operational, and is used to generate power. Given that this was launched in 1978, this is a major accompishment.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    10. Re:Fuel running out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Plus it still has to talk to the stupid wales.

      I believe the word you are looking for is "Welsh".

    11. Re:Fuel running out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hear that? That whooshing noise is the sound of jokes sailing right over your head.

    12. Re:Fuel running out by snake_dad · · Score: 1

      Apart from powering the instruments (and communication) some power is needed to heat some instruments to working temperature. Space is coooold... According to site only the ultraviolet spectrometers need heating.

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
  19. The Heliosphere by UrgleHoth · · Score: 4, Informative

    NASA's page on the heliosphere

    --

    Dogma - "let's just say we'd like to avoid any empirical entanglements."
  20. In typical /. fashion... by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I didn't read the article. What kind of fuel does thing use that will last until 2020?

    1. Re:In typical /. fashion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, then RTFM!

    2. Re:In typical /. fashion... by w42w42 · · Score: 1

      It's nuclear, though I'm not sure what that means re a reactor.

    3. Re:In typical /. fashion... by pclminion · · Score: 1

      Like all the other probes of that era it runs on a thermal nuclear battery. It doesn't use a fission chain reaction, but merely the heat released by gradual radioactive breakdown of plutonium.

    4. Re:In typical /. fashion... by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1

      As a Certain US President says....NUCULAR....

    5. Re:In typical /. fashion... by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      Every probe that's gone past Mars has used nuclear thermal power. Solar panels don't produce enough power out beyond Mars orbit.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    6. Re:In typical /. fashion... by dotwaffle · · Score: 1

      It's nuclear.. Yes. And although Ion Drives are possible (the first is en route to the moon as we speak!) this nuclear reactor powers stuff. Onec heated, the matter is ejected and not used for propulsion. Quite wasteful, but very very pioneering for its time... Presumably it uses an isotope so weak it'd only last 50 years...

    7. Re:In typical /. fashion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've always wondered if it would be possible to capture the heat produced by toxic radioactive waste and use that to create power. Same concept right?

    8. Re:In typical /. fashion... by pclminion · · Score: 1
      Well, you just described exactly how a nuclear reactor works :-) Except that in a reactor the decay is artificially enhanced by concentrating a lot of material in a small space so that the neutrons can cause a chain reaction.

      Radioactive waste definitely still has a lot of energy in it, but the efficiency of a nuclear plant (or any system to harness energy for that matter) depends on the temperature differential. The hotter you can make the reactants the more efficient the conversion to useful energy is going to be. When the fuel has decayed to the point where a nuclear chain reaction can't be sustained anymore, it becomes impossible to maintain a thermal differential large enough for any appreciable efficiency.

      You could definitely get power out of residual radioactive decay but it's probably not going to be enough to justify the effort. With Voyager it was worth it because it was a multimillion dollar spacecraft and the efficiency wasn't really the focus.

    9. Re:In typical /. fashion... by juhaz · · Score: 1

      That could certainly be done, but you wouldn't get useful amounts of power from landbound RTG.

      Those probes run on very little juice, need to stay working for a LONG time and have perfect working conditions for generating electricity from thermal gradient (near absolute zero on the outside).

      It would be much better to use the waste in breeder reactors, except that can't be done due to the "green" nuts and nu-cu-lar weapons paranoid.

  21. 12.5 Hours by johnos · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That's how long it takes a signal to reach us from the probe. When you consider the galaxy is 100,000 light years across, 8.4 billion miles is nothing.

    1. Re:12.5 Hours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you, Bill Nye.

    2. Re:12.5 Hours by CKW · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I love visualizing these things (all numbers approximate, I haven't pulled out the calculator.):

      if the galaxy was 100 KM wide,

      within 20 meters in any direction sun would be approximately 20 other stars,

      the nearest star would be 3-4 meters away,

      the probe would be 1.5 mm away.

      .

    3. Re:12.5 Hours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      When you consider the galaxy is 100,000 light years across ...

      How many elefants would that be?

    4. Re:12.5 Hours by Have+Blue · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't forget the Yankee Stadium analogy: The sun is on home plate, the first 4 planets are between home and the pitcher's mound, Jupiter is on second base, Saturn and Uranus are in the outfield, Pluto is in the parking lot, and Centauri is in San Franciso.

    5. Re:12.5 Hours by jd · · Score: 1

      What we need now is for someone to load all the star and probe positions into a GIS database, so we can see this graphically.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    6. Re:12.5 Hours by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      .
      Tell the truth - you put that period there to make me think there was a fleck of dirt on my monitor, didn't you. It worked!

    7. Re:12.5 Hours by Bingo+Foo · · Score: 3, Funny
      Pluto is in the parking lot,

      I hope someone at least left the window rolled down for him.

      --
      taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!
    8. Re:12.5 Hours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell the truth - you cut and pasted that period from his post instead of typing a new one in yours, didn't you?

    9. Re:12.5 Hours by ashitaka · · Score: 1
      --
      If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
    10. Re:12.5 Hours by Art+Tatum · · Score: 1

      I don't know, he probably wouldn't mind the heat for a while, though.

    11. Re:12.5 Hours by CKW · · Score: 1


      Hee hee - no actually I often do that in order to make the post look nicer, I like a bit of space between the stuff above and below, it's easier and quicker to "acquire" with the eyes.

      It used to be on Slashdot that if you used br chars slashdot would strip them out before and after, so I got used to using periods. I guess I can now use br's. On some phpBB boards I have to use a dot colored white. etc etc On other phpBB boards I have to put paragraphs right up against the quoted sections because the board inserts a space of it's own. If I left a space in my comppose area there would be two spaces and it would look odd.

      Ok, let's try this html br thing again.

  22. Warning, Spoiler! by mythosaz · · Score: 1

    Well, sooner or later V'ger runs into an alien species and gets sent back to earth, but the crew of the Enterprise will save us from destruction.

    1. Re:Warning, Spoiler! by Bendebecker · · Score: 2, Funny

      They'll have to do it without Bones. He's dead, Jim!

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

    (I am not a mathmatician) so can someone please explain how long "now some 8.4 billion miles (90 AUs) from the sun" is in light years?

    besides that we know it will one day come back remarkably misspelling its own name, while still having a excelent knowledge of the english language...

    --
    I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    1. Re:IANAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1 light year is over 5 trillion miles, so, not many :)

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

      8.4 billion miles = 0.001428936 lightyears

      Google calculator rocks.

    3. Re:IANAM by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      Well, it takes 12 hours or so for a signal to reach us.

      A light year is light travelling in a year.

      The EM signals move pretty close to the speed of light, IIRC.

      So, half a day = 0.5/365 =~ 0.001369863013698630136986301369863 light years.

      Probably less than that.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    4. Re:IANAM by pclminion · · Score: 2, Informative
      Try typing "8.4 billion miles in light years" into Google.

      Isn't that spiff? :-)

    5. Re:IANAM by w42w42 · · Score: 1

      Light travels at 186k miles/second (I forget the metric equivalent). At 8.4 billion miles, it'd have to travel for 45,151 seconds, or 12.5 hours. A long ways from a light year (about 1/700th).

      So no, it's not going to fly by the Klingon empire on its way to some lost world inhabited by robot machines that will in turn come back here - inside of a few hundred years.

    6. Re:IANAM by Deleted · · Score: 1

      I'm not math man myself. So here's a blatant paste from some page I found on google

      The speed of light is normally rounded to 300 000 kilometers per second or 186 000 miles per second.

      186,000 miles a second. x however many a seconds are in a year.

    7. Re:IANAM by leerpm · · Score: 1

      Yup, or about half a day.

      0.001428936 years * 365 days/year is about 0.521 days.

    8. Re:IANAM by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      About 0.00143 light-years (or 12.5 light-hours).

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    9. Re:IANAM by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      Or "8.4 billion miles in light hours" for a more human-understandable figure.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    10. Re:IANAM by javiercero · · Score: 1

      LOL, the EM signals do move at the speed of light, is that close enough for you? :)

    11. Re:IANAM by mph · · Score: 1
      Isn't that spiff? :-)
      Hey, they've finally caught up to 1993 Unix!
      $ units
      507 units, 54 prefixes
      You have: 8.4e9 miles
      You want: lightyear
      * 0.001428936
      / 699.82141
    12. Re:IANAM by Hard_Code · · Score: 1

      You know, about 20 people have already translated the units, but, um, I'm not quite convinced yet, so I'm going to wait for several more to verify that number.

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    13. Re:IANAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (I am not a mathmatician) so can someone please explain how long "now some 8.4 billion miles (90 AUs) from the sun" is in light years?

      Roughly 186,000 Miles / second
      about 5.8 trillion miles / 1 light year

      8.4Billion miles / (186,000 / 1 second) =
      45161 seconds / (60 sec/1min)
      752.68 min / (60 min / 1hr)
      12.544 hours

      So rightly 12.5 light hours

      1 light year = 63,240AUs

      90AUs * (1 LY / 63,240AUs) =
      0.0014231499051233396584440227703985 Light years

      12.644 hrs * (1 year / 8760hrs) =
      0.001443378995433789954337899543379 Years

      Accurate enough for slashdot purposes

      ---

      Keep in mind we are talking a man made object launched from earth 16.49 km/s, roughly 614Mph, or roughly 3.6au / year. Hardly stellar speeds, At this rate of speed, it would take it 17,566 years to reach the distance of 1 light year.

    14. Re:IANAM by MarcQuadra · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Ultra-rough math:

      the Voyager is 12.5 light-hours from earth, I call it 12.

      12 is 1/2 of one day, there are about 730 half-days in a year.

      voyager is .0014 light-years away.

      --
      "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
    15. Re:IANAM by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1

      So what you are saying is that our solar system could be an atom in some giant being's fingernail?

    16. Re:IANAM by wtrmute · · Score: 1

      FYI, the speed of light is roughly 3.0E+08 meters per second. One AU is roughly 1.5E+11 meters, and one light-year is roughly 9.5E+15 meters. So one light-year is around 60000 AUs...

      Also, in the Star Trek movie, V'ger was actually Voyager 10, so there were no worries there, anyway.

    17. Re:IANAM by pclminion · · Score: 1
      Your right, but the real value in the Google calculator is that you have a single text entry widget where you can solve all your problems :-) After all, which do you use more often: Google search, or typing URLs into the address bar?

      The address bar is quickly going obsolete because of Google. I can type a URL into it and it links me to the site. If I don't know the URL I can type a keyword. I can use it as a calculator. I can do unit conversion. And it even knows the answer to life, the universe, and everything.

      It's having it all there unified in one spot that makes it cool.

    18. Re:IANAM by happyfrogcow · · Score: 1

      The address bar is quickly going obsolete because of Google.

      i've been on the computer all day. i have used google 3 times. i used the address bar probably close to 40 times. in using google those 3 times, i never once typed in a URL.

      more than 2/3 of my address bar URLS have been to sites behind our corporate firewall. google can't do squat for those.

    19. Re:IANAM by red+floyd · · Score: 1

      No, it was Voyager 6.

      The Klingons destoryed Pioneer 10 in STV.

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
    20. Re:IANAM by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      Can 'units' do this?

      (radius of the sun^3) / (radius of Earth^3) = 1 296 634.08

      (In other words, the Sun is 1.3 million times the volume of the Earth.)

      Google's calculator is awesome. It knows a good amount of physical constants, it knows a ton of different units, and it figures out the best units for the answer like magic.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    21. Re:IANAM by mph · · Score: 1
      Can 'units' do this?
      Pretty much. It happens not to come with earth and sun radius in its supplied units file, which seems like an oversight. Their masses, for example, are supplied:
      $ units
      507 units, 54 prefixes
      You have: m_sun / m_earth
      You want:
      * 332945.99
      / 3.0034902e-06
      Adding the radii to /usr/share/misc/units.lib is trivial and appropriate. There are plenty of less-useful units included, such as the "military pace," "kip," and "cran." For the good of society, I have just added r_earth, r_moon, and r_sun to FreeBSD's units.lib.
      You have: r_sun^3 / r_earth^3
      You want:
      * 1299437.7
      / 7.6956365e-07
    22. Re:IANAM by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      That's pretty good, but I'm having trouble getting units to do more complicated calculations. (It seems to be made specifically for unit conversions, and not so much for general calculation, though.) For example, I can't figure out how to give it a file size and a transfer rate and get an ETA, such as '2500MB / 50kB/sec'. And it doesn't understand paretheses at all, nor addition. I think they really have separate problem domains. Google's calculator is good for complex calculations involving units, but it probably doesn't have nearly as many units as 'units' does, making 'units' more useful as a straight unit converter.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    23. Re:IANAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when it does take a mathematician to do a few simple multiplication and division calculations?

      Quality of education these days...

    24. Re:IANAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google search, or typing URLs into the address bar?

      Well, since Google searches are much more comfortable to do by typing search terms in to the address bar instead of loading a page and navigating to a right field...

  24. Someone ought to write this down now, ... by burgburgburg · · Score: 1

    so that when V'ger comes back, we'll know what it is. I'm uncomfortable placing the fate of the Earth in the hands of James T. Kirk again.

    1. Re:Someone ought to write this down now, ... by bizitch · · Score: 1

      Damn! - Beat me to it!

      Good one ;)

      --
      ---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
    2. Re:Someone ought to write this down now, ... by UnixRevolution · · Score: 1

      I'm uncomfortable placing the fate of the Earth in the hands of James T. Kirk again.

      Again? HE HASN'T EVEN BEEN BORN YET!!!

      temporal mechanics is lost on some people :P

      --
      You like your new Mac more than you like me, don't you, Dave? Dave? I asked...She said Yes.
  25. Meanwhile by Jack+Wagner · · Score: 1, Insightful

    There are over two million Americans who will go to sleep hungry tonight.

    Why is it that we can brainwash the masses into thinking that it's okay for us to spend billions on space crap while ignoring the homeless people living in the streets and at the YMCA?

    I'll never understand a society that says it's okay to blow billions on meaningless stuff in the name of science while ignoring all the social issues that plague us.

    How many lean cuisines can you buy with the money we've spent on Voyager? How much beef jerky could you purchase with the billins we spend on the space shuttle?

    Gah.

    --


    Wagner LLC Consulting Co. - Getting it right the first time
    1. Re:Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many lean cuisines can you buy with the money we've spent on Voyager?

      I'd want a Hungry Man or a Mary Calendar Pot Pie if I was one of those hungry people. Screw lean cuisine.

    2. Re:Meanwhile by Bendebecker · · Score: 1

      I think a wise philospher said it best: The poor you will always have with you.

      --
      There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
      most of us won't be able to afford it.
      -- Lemmy
    3. Re:Meanwhile by stoolpigeon · · Score: 1

      If you had expanded your scope I would have given you more credence.

      No one need go to bed hungry in the U.S. - regardless of what we spend on space exploration. The food already exists and it is purely a matter of distribution. In fact I would say that anyone who goes to bed hungry tonight did not take advantage of services that already exist that could feed them.

      Outside the U.S. it is a bit more complicated. But here- we throw out enough every day to feed a lot more than 2 million.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    4. Re:Meanwhile by MerlynEmrys67 · · Score: 1
      Give a man a fish - and he will eat dinner. Teach a man to fish and he can feed himself for life.

      Why should we worry about feeding people that don't want to bother helping themselves. I am much more concerned with the percentage of the population (20% rather than the 1% that you report as going hungry) that is overeating and obese (not just fat - but obese)

      Basic science has a payback much higher than the costs to do the research... it is a very good investment (if you don't think so - get off the internet, another one of those big multimillion dollar government investment in meaningless stuff)

      --
      I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
    5. Re:Meanwhile by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I'm following your logic. We shouldn't care about people who are not bothering to help themselves. I agree with this. But the percentage of the population who is obese are also not helping themselves. There is plenty of freely available information on proper diet and exercise that these people have access to. Why should I care if they are too lazy to take steps?

      --
      I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
    6. Re:Meanwhile by MerlynEmrys67 · · Score: 1
      Don't care about any of them - I am just worried (bad health, drain on the health infrastructure, stupid lawsuits against McDonnald, etc.) that the much larger percentage of Americans that are fat will lead to dumber and dumber laws.

      I don't care about obese people, but I do care when they start to change national policy and cause my costs to go up. Can't wait for a lawsuit saying doors are too narrow to go through, so all buildings must be refitted with doors that are 2' wider (and then why stop there). Don't even get me started on airplane rules for people that don't fit into their assigned seat.

      --
      I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
    7. Re:Meanwhile by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      No one needs to go without gold in the US - regardless of what we spend on space exploration. The gold already exists and it is purely a matter of distribution. In fact I would say that anyone who goes to bed poor tonight did not take advantage of the services that already exist that could enrich them.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    8. Re:Meanwhile by pmz · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why is it that we can brainwash the masses into thinking that it's okay for us to spend billions on space crap while ignoring the homeless people living in the streets and at the YMCA?

      You are very shortsighted. Funding technology research creates new solutions to age-old problems. One day, a technology will be invented that makes hunger obselete (as in the Star Trek future). This technology is only limited by will, means, and time.

      Simply giving the money to the poor solves nothing. So they can buy pizza for their kids tonight. Big deal. It does nothing towards their ability to get pizza tomorrow or the next day.

      This is why direct social programs are a waste of tax payers' money. They make the politicians feel good about themselves while saving them from having to think about real solutions that hit problems at their foundation. Socialized healthcare is an excellent example, where there are real government-caused problems that prevent the health care market from functioning, so the politicians take the easy road and create a socialized system that steals people's money against their will putting it into a bureaucracy that will kill more people than it helps.

    9. Re:Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... build a man a fire and he's warm for a day -- set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.

    10. Re:Meanwhile by stoolpigeon · · Score: 1

      Kind of humorous - but not true - unless there is somewhere they are handing out gold to anyone who asks. If you are aware of such a place, please let me know.

      If you would like to know where they are doing that with food-- you wont have to look hard

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    11. Re:Meanwhile by cens0r · · Score: 1

      But the homeless have the same effect. They spread disease, drain the health care infrastructure, waste police resources, etc.

      --
      Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
    12. Re:Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is why my solution would be to feed the fat people to the homeless!

      There would be no more obesity epidemic, and the hungry homeless will have enough to live off of for centuries.

      There. Problem solved. That wasn't so hard now was it?

    13. Re:Meanwhile by cens0r · · Score: 1

      soylent green is made of people! people!

      --
      Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
    14. Re:Meanwhile by togofspookware · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately it's not that simple.

      You may be fortunate enough to have a metabolism that allows you to eat whatever you want and not get fat. Another person could eat the same things and blow up like a balloon.

      If we all had infinite spare time I'm sure there would be fewer fat people, but given that most people have other things to worry about, losing weight can get pushed off the top of their priority lists.

      The abundance of fatty foods and lack of heathful ones in this country are certainly not helping this situation. It's generally easier to prepare/buy food that's bad for you than it is to for good food.

      --
      Duct tape, XML, democracy: Not doing the job? Use more.
    15. Re:Meanwhile by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 1
      Yes, people have metabolic problems and that is something that needs to be solved in conjunction with a doctor. But the vast majority of people who are overweight in this country are overweight because they never exercise and they have never heard of the idea of portion control.

      And the fact that it's cheaper to buy unhealthy food is a result of capitalism - that's what the fatties are buying. If an overweight person invests an hour and a half a week in cardiovascular exercise, stops snacking (that'll lower the fatties' food bills), and cuts their meal portions by 1/3 - they will lose weight in 95% of all cases. But do they do that? No, of course not. Stop making excuses for the fatties and start blaming them.

      Tough love pal, tough love.

      --
      I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
    16. Re:Meanwhile by tarawa · · Score: 1

      You're right. Let's stop everything, stop all scientific discovery and help a group that makes up 0.7% of the population of the United States.

      If you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic. I can certainly feel for those people who are homeless, but at the same time I know the reality that many of the homeless are that way because of the choices they make. No amount of money can make someone choose to make the changes to no longer be homeless, they have to choose it on their own.

      So please, don't throw in stupid, cynical remarks about an event that has nothing to do with homelessness.

    17. Re:Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Socialized healthcare is an excellent example, where there are real government-caused problems that prevent the health care market from functioning, so the politicians take the easy road and create a socialized system that steals people's money against their will putting it into a bureaucracy that will kill more people than it helps.

      This is the single most idiotic piece of fume I've read for a while. Socialized healthcare is an excellent exacmple of WHERE market economy solution is woefully inadequate; inefficient and unfair. USA spends more than twice as much money per capita on health-care than other western societies (from Canada to Sweden and Japan -- all of which have high quality "socialized" health-care), while providing significantly worse coverage, and level of service for poor. That has little to do with excessive regulation (which, by the way, is needed to keep HMOs from abusing their powers; same way EPA and other organizations are supposed to prevent environmental crimes), and lots to do with fundamental difference between health care and real industries.

      In fact, most economists know that there are 2 areas where "pure" market economy does not work adequately on the long term: education and health care. In both cases problem is that not enough money (== resources) will be devoted by companies, if they have no legal requirements to do so. Their needs are short-term: if worker works efficiently for couple of more years, that's fine. If they don't know how to read, but can push the right buttons, that's fine. Same, to some degree, also happens with individuals. If there was no subsidized education or health-care, people would consistently undercut spending on both categories. And worse, discriminatory pricing would further ensure significant parts of general population couldn't even afford them. Does this sounds familiar? Perhaps because US has been a test field of zealous fanatic conservatives who mistakenly believe in power of school vouchers, against all experience and common wisdom. But they have their utopia, their religion; "free market cures everything".

      Problem is that on the long run, everyone loses. Education also correlates to better health (less educated people smoke less, on average are more obese etc. etc), as obviously does proper health care system. Role of the state has to be to facilitate efficient long-term well-being of its constituents. To allow for people to get education, to stay healthy. Better education helps with many other problems; from work motivation and happiness, to better understanding of how society works, to generally better understanding of moral issues.

    18. Re:Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Why should we worry about feeding people that don't want to bother helping themselves.

      The problem is that you are generalizing from either image you got from a tv show detailing some obnoxious hobo, or from a nasty personal experience. Claiming that all not-so-well-to-do people do not want to help themselves, but would be well capable of, is based on prejudice, not facts. There are enough really really poor US citizens (including significant number of working poor) that your comments sound like an insult. I like to think it's based on ignorance, not malice, but the end result is the same. Some have mental or physical disabilities; many are at least below average intelligence, most have been taken advance of one way or the other.

      It's just like claiming that everyone can get laid; so these losers at Slashdot who don't get pussy should get no sympathy whatsoever. Or that anyone can find their dream job, so that young recent graduate who just got laid off should suck it up and go find it. And that every MSCE is just a no-good clueless bozo. And so on and on and on. It's too easy to generalize; but generalizations are mental masturbation. If you have to, do it in private; don't go around spanking your monkey in public.

    19. Re:Meanwhile by MerlynEmrys67 · · Score: 1
      And you are perfectly welcome to feed as many homeless/hungry people as you want - but why must you take my money to do it. I have a hard enough time keeping a standard of living that I like - food on my table - gas in my car - savings to live on for retirement, without you taking my money from me to do something that is important to you. How would you like it if I took your money to put into my retirement account - oh wait, you are on social security and all ready doing it

      By the way - speak up and quit hiding behind the guise of a anonymous coward.

      Now to address you specific complaints - many (a vast majority) of people are homeless because of bad life choices (oh why do I need this school thing, heroin isn't addictive - I'll just try it once, alchol, the list goes on) that I have no sympathy for. For people who do indeed have genuine life circumstances (truly mentally challenged people, not jut people whacked out on meth) there are many programs to help them - and in fact people who make bad life choices detract from them (instead of being whacked out on drugs - they could be paying into the system as a productive member of society). Nowhere did I say that ALL not-so-well-to-do people can help themselves - I said I have no sympathy for the ones that can/could have, and didn't - which as you correctly assumed is a vast majority of them.

      Generalizations are very useful - they provide the correct abstraction around problems that let us get to the root. It helps people that are being covered by the generalization to figure it out - and learn how to get out of the generalization (can't get laid - clean up your act, and go out an meet some people of the correct sex for you)

      --
      I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
    20. Re:Meanwhile by modme2 · · Score: 1

      your excellent argument is wasted on someone with a heart of stone and brain the size of a peanut.

    21. Re:Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's very simple: eat less, shit more. If you arn't going to put in the effort to stop yourself from shoving your bloated paw into a bag of deep fried pork rinds, why the hell should anyone put in the effort to worry about YOUR problem?

    22. Re:Meanwhile by zora · · Score: 1
      "stupid lawsuits against McDonnald"

      PLEASE... For the love of god, can't we have a discussion about anything without someone bringing up McDonalds and their hot coffee. Please people, that fucking horse is dead, leave it alone!!!!

      For the interested reader:
      Hot Coffee
      180 degree coffee is NOT insane
      Spill coffee, get rich
      And I thought suing for spilt coffee was insane
      Hot coffee
      Frivolous Lawsuit - McDonalds
      McDonald's coffee lawsuit NOT bullshit

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet, and say to us, "Make us your slaves, but feed us." - Dostoevsky
    23. Re:Meanwhile by Cackmobile · · Score: 1

      The US spends 380 Billion on Defence. Take just 100 billion and you'd solve world hunger etc and generate more than enough good will towards the US to counteract the loss in defence. The UN approximates that it would only take 40 billion per year.

      --
      -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
    24. Re:Meanwhile by pmz · · Score: 1

      Socialized healthcare is an excellent exacmple of WHERE market economy solution is woefully inadequate; inefficient and unfair. USA spends more than twice as much money per capita on health-care than other western societies (from Canada to Sweden and Japan -- all of which have high quality "socialized" health-care), while providing significantly worse coverage, and level of service for poor. That has little to do with excessive regulation (which, by the way, is needed to keep HMOs from abusing their powers; same way EPA and other organizations are supposed to prevent environmental crimes), and lots to do with fundamental difference between health care and real industries.

      This is a circular argument. You take the current status quo created by tax loopholes, licensure cartels, and draconian regulation and then use it to argue for socialized healthcare?!?

      The other countries you cite are not free countries. They extort money from their citizens to fund programs whether the citizens like it or not! It is terribly sad that in the USA people are dispensing with their freedom left and right in exchange for government programs of no proven worth and a history of inefficiency, ineffectiveness, and causing real harm by propping people up into untenable situations. Socialism is a prison; it's too bad you don't see that (and the people in Sweden and Japan are too fat and happy to care). Freedom isn't about cozy strawberry shortcake for every child and a paid-for tenement for every family, it's about everyone having the ability to find a new way in the world without persecution and government strangulation.

      Go read the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and see if you really and truly want the government to take over control of your health!

    25. Re:Meanwhile by pmz · · Score: 1


      Actually, I don't want people like you telling me what I can and cannot do, especially with respect to my health, my propery, and my money. The more I see of government, the more I understand the Constitution, because the politicians screw it up with their pork projects, special-interest loopholes, and taxes the punish people for making responsible decisions. Forcing people to put their health into the hands of such a system is a crime, because socialized health care in the USA will inevitably be more bigoted and inequitable than the federal income tax. Even further, socialized health care is a violation of the fourth and first amendments (personal health data collected without warrant + government butting into issues of religion for many people).

      How long until we're back in the days of the Inquisition, where anything that doesn't fit the agenda and idealism of the government is not only not allowed but eliminated wherever it occurs? The USA is treading into very dangerous territory, but the greedy saps who vote for their free lunch don't care and are too stupid to see their rights stripped away one by one. When they have no rights, they won't even have the right to complain nor do anything about it. Welcome to history.

  26. Things that will be found: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    -A slightly higher concentration of some element on some piece of uninteresting rock that nobody cares about.

    -A higher than expected concentration of radio signals coming from Earth containing desperate messages like "Hey aliens, come see us PLEASE!".

    I'm looking forward to when we launch Voyager 412 in the year 3003. It will have an expected life of 4 thousand years and MIGHT make it to the next solar system where it will only take 8 years to communicate back how little was actually found.

    Boring.

    1. Re:Things that will be found: by Bendebecker · · Score: 1

      Actaully, I heard somwhere that Voyager 1 would only take about 1000 years to reach Proximus Centari.

      --
      There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
      most of us won't be able to afford it.
      -- Lemmy
    2. Re:Things that will be found: by RetroGeek · · Score: 1

      As long as it's not a planetarium screen.....

      --

      - - - - - - - - - - -
      I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
    3. Re:Things that will be found: by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1
      Actaully, I heard somwhere that Voyager 1 would only take about 1000 years to reach Proximus Centari.
      Yeah, I'm really looking forward for that. I think I buy you all a beer then. Unless I happen to die prematurely, ofcourse.
  27. Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Will it be able to find anything interesting outside the solar system in the next 17 years?"

    Will it be able to tell us?

  28. Let's say something was found... by isfuglen · · Score: 0
    Would "we the people" ever hear about it? Or would the find be a classified secret due to so-called national/international security risks and issues?

    --
    When life hands you lemons, grab the salt and pass the tequilla...
    1. Re:Let's say something was found... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would "we the people" ever hear about it? Or would the find be a classified secret due to so-called national/international security risks and issues?

      Let's say another race bumps into Voyager... Sure, the government cronies could keep the fact that Voyager saw a ship, but when the owners of that ship come looking for the owners of that probe... I don't think they will be quiet and secretive about their arrival.

  29. The mind boggling nature... by downix · · Score: 3, Interesting

    of how scientists do not take the next big leap. What frightens me the most is that we have not sent more probes after Voyager.

    Coming up is a planetary alignment that would allow a route to Tau Ceti, one of the reasonably nearby stars that could have an inhabitable planet. Using modern high-velocity nuclear engines, a probe could be engineered to reach it in 100 years, roughly. And a craft could be engineered to actually survive the travel *and* send back useful data.

    I want to see interstellar probes, engineered to travel to the nearest (12ly or less) stars and explore them.

    --
    Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
    1. Re:The mind boggling nature... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with reaching nearby stars is the velocity required to get it there. Right now, it is beyond our current tech level to send anything to another star. The velocity required is just too great to reach in our lifetime.

    2. Re:The mind boggling nature... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus it could be used to validate SETI's mission - if SETI can keep listening to its signal, that is.

    3. Re:The mind boggling nature... by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      The problem is that 100 years is 98 years farther ahead than Congress is able to think, and 99 years longer than they are able to guarantee money for.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    4. Re:The mind boggling nature... by Gil-galad55 · · Score: 1
      A) There are no modern high-velocity nuclear engines. Unless by nuclear engine you mean radioisotope thermoelectric generators, which are currently powering Voyager and other long-range probes.

      B) It's not that scientists aren't willing to take the next big leap. It's the sad fact that apparently we haven't developed sufficient telekinetic powers to assemble space probes with our minds. So, until we can manage that, how about lobby the people with the pursestrings, since it's the scientists with the dream but the buraeucrats with the money.

      --

      To follow knowledge like a sinking star, / Beyond the utmost bound of human thought. ("Ulysses", Tennyson)

    5. Re:The mind boggling nature... by mike_mgo · · Score: 1
      Are you sure about that 100 year time frame? I know nothing about high velocity nuclear engines or slingshotting with panet alignments, but...

      Tau Ceti is 11.9 ly away, or 6.995e+13 miles.

      Voyager has traveled 8.4e+9 miles in 26 years or 3.231e+8 miles per year. At that rate it would take over 216 thousand years to reach Tau Ceti.

      To get there in 10 years the probe would have to travel at 10% the speed of light, is that possible with cirrent technology?

    6. Re:The mind boggling nature... by downix · · Score: 1

      Actually, the tech level was reached in the 1950's.

      Using the math for the old Orion project, an unmanned probe could be pushed up to a reasonable fraction of the speed of light in under 2 months of impulse safely.

      --
      Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
    7. Re:The mind boggling nature... by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      There certainly are modern high-velocity nuclear engines. Not in the sense that they actually physically exist, but the technology is around and all of the hard problems have been solved. If we wanted to, we could launch a million-ton spacecraft to Mars within a few years, and a probe to Tau Ceti in a hundred years would be well within the realm of possibility.

      I'm talking, of course, about Orion. If you're not familiar with it, you build a large space ship with a giant, thick steel plate at the back, and fill it with nuclear bombs. The "engine" consists of tossing around ten bombs per second out the back and setting them off. This can actually work quite well, and would provide both high thrust and high efficiency, and allow us to put completely insane amounts of material into orbit.

      Of course, for various reasons which should be obvious to the enlightened reader, Orion will almost certainly never be built.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    8. Re:The mind boggling nature... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Oh sure, no one will mind if we try to launch hundreds of active nuclear bombs into space.

    9. Re:The mind boggling nature... by downix · · Score: 1

      Yes, take a read on the Orion project, developed in the 50's. Could produce an impulse measured in the millions of seconds.

      Simple concept, drop a nuclear bomb behind a craft, and ride the shock wave forward. Needs a pushing plate, shock absorbers, etc of a good magnitude, but the system can and does work. But, politically, it is not an appealing approach.

      --
      Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
    10. Re:The mind boggling nature... by Josh+Booth · · Score: 1

      Yes, but there are quite a few problems. The craft would have to be big enough to store a decent number of people for a long time. Unless we just have intelligent robots, which would be much more efficient, but we're not there yet. Once you've attained Warp 0.10 (assuming warp 1 is light speed), you have to stop eventually. But even worse, the sun's magnetosphere is not able to protect you in deep space. You'd have to develop something really good at blocking radiation.

    11. Re:The mind boggling nature... by modme2 · · Score: 1

      why does it need to be manned?

    12. Re:The mind boggling nature... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coming up is a planetary alignment that would allow a route to Tau Ceti, one of the reasonably nearby stars that could have an inhabitable planet. Using modern high-velocity nuclear engines, a probe could be engineered to reach it in 100 years, roughly.

      Ahh bugger it. Why should we have to be the motivated ones??

      Lets just sit back and wait for a Tau Ceti vessel to arrive here in approx. 100 years!!

    13. Re:The mind boggling nature... by rtaylor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Funny thing about large timeframes and technology -- if you wait long enough you will actually be further ahead.

      Exploring this solar system with experimental high-velocity nuclear engines is appropriate. But in 20 years we could probably send something to the nearest stars in 50 years. In 40 years perhaps it will only take 25 to travel -- thus we should wait 40 years before launching to arrive first :)

      --
      Rod Taylor
    14. Re:The mind boggling nature... by downix · · Score: 1

      I was just thinking the same thing, since this thread was in regards to an unmanned probe.

      --
      Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
    15. Re:The mind boggling nature... by identity0 · · Score: 1

      So, I take it the next State of the Union address will mention that "there is evidence that Tau Ceti has been attempting to acquire uranium for weapons of mass destruction"?

      Today Bagdad - tommorow Tau Ceti IV!

    16. Re:The mind boggling nature... by Gil-galad55 · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'm familiar with Orion. But when you speak of "modern nuclear engines" I assumed you were speaking of existing technology. I certainly agree that nuclear rockets are a good idea, but the current designs floating around are a far cry from an Orion type vehicle. An NTR could lift a bit more than our current chemical rockets (~200 tons I believe) and do it much more efficiently. But I digress. If you really want to move tonnage into orbit, a space elevator is the way to go.

      --

      To follow knowledge like a sinking star, / Beyond the utmost bound of human thought. ("Ulysses", Tennyson)

    17. Re:The mind boggling nature... by Wonda · · Score: 1

      This has always been the theory, but i haven't seen any significant speedup since the 60's

      or if there was, it never made the headlines

    18. Re:The mind boggling nature... by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but you seem to be thinking that Orion is some far-out futuristic design.

      Orion is very, very much existing technology. Sure, the project never made it past a conventional-bomb-powered demonstration vehicle, but the great thing about Orion is that there's really nothing inherently difficult about it once you know how to build small nuclear weapons. At that point, the only really tricky part is the design of the bomb gun, which has to be able to keep up a good rate of fire without being destroyed by the explosions, but even that is pretty much solved, although it hasn't been tested.

      The great thing about Orion is that it is so ludicrously overpowered that nothing needs to be done carefully or with finesse. Everybody in aerospace spends a lot of time and effort shaving the last pound off of every possible thing because every tiny extra bit of weight shows up directly on the vehicle's performance and operating cost. But a first-generation Orion ship could be horribly over-engineered, say by building the entire thing from thick steel, and by having the pusher plate be thick enough for a completely silly safety margin, and still outperform any existing technology by many orders of magnitude.

      I think it is very realistic to say that the time from project-start to a working Orion ship would be just a few years, given the right kind of management (i.e. Apollo, SR-71, or X-15-type management, not ISS-type management). It is very nearly build-and-go, no fundamental research needs to be done, nor difficult design questions answered.

      But again, there are plenty of reasons why nobody is building one, and why they probably never will.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    19. Re:The mind boggling nature... by juhaz · · Score: 1

      But in 20 years we could probably send something to the nearest stars in 50 years. In 40 years perhaps it will only take 25 to travel -- thus we should wait 40 years before launching to arrive first :)

      New technology doesn't just materialize into existence out of nothing, most of the time it's evolution of older designs.

      If you don't do anything now, you don't have anything to develop into that faster craft in 40 years.

    20. Re:The mind boggling nature... by juhaz · · Score: 1

      This can actually work quite well, and would provide both high thrust and high efficiency, and allow us to put completely insane amounts of material into orbit.

      Insane is just the right term for going into ORBIT with nuclear bomb, propulsion.

      Orion tech is all fine and dandy for going far and fast but let's just concentrate on using it outside of the atmosphere, and find a bit more friendly way to get into orbit, no?

    21. Re:The mind boggling nature... by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      It's not actually that insane. The Orion studies showed that a sizeable Orion craft (where "sizeable" means larger than every man-made thing put in orbit combined, probably) could be launched into orbit while adding about 1% to the total radioactive contamination of the atmosphere at the time. And given advances in bomb technology since then, this number would probably be quite a bit less, as modern bombs are more efficient. It would take about 350 explosions to get to orbit, but these are very small explosions by nuclear-bomb standards.

      Consider also the failure modes for Orion-to-orbit and chemical-to-orbit. There's really no way for an Orion ship to blow up by accident on its way up. It could crash, if the firing mechanism broke, but it wouldn't explode unless you were very stupid with the bomb designs and had them on a dumb timer or something. Whereas chemical rockets can and do explode, and doing so with a few hundred bombs on board could end up spreading material far and wide, especially considering that the level of hardening and shielding that goes into RTGs couldn't really be applied to Orion pulse units.

      Not that I'm necessarily advocating Orion-to-orbit here. I think that there are better alternatives, both in the cost sense and in the environmental sense. But it shouldn't be dismissed just because it's "nuclear" or "bomb".

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    22. Re:The mind boggling nature... by rtaylor · · Score: 1

      You are completely right. If you do not make an investment into technology it will certainly stagnate.

      I was trying to say an investment made today would be trying to reduce the turn around time to Venus, Mars, or Jupitor to be a year rather than sending a single experimental craft on a thousand year journy.

      --
      Rod Taylor
  30. Isn't it obvious? by leerpm · · Score: 2, Funny

    Voyager will find the long lost Weapons of Mass Destruction, and Rumsfeld will use this as an excuse to overhaul the space program! We all know the Iraqis have had a secret space program since 1950.

    1. Re:Isn't it obvious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was so unfunny it went straight past gay and directly to fag.

    2. Re:Isn't it obvious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that was so blindly conservative that it went straight past brainwashed and directly to puppet.

  31. Voyager ~12 Light Hours away by _Sambo · · Score: 4, Informative

    90 AUs (Distance from the Sun to the Earth)
    *
    8 minutes (Time it takes light to reach Earth from the Sun)
    =
    720 Light Minutes
    /
    60
    =
    12 Light Hours.

    We're quite a ways away from the Light Year.

    1. Re:Voyager ~12 Light Hours away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      0.0014231572996487112 light years

    2. Re:Voyager ~12 Light Hours away by TheGax · · Score: 1

      eh? 1 AU is the distance from the Earth to the Sun.

    3. Re:Voyager ~12 Light Hours away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Or, if you don't want to have to remember the number of light-seconds between here and the sun (or that that's what an AU actually is):

      Ask Google!

      Seems Vger's only about 1.4% of the way there...

    4. Re:Voyager ~12 Light Hours away by DaytonCIM · · Score: 1

      12 Light Hours

      Damn that is pathetic.

    5. Re:Voyager ~12 Light Hours away by Theobon · · Score: 1

      I think he ment that 90AU is the distance from earth to the probe. Sounds a bit more reasonable to me.

    6. Re:Voyager ~12 Light Hours away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      alien@mothership:~$ ping vger
      PING vger (1.253.123.0.175.36.9) 56(84) bytes of data.
      64 bytes from vger (1.253.123.0.175.36.9): icmp_seq=1 ttl=0 time=31492800000 ms
      64 bytes from vger (1.253.123.0.175.36.9): icmp_seq=2 ttl=0 time=31492799880 ms
      64 bytes from vger (1.253.123.0.175.36.9): icmp_seq=3 ttl=0 time=31492799680 ms
      64 bytes from vger (1.253.123.0.175.36.9): icmp_seq=4 ttl=0 time=31492799680 ms

      --- vger ping statistics ---
      4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 31495800000ms

      alien@mothership:~$ mail -s They're getting closer! phb@mothership.org
      Cc:
      Chief, they're closing on us!
      .
      alien@mothership:

    7. Re:Voyager ~12 Light Hours away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      phb@mothership:~$
      You have mail!
      phb@mothership:~$ mutt

      phb@mothership:~$ wall
      Because earthlings are closing on us, i'll have to block all UDP and TCP outgoing connections.
      We apologise for the inconvinience.
      ^D
      phb@mothership:~$
      Broadcast Message from phb@mothership
      (/dev/tty123) at 21:50
      Because earthlings are closing on us, i'll have to block all UDP and TCP outgoing connections.
      We apologise for the inconvinience.
      phb@mothership:~$ su -
      Password:
      root@mothership:~# sh ./blockalloutgoing.sh
      root@mothership:~#

    8. Re:Voyager ~12 Light Hours away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uhhh duh. if the signal takes 12.5 hours to get here doesn't that mean it's 12.5 light hours away?

    9. Re:Voyager ~12 Light Hours away by aka1nas · · Score: 1

      No, because the signal isn't optical and thus travels well below the speed of light.

    10. Re:Voyager ~12 Light Hours away by Josh+Booth · · Score: 1

      Has someone just proved that radio waves aren't light? Or does Voyager communicate by sound?

    11. Re:Voyager ~12 Light Hours away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot: Scientific discussion by people who can't be bothered to do things even HALF-assed.

    12. Re:Voyager ~12 Light Hours away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      export GEEK="Too much damn time on hands"

    13. Re:Voyager ~12 Light Hours away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      do things?

    14. Re:Voyager ~12 Light Hours away by syukton · · Score: 1

      Actually, the distance from the sun to the earth is only 1 AU. I'm pretty sure that what you mean is that 90 AUs is the distance between Earth and Voyager.

      Also, I'm sure google can help us out here. That's right, google can convert (using its calculator functionality) between astronomical units and light hours. The answer is 12.4751304 light hours if you're too lazy to click the link. That's 0.00142315729 light years. 1.346382 x 10^15 centimeters....

      --
      Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
    15. Re:Voyager ~12 Light Hours away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      No, because the signal isn't optical and thus travels well below the speed of light.

      You, sir, (or madam) are a moron.

  32. V'Ger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps it will mate with an entity that will form a vast and intricate structure that will destroy everything in its path. ...I think I have an idea for a movie!

  33. Voyager's Last Message: by tjstork · · Score: 3, Funny


    says: "Doh, Stupid comet!"

    20 years from now, against all odds, the comet bashed ever so slightly by our irresponsibly launched space probe slams into Yellowstone super volcano.

    That little probe has to be stopped before it bumps into something! Send someone out to get it before it's too late!

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Voyager's Last Message: by tekiegreg · · Score: 1

      If all that actually happens, I think I'm gonna ask you for winning lottery numbers too :-)

      Though maybe banging an asteroid into the Yellowstone super volcano will then suck all the magma there into the core of the Earth by the force of impact, insuring it will never erupt again, hey at least it sounds plausible :-p though I'd suppose we'll still have to deal with all the nastiness of a comet impacting the earth so it won't matter much anyways.

      --
      ...in bed
    2. Re:Voyager's Last Message: by Have+Blue · · Score: 1

      No, Voyager's last message is going to be "What?! KLINGONS?! OH SHI"

    3. Re:Voyager's Last Message: by JCholewa · · Score: 1

      > No, Voyager's last message is going to
      > be "What?! KLINGONS?! OH SHI"

      At the risk of seeming anal retentive, I'd like to point out that that was one of the Pioneer space probes.

      And it was a crappy movie. :p

      --
      -JC

  34. What happens when it runs out of nuclear fuel? by HEMI426 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I'm betting it'll drift around for a while, then be discovered by machines from the machine planet. Of course, we all know what happens after that.

  35. Before the other TROLLSs hit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    RTF... what? Yadda, ..Yadda, ..Yadda, ..Yadda, ..Yadda, ..Yadda, ..

    You're comment is actually relevent, but there are folks who will TROLL/Flaim yoy just because you didn't mention the article.

  36. How long before we catch up with it ? by Jesrad · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder if we'll ever see space technology advance enough so that, one day, we might be able to send a spacecraft past Voyager. Maybe we'll have some form of near-light-speed travel, or even faster-than-light travel, and manage to reach other stellar systems before Voyager does ?

    In any case, I'll be more than satisfied if we establish a colony on Mars, tag me a conservative if you will, but I don't feel like leaving good old Sol just yet.

    --
    Maybe we deserve this world ?
    1. Re:How long before we catch up with it ? by gamgee5273 · · Score: 1
      Well, Voyager caught up with Pioneer and took the lead. I'm sure that, at some point, we'll toss out another probe and it'll catch up with Voyager in 2019 or so...

      IMHO: It will be a century, at least, before a manned vessel catches up with Voyager, though.

    2. Re:How long before we catch up with it ? by Jesrad · · Score: 1

      So basically, the longer we wait before launching probes, the faster they'll go... What I wanted to know was if we had already reached the point where technology advances faster than what it will enable us to do. This is a bit like the performance competition in the microprocessor market, waiting a year to build a computer makes it possible to solve a complicated problem in 6 months instead of two years.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    3. Re:How long before we catch up with it ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      See this link.

    4. Re:How long before we catch up with it ? by gamgee5273 · · Score: 1
      I would argue that we've been there for a while, but there is an issue of relativity at play here.

      A computer doesn't need to travel anywhere to prove it is faster than its predecessor in its function. Thus, you could have started some sort of equation on a Macintosh Quadra in 1993 that is now finishing up, but the same equation was solved by a Power Mac G4 running from 1999-2002. But the G4 had no distance to make up, it merely had to be equipped with a faster processor.

      So, when it comes to physical distances, the technological changes have to be massive to play a game of catch-up. But, with some sort of nuclear-powered engines, we could catch up, I'm sure. But that adds to the cost, danger and risk on Earth, etc. However, I suspect it is a possibility at this point...

    5. Re:How long before we catch up with it ? by keldog728 · · Score: 1
      "or even faster-than-light travel"


      To travel faster than the speed of light is impossible...Using the oh-so cliche E=mc^2 you quickly find that by going the speed of light matter turns into energy. There are also other relatavistic effects to consider such as time dilation when approaching the speed of light.
    6. Re:How long before we catch up with it ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "..Using the oh-so cliche E=mc^2"

      Can you come up with a better equation?

    7. Re:How long before we catch up with it ? by cens0r · · Score: 1

      that is true. But that doesn't mean you aren't able to travel distances faster than light by taking short cuts.

      --
      Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
    8. Re:How long before we catch up with it ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      But that doesn't mean you aren't able to travel distances faster than light by taking short cuts.

      Assuming there are such shortcuts. Many suspect there are ("wormholes", but there's nothing conclusive to prove that.

    9. Re:How long before we catch up with it ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So matter turns to energy, pffft, its all relative.

    10. Re:How long before we catch up with it ? by rangek · · Score: 1
      Using the oh-so cliche E=mc^2 you quickly find that by going the speed of light matter turns into energy

      How does E=mc**2 mean going the speed of light turns matter into energy? There is no velocity dependence in that equation. As a matter of fact, that equation is the energy of a mass m at rest in the absence of an external potential.

      The real answer is that as one travels faster, the energy needed to maintain a certain accleration increases. Ah, ha, here we are. So you see, there is nothing about matter turning into energy there. In a way, as you approch light speed it is like you are getting more matter (in that your apparent mass is increasing).

    11. Re:How long before we catch up with it ? by guanxi · · Score: 1

      Why does distance require any greater technological change?

      It's merely a question of rate, like those 8th grade story problems:

      'If the first (probe/cptr) starts on Jan 1st 1990, at a rate of 1000 (miles/computations) per minute, and the second (probe/cptr) starts on Jan 1st 2000 at a rate of 2000 (miles/computations) per minute, how long will it take (probe/cptr) #2 to catch #1?'

      It's got nothing to do with whether it's distance, computations, or data transmissions, it's just rate.

      And relativity? Where does that fit in?

    12. Re:How long before we catch up with it ? by gamgee5273 · · Score: 1
      My point is that CPU cycles can't be equated to the speed of a probe, rate or no rate. Thus, the technological advances in computing do matter when it comes to something, like a computer crunching numbers, where there is no physical space to cross.

      However, to catch up with and surpass Voyager in an amount of time that we would be able to observe, we would have to do more than just throw in upgraded computer tech - we would have to give it extra thrust (ever see Chicken Run?) in order to increase said rate.

  37. Re:MICHAEL SIMS HAS BEEN FIRED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've got proof?

  38. It's fueled by herring farts by karlandtanya · · Score: 1
    --
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
  39. Money isn't the problem by GuyMannDude · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not sure why I'm bothering to respond to this obvious troll, but here goes...

    We already have enough resources to take care of all the needy people not only in this country but on this planet. The real problem is that society, as a whole, just doesn't care enough about the unfortunates enough to do anything. If we were to stop sending any money on space exploration, that money would not get immediately diverted to persons in need. It would most likely end up funding tax breaks so that people can buy a new SUV. Or maybe it would "disappear" in a S&L fraud or HUD "misappropriation".

    I grow tired of hearing people complaining that we should divert money from science towards needed social programs. Those programs are underfunded because we just haven't made them a priority. Slashing someone else's budget isn't going to make that money magically appear in the budget of social programs. We would need a real fundamental change in attitudes of elected officials and the voting public.

    GMD

    1. Re:Money isn't the problem by stratjakt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It has nothing to do with "not caring".

      Many, many homeless simply cannot be helped. The borderline mentally ill would have to be forced into homes - which would violate their rights under the constitution. Addicts would have to be forced into treatment, which again, barring the commission of a crime, would violate their rights.

      If you were homeless, and wanted help, it's out there. Noones going to build you a 200,000 home and hand you the keys, but if you need a mailing address, a shower and shave, a hot meal, and clean clothes to get yourself a job - you could do so.

      Did you know, however, that the average panhandler in NYC makes more than the average NYC police officer? "Homelessness" can be very lucrative. 45 k a year - tax free, and with very low overhead.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    2. Re:Money isn't the problem by Hard_Code · · Score: 1

      Maybe slashing the budget would make the money "magically" appear in my wallet so that I could "magically" donate to charities through a "magical" envelope... you get the idea...

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    3. Re:Money isn't the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You idiot. The homeless don't make 45K a year. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

    4. Re:Money isn't the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite true man. NASA's budget should not be messed with(although increasing its budget will be nice).

    5. Re:Money isn't the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Hmmm... Last time I checked we lived in a Market Economy.

      What makes our society different than many others on this rock, is that market economies put the responsibility of decision on the individual, not the government.

      If I choose not to work, I starve, unless someone has pity and gives me a meal. The bigger question is is society responsible for my inaction? If people continue to give me handouts, what incentive is there for me to better my situation? In fact, given enough time and enough free meals, wouldn't I expect and demand that people give me a free meal?

      Poverty happens, whether by birth or by circumstance. Our responsibility as a society is to teach those in poverty skills which will allow them to escape it. Once we've given that opportunity, society owes the poor nothing more. It is up to each individual to pull themselve up by their own effort, not by leeching off the kindness, whether mandated or not, of others!

    6. Re:Money isn't the problem by migurski · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Did you know, however, that the average panhandler in NYC makes more than the average NYC police officer? "Homelessness" can be very lucrative. 45 k a year - tax free, and with very low overhead.

      Is this "average" also "typical"? I.e., what's the median and mode, and the stddev?

      Not trying to flame, just really curious where stats like this come from, how they're verified, and what the rest of the data look like.

    7. Re:Money isn't the problem by Bendebecker · · Score: 1

      And what about the members of society that can't be taught how to escape poverty? Like the mentally ill or the retarded? The duty of any group is to protect its weaker members.

      --
      There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
      most of us won't be able to afford it.
      -- Lemmy
    8. Re:Money isn't the problem by JPelorat · · Score: 1

      Underfunded?! Bullshit, welfare is certainly *not* underfunded... if anything, it's *overfunded*.

      You pussies need to get over the idea that anyone is owed anything by anyone else.

      --
      Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
    9. Re:Money isn't the problem by NanoGator · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "The real problem is that society, as a whole, just doesn't care enough about the unfortunates enough to do anything."

      Funny, when I read this, a memory bubbled to the surface. I was at a fast food joint one night. A homeless woman tapped my shoulder and asked for money to buy food. Thinking "hey, we're in a restaraunt, she'll actually use the money to buy food!" I gave her $5. She turned right around, wandered outside, and headed in the direction of a nearby shopping center complete with liquor store. The woman next to me in line was astonished. I wasn't terribly happy about that.

      Can't entirely blame society here. The whole 'teach a man to fish he can eat for a life time' story comes to mind. It's hard to buy a homeless guy a meal and let him go off to bum a meal off of somebody else the next day. I can give him my money, but what will he do to help himself?

      Society's not generally being cold hearted here. They are, however, closing themselves off from being taken advantage of. I don't have a solution to the homeless problem, but I'm reasonably confident that feeding them isn't the answer. They need to be made independent. Show me a way I can contribute to that, and I'm all ears.

      Don't assume people don't care. They do care. The problem is the solution isn't there.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    10. Re:Money isn't the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The duty of any group is to protect its weaker members.

      Since when? Almost every species leaves its weak behind to die.

    11. Re:Money isn't the problem by jazman_777 · · Score: 1
      The real problem is that society, as a whole, just doesn't care enough about the unfortunates enough to do anything.

      You're daft. Society already sends more money than you can shake a stick at towards the poor. It's just that the state can't do the job right. I have no Faith in the Messianic State.

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    12. Re:Money isn't the problem by baileytal · · Score: 1

      Careful there, neighbour. You probably wouldn't really want to live in a world where nobody owed anyone else anything, because you wouldn't be able to make people pay you for working, or keep them from holding you down and taking your organs for that matter. Reciprocity is necessary for any sort of operational social order, including the one that allows you to not to be shot of hand by people who disagree with your opinions.

      --
      Never at a loss for words... because of the voices.
    13. Re:Money isn't the problem by jazman_777 · · Score: 1
      Maybe slashing the budget would make the money "magically" appear in my wallet so that I could "magically" donate to charities through a "magical" envelope... you get the idea...

      Why doesn't the State just prevent these people from being poor in the first place?

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    14. Re:Money isn't the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      If you were homeless, and wanted help, it's out there. Noones going to build you a 200,000 home and hand you the keys, but if you need a mailing address, a shower and shave, a hot meal, and clean clothes to get yourself a job - you could do so.

      Absolute nonsense. Stop watching Fox news and go outside and TALK to actual homeless persons and you'll get a different picture.

      The problem is EXACTLY, PRECISELY about not caring. This "they deserve it" and "should just get a job" nonsense is exactly that. It's FUD created so conservatives can feel better about sucking the economy dry and screwing everyone over.

      The reason mentally ill persons cannot be forced into homes, as you assert, is because they were pushed out of mental institutions in the 80s by your special buddies Ronald Reagan and George Bush to "save money" so THEIR special buddies could steal it and use it fund their quest for Christian Conservative Capitalist World Domination. (Christian Conservative Capitalist World Domination is a registered trademark of Microsoft, SCO, the GOP, Halliburton and Bechtel. All rights, including the right to thrust the planet into some sick twisted Corporate Feudalism, reserved.)

    15. Re:Money isn't the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You pussies need to get over the idea that anyone is owed anything by anyone else.

      Fuck you. Your kind seem to think that your special Republican and Corporate buddies are owed all kinds of things: Corporate welfare, tax cuts to the ultra wealthy (who made their money on the backs of wage slaves), the right to do whatever the fuck they want whenever the fuck they want wherever the fuck the want.

      You view anything 'given' to someone else as something 'taken' from you. But all you do is TAKE...by force if necessary. Your kind are gutless cowards and criminals. You disgust me.

    16. Re:Money isn't the problem by CrackedButter · · Score: 1

      Your quote in your sig, where have i seen it before?

    17. Re:Money isn't the problem by prowley · · Score: 1
      Since when? Almost every species leaves its weak behind to die.
      The function of a human based society is to collectively do better. We also have this concept called morality, and its current (collective) incarnation stipulates that life (particularly human life) is precious.

      That means that as a society we have a duty to protect those who are less well able to protect themselves.

      Never forget, those who enjoy the best the world has to offer, do it on the backs of the many who do not - it is just as easy to label these rich people as leeches as it is the homeless or out of work. So one might just as reasonably ask - why should we allow the rich to be rich? as we might ask why should we help the poor and homeless?

    18. Re:Money isn't the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Don't assume people don't care. They do care. The problem is the solution isn't there.

      Also, don't assume that people heading to a shopping center are after the liquor store, there may also be a grocer there selling something more cost-effective that the fast food joint and healtier too!

      OK, so maybe she was out for a quick fix but after such a kind gesture, why not give here the benefit of the doubt too.

    19. Re:Money isn't the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It would most likely end up funding tax breaks so that people can buy a new SUV.

      I love how you begrudge me the money I've earned.

      Really, "funding" tax breaks? Tellya what, pal, because I didn't forcibly take one million dollars from you, I won't be able to give pony rides to all the children. Now I go to put out the press releases telling how you didn't want the children to have any pony rides. You are a bad, evil, greedy person.

    20. Re:Money isn't the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Don't assume people don't care. They do care. The problem is the solution isn't there.

      Keep in mind, though, that alcoholism is a disease. That homeless woman was and is sick. Without help she's bound to keep on doing what is doing, for the while she's alive.

      But due to it being sickness, it's not she was just trying to lure you into giving her money to get drunk, then diabolically laugh at hapless victim. It's more that she does need help; not directly from you, not there; but from someone to get her back on track. Or preferably, prevent more people from getting to that point where there isn't necessarily much to be done.

      Interestingly enough, to me your story points EXACTLY WHY society should try to help more. And by society I mostly mean organizations (often government funded); not individual people trying to save the world (although latter are good to have too, but they shouldn't be counted on to). While I appreciate the fact people are much more into volunteerism and direct activity in US than in, say, western Europe, downside is that this way government can get away with just pointing at Salvation Army and others, and keep on slashing income taxes for people who have no problems paying them in the first place (upper middle class and actually rich people). And as a result, resources used for helping the worst off population are actually much bigger in Europe than in US... not to even mention relative foreing aid; US is pitifully low in that list (compared to countries like Norway or Netherlands).

    21. Re:Money isn't the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you.

      No, fuck you.



      You view anything 'given' to someone else as something 'taken' from you. But all you do is TAKE...by force if necessary.

      I can always count on a deranged member of the Angry Left to give me a chuckle. Thank you. Oh, and by the way, who pays the taxes? That's right, I do. Say thank you, bottom-feeder.

    22. Re:Money isn't the problem by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "OK, so maybe she was out for a quick fix but after such a kind gesture, why not give here the benefit of the doubt too."

      Don't you think I did? I could very easily have told you that she went straight to the liquor store. Instead, I gave her the benefit of the doubt, and told the absolute truth: I did not actually see her enter the store. I haven't painted her as guilty, but my instincts tell me that's exactly what she did. The lady next to me in line had the exact same thought in her head too.

      Either way, it was a bad presentation on her part. If I were in need, and I went into a restaraunt and asked for money to feed me, I wouldn't then walk out of that place, let alone head in the direction of a liquor store.

      For the record, I'm not saying help shouldn't be provided at all. I don't think my view was clear enough on that matter, judging from the responses so far. What I'd like is a solution to the problem. This solution would not be a single solution in itself, but a series of solutions. Gov't sponsored education would be a good start. "Homeless? Learn a job skill!" Medical care is another problem seeking a solution. We have a number of homeless people here who are mentally very ill. I imagine they're on the street because nobody can afford to take care of them, and mentally ill people often have trouble maintaining a job. Yet another is that there isn't an easy way to maintain housing for people when the weather turns bad. We have yet another problem of runaways. Kids that leave home because.. oh I dunno, maybe Mom took the Nintendo away or something.

      It's relatively easy to come up wtih solutions for those problems individually, but then issues of scales arise. How do you provide these services without enticing people to be lazy and drop down into that level of survival? It's one thing to support a handful of people, it's another when the numbers grow too much.

      I wish I knew how to solve this. I don't. Sharing the wealth would ease the symptoms, but I'm not convinced it's constructive. There are organizations chewing on that problem here, but they're often overloaded and underfunded. I'm willing to donate there, but I'm a little miffed the government isn't doing more to support them.

      In any case, I don't like being accused either directly or indirectly of not caring. I care very much. I don't want people to starve. I don't want people to die. I don't want people to be sad. However, I'm presented with two problems. 1.) Nobody's come up with the perfect solution yet and 2.) I can really only help people who are actively trying to help themselves.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    23. Re:Money isn't the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hyprobole aside, you're about 80% correct on this one. If someone living on the streets /isn't/ mentally ill (crazy, if you will), or a substance abuser, they WILL be. Furthermore, these are the people who are least able to /get/ the help they need to become productive taxpayers, and not draining public coffers, nor committing petty crimes.
      A few years ago, I was placed into a mental hospital for a nervous breakdown. Thankfully, I had a cushy corperate job, and despite how much I hate HMOs, enough coverage to stay there until I came to my senses, not to mention, working for a company large enough to fear a disability discrimination lawsuit to avoid firing me. From the time I was first officially 5150ed (CA state code for danger to self or others, 72 hour hold), until I was released, to admission to a hospital was ~8 housrs, including an amulance ride across four counties, JUST to find a place with extra room.
      Soon enough I noticed that EVERYONE else in the loony bin either was
      A) employed with a big company
      B) married to someone who is employed by same
      C) a senior under Medicare.
      During my roughly 10 day stay, maybe 3 people who showed up who were crazy bums (out of 40 patients). While I was held until I could have an attorney file a writ of habeus corpus with the local judge, and threaten a lawsuit, the "bums" were held for less than 48 hours, despite having a greater need for serious help. The reason is that my HMO was billed for $2000 per day, (as was medicare for the old folk), but the homeless had neither the coverage, nor the cash to deserve treatement, in the eyses of the system...
      If worse came to worse, and I /did/ lose my job, I had enough money in my bank, or on credit, not only to file suit against my employer and /still/ pay rent for a good six months, but a girlfriend who would take me under conservatorship until I was on my feet again (and if she left, family who would do same).
      EVEN if people on the streets had the presence of mind to concern themselves with anything but day-to-day survival, they had NONE of the resources I did, when coping with mental illness.

    24. Re:Money isn't the problem by JPelorat · · Score: 1

      You're taking it entirely too far. I'm talking about government-forced entitlements. And your shooting comment is completely irrelevant. Do try to keep your mind from wandering next time.

      --
      Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
    25. Re:Money isn't the problem by HeyLaughingBoy · · Score: 1
      Not trying to flame, just really curious where stats like this come from, how they're verified, and what the rest of the data look like.

      Don't have real data, but I do have an anecdote. About 10 years ago, in NYC (just outside Tower Records at 4th & B'way to be precise) a homeless guy asked me for money. I gave him a few bucks and we began talking. He was really personable and quite intelligent. He claimed to have been a computer programmer and incredulous, I began to test him. Well I can't prove he used to be a programmer, but he sure knew a lot more about computers than I'd expect the average homeless person to, so I pretty much believed him. I also believed him when he said he took in as much as $900 some days and he usually shared his money with the others who weren't doing as well. This guy was smart, engaging and had a good schtick (sp?) so I could see him making a lot of money.
      Just one example, but there have to be more.
    26. Re:Money isn't the problem by migurski · · Score: 1
      Don't have real data, but I do have an anecdote.

      Reagan got a hell of a lot of mileage out of anecdotes ("rich welfare moms", etc.), but I find them pretty suspect when they make it into policy debates. I have a gut feeling that the kinds of homeless making 45K/yr are few and far between. My own anecdotal evidence from the streets of Oakland and SF (I live in a slummy part of West Oakland, though there aren't that many homeless so much as really poorly-off families living in run-down apartments) is a lot bleaker - most of the people I encounter around my office in the Mission area are too far off the deep end to even panhandle -- it's outrageously bad here.

    27. Re:Money isn't the problem by Fallen_Knight · · Score: 1

      man people like you, You know its like 10% of the people pay over 50% of the taxes? SO when you give a tax cut to everyone, the top 10% who pay 50% of all taxes collected get the biggest tax cut BECAUSE they pay the most.

      Make sense why rich people get bigger tax breaks now?

    28. Re:Money isn't the problem by ralphh · · Score: 1

      A friend of my father's had a very similar encounter. When a homeless man asked him for money to buy food, he was skeptical because the guy was pretty obviously a chronic alcoholic. "You're not going to buy liquor?" he demanded. "Nossir, I'm hungry." Just to be sure, he walked the man into a fast food place, bought him the food and sat him down at a table. Then he said goodbye and headed for an exit.

      When he reached the door, he looked back and was just in time to see the man chuck the tray of untouched food into the trash as he headed out the other exit.

      --
      "A worthy cause has never been harmed by the truth" - Gandhi
    29. Re:Money isn't the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn agriculture and the hoarding/valuing of food! We should go back to hunting-gathering.

    30. Re:Money isn't the problem by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      Welcome to hell, aka RL, NanoGator :)

      I drove cab in a city of 180k ppl once for a year and a half. Man, could I tell stories....but you have to buy the bheer :)

      Cheers, friend.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    31. Re:Money isn't the problem by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      Ah, but you gave her $5. Its HER choice as to what to do with it. It only illustrated why she was in that position.

      Net result is you TRIED, she failed.

      But you can not possibly know what or why people are in the position they are in. So, are you really being taken advantage of or is it more that she is abusing herself?

      There is no answer to ever be found; which makes it a great cop-out.

      So, "why do you keep going?"

      -----

      my best "answer", would be to provide the minimum 4 everyone. Where they go from there is up to them. Not everybody HAS a choice.

      dependancy or not --dependancy is purely relative.
      There is plenty of dependancy and other problems to keep people motivated in their endless pursuit for freedom from their own problems. (aka happyness)

    32. Re:Money isn't the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Uh, but you can. 'Cause while the State is "wasting" money exploring space, you're "wasting" money on Dance Dance Revolution, or potato chips, or a big car when a little one would do... People with your salary support a family of eight or twelve in health and security, all around the world. You could be helping at least two.

      Of course, if you didn't waste your money, people REALLY wouldn't have jobs.

    33. Re:Money isn't the problem by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      --Don't assume people don't care. They do care. The problem is the solution isn't there.--

      I just have to bite on this one. I agree with you as far as developed nations go, but in some areas of this earth, it just doesn't matter. In those places everyone is poor. The US wastes enough to feed many of people of these places, yet even if we give these areas their food, the leadership there may still want to starve their own people. Something more could be done with better leaders, I would think. If someone chooses to be poor, I agree, nothing can be done. How many are poor around the world by choice?

    34. Re:Money isn't the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when? Almost every species leaves its weak behind to die.

      Is that you, Mom?

    35. Re:Money isn't the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, you're not comparing food and shelter to pony rides, are you? Are you? Didn't think so.

    36. Re:Money isn't the problem by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "How many are poor around the world by choice?"

      I doubt many do it by choice. Problem is, are they doing enoughh to get out of it?

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    37. Re:Money isn't the problem by baileytal · · Score: 1

      What other kinds of entitlements are there? Or are you positing a society where no-one attempts to exploit anyone else? That's utopian reasoning. Sure, if we were all perfect moral actors, there would be no need for government. And there would be no Capitalists, either.

      --
      Never at a loss for words... because of the voices.
    38. Re:Money isn't the problem by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      --"How many are poor around the world by choice?"

      I doubt many do it by choice. Problem is, are they doing enoughh to get out of it?--

      If they are not "doing enough to get out of it", I would say that IS their choice.

    39. Re:Money isn't the problem by cfuse · · Score: 1
      homeless woman tapped my shoulder and asked for money to buy food. Thinking "hey, we're in a restaraunt, she'll actually use the money to buy food!" I gave her $5. She turned right around, wandered outside, and headed in the direction of a nearby shopping center complete with liquor store.

      I hate to sound cruel (well, I don't really but) but never give money to beggars. If they want food, buy them food. If you give them money, they'll spent it on booze or crack.

      Give money to the agencies that help homeless people, they need the money and will ensure that the greatest amount of people will benefit from it.

      BEGIN SELFISH
      Also, it's tax-deductable.
      END SELFISH

    40. Re:Money isn't the problem by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      I agree with you, I don't think it's cruel.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
  40. Space Aliens, come on down! by Bendebecker · · Score: 1

    Here's hoping that the only pre-requisite for other species to be allowed to engage in interstellar contact with yours is to build a probe that leaves your solar system. Gort shoudl be arriving anyday now to lay down the law.

    --
    There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
    most of us won't be able to afford it.
    -- Lemmy
    1. Re:Space Aliens, come on down! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Marcabs, actually.

    2. Re:Space Aliens, come on down! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh... reminds me of a sci-fi short story I once read, that went something like this:

      Two aliens were discussing Earth and how they were suprised that we hadn't developed technologically. They had secretly visited Earth many years earlier and buried a probe there to detect and alert them when human civilization developed sufficiently that the planet was considered "ready" for first contact. The aliens mention that the criteria for "ready" is when a given civilization develops nuclear weapons. One alien says to the other, "They really should have developed nuclear weapons by now, are you sure you set the probe right?" The second one replies, "Yes, I buried it two feet down in the sand, out in the middle of nowhere-- a place the humans call "Alamagordo."

      Of course, the joke is that we destroyed the probe unknowingly when we exploded the Trinity device on July 16, 1945.

  41. because.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the homeless are mentally ill. The mentally ill in this country are considered to be third class citizens.

    1. Re:because.. by Gewis · · Score: 1

      What defines mentally ill? If I'm diagnosed with a severe depression and have medication but am conducting research in a university lab and serve in the National Guard and am productive and responsible, am I still a third-class citizen? Or do I get upgraded to second-class?

  42. About... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    0.0014 light years.

  43. Re:Knock it off, Asshat! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's sick, dude. That bald chick died, unfortunately, in 1998.

  44. To boldy go... by MoeMoe · · Score: 2, Funny

    Scientists have long theorized that a shock wave exists where the hot solar wind bumps up against the thin gas of the interstellar medium.

    Picard: To boldy go where no ma-, hang on Number 1, speed bump!

    Will: All hands embrace for impact...

    THUMP!

    Picard: Data, inform engineering that we need better suspension on this thing...

    --
    Business \Busi"ness\, n.;
    A scam in which all people involved perceive as beneficial...
    1. Re:To boldy go... by Rasta+Prefect · · Score: 1
      Picard: Data, inform engineering that we need better suspension on this thing...

      Thats what you get for letting the guy from reading rainbow cut your springs and put neon lights on the nacelles of your ride...

      --
      Why?
    2. Re:To boldy go... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Will: All hands embrace for impact...
      So, the whole crew hugs each other in affection during impacts?

    3. Re:To boldy go... by corbettw · · Score: 1

      "Will: All hands embrace for impact..."

      Ya know, I know Starfleet in NexGen was touchy-feely, but isn't that taking it a bit too far? Or was it just an excuse for him to grab Troi?

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    4. Re:To boldy go... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anybody reading this? It's "To boldly go..." not "To boldy go..."

      Ok, since we want to be gramatically correct, the phrase "To boldly go where no one has gone before" should be "To go boldly where no one has gone before." Splitting the infinitive is a no-no.

    5. Re:To boldy go... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Editing my oratorical construction is something up with which I will not put.

  45. Well Jack, as Mohemmad once said by typical+geek · · Score: 1, Troll

    when his disciples were anointing his turban with expensive olive oil and they wondered why they shouldn't spend that money on the poor, instead of turban oil, "the poor will always be with us."

    I'm sure if you met most of those hungry, homeless sorts, you'd find them to be mentally ill people who refuse to take their medidine. Now, 30 years ago, they could be forced to take their medicine, but since those touchy feely sorts got into power, they said it's against human rights to force them to take medicine. So now, they prefer to remain undrugged and homeless. Their choice.

    As far as YMCA dwellers, they're all gay, every one, I think the Village People proved that.

    I think we need to dump more and more money into the space program, so we can make Mars colonies and only allows brainy guys and lots of girls with big tits and nice asses to emigrate, and leave the nutsos and homos back on Earth. Are you in?

    1. Re:Well Jack, as Mohemmad once said by Arthur+Dent · · Score: 1
      I think we need to dump more and more money into the space program, so we can make Mars colonies and only allows brainy guys and lots of girls with big tits and nice asses to emigrate ...
      ITYMeant 'three' there and you missed all the psychics and fortune tellers... :)
    2. Re:Well Jack, as Mohemmad once said by javiercero · · Score: 1

      No 30 years ago they would have put into subhuman abusive homes, and please stop making the assumption that most homeles are indeed mentally ill. Look at the percentage of homelessness in this countryy with relation to economic data, and you'll see how according to your numbskull theory it seems that mental illnesses somehow soar during bad economic times. Whoooaaahh.... There is indeed a darth need for better social care network for the mentally ill, but sadly it is not because those "touchy feely" people that it is not there today. But rather because of assholes like you and the rest of the conservative idiots that make sure that every social program in this country gets slashed just to make sure your taxes are low and cozy.

    3. Re:Well Jack, as Mohemmad once said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but since those touchy feely sorts got into power

      That's the first time I've heard Bush (The Texecutioner himself) described as "touchy feely". It's wrong in the same way that describing a child molester as being "touchy feely" is just sick.

    4. Re:Well Jack, as Mohemmad once said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I think we need to dump more and more money into the space program, so we can make Mars colonies and only allows brainy guys and lots of girls with big tits and nice asses to emigrate, and leave the nutsos and homos back on Earth."

      I dunno, I kinda like earth... could we just send your dumb/ignorant/insensitive/bigoted ass away?

    5. Re:Well Jack, as Mohemmad once said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think we need to dump more and more money into the space program, so we can make Mars colonies and only allows brainy guys and lots of girls with big tits and nice asses to emigrate, and leave the nutsos and homos back on Earth. Are you in?

      I'd rather we made the Mars colonies and forced the nutsos and homos to emigrate, so back here on Earth, people like me wouldn't have to put up with this type of crap from people like you.

      Enjoy your new life on Mars!

    6. Re:Well Jack, as Mohemmad once said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm sure if you met most of those hungry, homeless sorts, you'd find them to be mentally ill people who refuse to take their medicine.

      I'm sure that with your vast experience of homeless people, and their situations, we can now finally declare this issue closed and put it behind us, as being just a moot point of crazy hoboes acting like assholes and obstructing justice.

      Seriously though, either you have very subtle sense of humour (which seems plausible) -- in which case you may to add bit more hints as to above being funny caricature of a closed-minded simpleton -- or you are the one not taking his/her medication.

    7. Re:Well Jack, as Mohemmad once said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a homo you insensitive clod but never-the-less I find your plan to be a fantastic idea. A way to get rid of the selfish self righteous bigoted GOP voting stiffs and their "best-tits-money-can-buy" vacuous trophy wife envoys? Where do I vote for this groundbreaking social improvement project?

      I think the Village People "proved" all the people "In The Navy" were gay too. What's your point again, oh thats right. Big penis shaped rocket ships IN SPAAAAAACE and hot naked chicks. You go, brainy intellectual guy.

    8. Re:Well Jack, as Mohemmad once said by isopossu · · Score: 1

      Even though this might be a troll, the writer actually has some point here. Its a fact, that mental problems are hugely more common among the homeless, drug addicts and the other people at the bottom of the society. I think this holds even if we factor out the depression caused by their miserable lives.

      The problem, however, isn't that they're too free to roam free. I don't know about USA, but here in Europe people are actually lining to get into the mental hospitals. Due to the lack of funding, there are not enough resources to get all of them in. The majority of these cases wanted to get in for their own best, but its quite hard if you have any hope of surviving outside.

      For example in Sweden half of the homicides are committed by people requiring treatment in closed institution, but left free because of the economical reasons.

  46. Re:MICHAEL SIMS HAS BEEN FIRED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you have a source? I can only hope it's true!!!

  47. thud by lecca · · Score: 2, Funny
    "The probe supposedly has enough nuclear fuel to last until 2020. Will it be able to find anything interesting outside the solar system in the next 17 years?"
    If it goes much further, I bet it hits the screen.
    --
    "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" - George Orwell
  48. Oh please... by GuyMannDude · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Would "we the people" ever hear about it? Or would the find be a classified secret due to so-called national/international security risks and issues?

    It wouldn't matter whether it was classified or not. A secret that big would not stay a secret for long. There are leaks all the time. Christ, we've already managed to let the Chinese obtain detailed information about every nuclear weapon in our arsenal. I'm sure if we ever got a clear sign of extraterrestial intelligence, word would slip out in a matter of days. Some things are just way, way too important to expect that every single individual with access to that information would keep their trap shut.

    GMD

    1. Re:Oh please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but who would beleave it???

  49. You necrophiliac! by nullard · · Score: 1

    You necrophiliac! She's dead

    --


    t'nera semordnilap
  50. In 17 years... by Phrack · · Score: 1

    it's not whether or not Voyager finds something interesting... but whether something interesting finds *it*.

    --
    Dump the IRS - http://www.fairtax.org
  51. RTGs by HermesHuang · · Score: 5, Informative

    I worked at JPL for the power group, so I can actually say something about this. All of the deep-space probes run on radiothermal generators. What this is basically a radioactive source surrounded by thermoelectric generators and alpha particle absorbers. Thus, both the thermal gradient established between the radioactive material and space (via heat pipes and radiators) and the alpha particles emitted by the radioactive material are able to generate power. There are two limitations on the lifetime of these generators - the lifetime of the radioactive isotope, and the durability of the thermoelectrics and alpha particle absorbers. I don't know too much about the particle absorbers, but I worked with the thermoelectrics, and there are durability runs of several years. However, Voyager is far older then any test we could ever do. My feeling in this is that barring high-heat conditions, the thermoelectrics should be able to last nearly indefinitely.

    1. Re:RTGs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of the deep-space probes run on radiothermal generators. What this is basically a radioactive source surrounded by thermoelectric generators and alpha particle absorbers.

      Cool!! Are these available for my iPod !?!

    2. Re:RTGs by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1
      Cool!! Are these available for my iPod !?!
      The day they allow people named Anonymous Coward to obtain nuclear batteries I'll be leaving this planet.
    3. Re:RTGs by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      The alpha particle absorber is normally the material itself. Alpha particles don't go anywhere in a solid. Even in air perhaps a few inches.

    4. Re:RTGs by juhaz · · Score: 1

      Good riddance, we've got enough people with nuclear phobia already.

      It would already be possible for anyone to obtain weakly radioactive material and encase it with thermal gradient generators, resulting in a primitive battery similar in princible to what these probes contain (not enough to power iPod while being reasonably sized- and weighted, but still), they are not reactors.... so, where are you going?

  52. Voyager 1 Reaches Interstellar Space by da3dAlus · · Score: 2, Funny

    First Broadcast: "My god, it's full of stars!"

    Maybe now we'll find out how accurate that Starfield Simulation screensaver really is!

    --

    Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
    1. Re:Voyager 1 Reaches Interstellar Space by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > First Broadcast: "My god, it's full of stars!"

      Huh?

      Isn't interstellar space, by definition, completely devoid of stars?

  53. Re:Knock it off, Asshat! by Macgruder · · Score: 1

    She's dead, Jim.

    --
    I'm not crazy,I'm actively irresponsible.
  54. It's a really momentous occasion by wtrmute · · Score: 1

    Thinking about it, it's the first time a man-made artifact reaches the outside of the Oort cloud and effectively leaves the Solar System. This is an occasion on par with the launching of the Sputnik and the Moon landing.

    1. Re:It's a really momentous occasion by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      No one knows how far the Oort cloud extends. The best estimates I've seen are that it extends halfway to the next star, at which point it becomes that star's Oort cloud.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
  55. Cassini now just several months from Saturn by tjstork · · Score: 1

    July 2004 is closing in fast. Should be quite a time.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Cassini now just several months from Saturn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YES !! I cant wait. Hopefully I dont drop dead from dry rot or parasitic invasion before then.

      Cassini is going to be a great replacement for the constant fun that Galileo provided. Especially that Huyguns probe dropping onto Titan. That will be exciting as hell.

  56. right. sure. got it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the homeless are mentally ill. The mentally ill in this country are considered to be third class citizens.

    that must be why prozac and zoloft are such mega-money-makers, right? because all those third class citizens have shitloads of money to spend on medicine.

    fool.

  57. A song comes to mind by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From the band Warlord:

    "Through Pioneer 10 and Voyager 1
    We've launched our knowledge to other suns
    Aspiring and reaching for the highest of beings
    We've lost our search for the world's basic needs"

    I hope it does find something, or something finds it. Earth could use some good news.

    --
    So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
    1. Re:A song comes to mind by otis+wildflower · · Score: 1

      I hope it does find something, or something finds it. Earth could use some good news.

      I for one welcome our alien overlords!

  58. Easy but . . . Re:How long before we catch up...? by StefanJ · · Score: 2, Informative

    ... expensive.

    The Voyager probes weren't built for speed. They were coasters, zipping from gravity well to gravity well with just a few puffs from the steering jets now and then.

    If there were some pressing reason to catch up, we could do it, although it would be pricey due to the current high cost of getting things into orbit. You'd need to get something up there with a motor capable of adding substantial change in velocity. A big liquid fueled motor, or perhaps one of those new-fangled ion drives powered by a really big solar collector or a small reactor.

    This is one of those problems that will get easier with time, assuming even modest progress in space propulsion. If we ever get practical fusion drives (theoretical of Isp topping 100,000 seconds!) we could get out there in a couple of years.

    Stefan

    Stefan

  59. Speed of Sound in Space by Rasta+Prefect · · Score: 3, Funny
    In space, the violent encounter slows the solar wind from supersonic velocity to subsonic speed, and causes a pileup of particles.

    Last time I checked the speed of sound in space was essentially zero...

    --
    Why?
    1. Re:Speed of Sound in Space by Alsier · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked the speed of sound in space was essentially zero...

      Well, that would certainly cause a pileup.

    2. Re:Speed of Sound in Space by javiercero · · Score: 1

      There is no air in Space... hence no sound. You can not hear shit in outter space :).

    3. Re:Speed of Sound in Space by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1
      You can not hear shit in outter space

      With no air, you wouldn't be able to smell it either...


    4. Re:Speed of Sound in Space by pclminion · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Sorry but this is a pet peeve of mine.

      Indeed, science can be distilled down to a set of little sound-bite facts that are easily repeatable. "There is no sound in space" is one of them. However what most people for some reason do not understand is that this is a SOUND BITE.

      It is far too common for Slashdot readers to immediately object to something because it clashes with their boiled down kiddy version of science.

      Here's some news for you: the space surrounding the sun is far from empty, in fact it is filled with atoms, electrons, and ionized gas. Its density is low enough that a human would not perceive it without an instrument. But sound can quite easily travel through gas, no matter how thin. Clearly the sound cannot travel any faster than the individual particles themselves are moving. Hence it is very easy to define the speed of sound in a gas.

      No, I'm not claiming to be a scientist or above anyone else in terms of scientific knowledge, but it really pisses me off when people's first reaction is to DOUBT THE SCIENTISTS. Sure, they can be wrong sometimes, but I think it would be respectful to go do a little research before claiming, as if you are some kind of expert, that they are wrong.

    5. Re:Speed of Sound in Space by trbogie · · Score: 1

      To quote Homer Simpson, "but there is an Air and Space museum."

    6. Re:Speed of Sound in Space by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      But you didn't tell us - what's the speed of a Sound Bite in space?

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    7. Re:Speed of Sound in Space by sheetsda · · Score: 1

      Check parent again, he didn't say there was no sound in space, he said the speed of sound in the vastness of space is essentially zero. More to the point, the speed of sound dependent on the transmission medium, and I haven't a clue as to what that speed would be in the low density gas of space. My laymans guess would be it's much higher than air (going from water to air is a speed increase, and I'm guessing its some function of density). It's unclear whether the original post takes this into account. Can anyone shed some light on this?

    8. Re:Speed of Sound in Space by pclminion · · Score: 4, Informative
      In a sparse gas where interparticle interactions are uncommon (they don't hit each other frequently), the speed of sound depends only on temperature and not density.

      (going from water to air is a speed increase, and I'm guessing its some function of density)

      That's backward, sound travels much faster through water than through air. It does relate to density but not directly. The quantities that influence the speed of sound are the temperature and something called "bulk modulus" which describes how the material density changes as the pressure changes. Temperature is more important at very low densities. At higher densities as in solids the bulk modulus is the primary factor.

    9. Re:Speed of Sound in Space by dillon_rinker · · Score: 1

      people's first reaction is to DOUBT THE SCIENTISTS

      First, isn't the SCIENTISTS' first reaction supposed to be to DOUBT THE SCIENTISTS? Or have I been misled all these years by lectures on skepticism and empiricism and the "scientific method"?

      Second, entirely apart from doubting the scientists, I do doubt reports from journalists who ask stupid questions until scientists dumb down their answers enough to be understood by someone who needed 16 years to learn how to write.

    10. Re:Speed of Sound in Space by pclminion · · Score: 1
      First, isn't the SCIENTISTS' first reaction supposed to be to DOUBT THE SCIENTISTS?

      Doubt doesn't mean "disbelieve them even if they're right." It isn't cutting edge science to suggest that space isn't totally empty, or that sound can thus travel through it. A minute's research would have answered the question, but the original poster instead chose to make a defiant, sarcastic quip.

      I realize that it's hard to believe, but university-level introductory physics books don't give you the whole picture, and in fact commit some pretty grievous simplifications for the sake of presentation. This is okay, but I just wish people were aware of it. I can't count the number of times I've heard somebody trying to argue with a seasoned scientist based on some simplification they read in an undergraduate textbook twenty years ago.

    11. Re:Speed of Sound in Space by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think a human would be able to perceive the low density of space damn quickly.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    12. Re:Speed of Sound in Space by applemasker · · Score: 1
      Maybe Spaceflightnow.com clarifies this a little -

      "The termination shock is where the solar wind, a thin stream of electrically charged gas blown constantly from the sun, is slowed by pressure from gas between the stars. At the termination shock, the solar wind slows abruptly from its average speed of 700,000 to 1,500,000 mph."

      http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0311/05voyager /

      --
      Bush Lies On the Record.
    13. Re:Speed of Sound in Space by Rasta+Prefect · · Score: 1
      No, I'm not claiming to be a scientist or above anyone else in terms of scientific knowledge, but it really pisses me off when people's first reaction is to DOUBT THE SCIENTISTS.

      I'm not doubting the scientists - this drives me nuts too. I'm in fact quite sure that the scientists who did this work had nothing to do with that choice of wording - some journalist did. The journalist in question obviously saw the speeds and said "hey, super/subsonic sounds better "! Assuming that we are talking about the speed of shock transmission through the solar wind, then the use of the term supersonic doesn't really make any sense - The medium itself cannot be traveling faster than a shockwave can be transmitted through it.

      --
      Why?
  60. FYI: Voyager VI was V'Ger, not Voyager I by nubbie · · Score: 2, Informative
    V'Ger, from Star-Trek: The Motion Picture, was Voyager VI(6), not Voyager I.
    V'Ger arrives at Earth and signals its Creator. When there is no response, V'Ger blasts energy bolts at the planet in an attempt to rid it of all its carbon infestations. Forced to act, Kirk tells V'Ger he knows why the Creator has not answered. The Ilia-probe, interested by Kirk's remark, says it will cease its attack when Kirk explains. But Kirk replies he will answer to no one but V'Ger itself. With some trepidation, Kirk, Spock, McCoy and Decker are lead by the Ilia-probe outside the ship to the "brain" of V'Ger. At the center of the chamber, the Starfleet officers are surprised to discover that V'Ger is in reality a twentieth century Earth robot space probe. In fact, a mounted plaque looks as though it reads "Voyager VI."

    Read more...
    --
    'Go for the eyes, Boo, go for the eyes, aaarrrrrrrr!' -- Minsc
  61. A New Breakthrough! America Litters the Galaxy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We must pay our fine at the nearest Galaxy office, which is housed in the Fine Collection section of the Hall of Records, located on Alpha Centauri's fourth world's second moon's third largest continent's second largest village.

  62. What if.... by jgacad · · Score: 4, Funny
    the aliens that find voyager only have CD players? How will they play the record that strapped to the craft?

    --
    ...the right of the people to keep and arm bears shall not be infringed.
    1. Re:What if.... by Havokmon · · Score: 1
      the aliens that find voyager only have CD players? How will they play the record that strapped to the craft?

      Obviously you've never seen Lilo and Stitch. Everyone knows alien biology can play analog music.

      --
      "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
    2. Re:What if.... by red+floyd · · Score: 1

      They won't be able to, because if they try to play it, the RIAA will sue them under the DMCA!

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
    3. Re:What if.... by TwistedGreen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They can always use the Digital Needle:
      http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/~springer/

    4. Re:What if.... by pclminion · · Score: 1

      Obviously, they'll use a scanner.

    5. Re:What if.... by pclminion · · Score: 1

      Bah, serves me right posting a comment before checking to see if someone else already thought of it... Hey, at least my link was CLICKABLE ;-)

    6. Re:What if.... by BTWR · · Score: 1

      I may be wrong, but in addition to a golden record, didn't they include a needle to play it?

    7. Re:What if.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I may be wrong but I believe it is an optical disc and pictograms are on the protective casing depecting how to retreive the information, how it is incoded etc. I'll dig out my old copy of Sagan's Murmurs of Earth" and find out for sure when I get home this evening. The "record" has images and sound recordings including greetings in over 100 languages and samples of lots of the written languages of Earth including sanscrit. When advanced aliens find it they will be able to use it as a rosetta stone when they get here to explore the ruins of our civilization.

    8. Re:What if.... by xSauronx · · Score: 1

      what if they only have a player that will play media digitally signed with some form of their own DRM and their law wont allow them to create a device to play our record because they have their own form of a DMCA...

      --
      By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
    9. Re:What if.... by Angstroem · · Score: 1
      > the aliens that find voyager only have CD players? How will they play the record that strapped to the craft?

      You want to just hope that they find no way to play that record...

      Imagine you haul in a drifting space probe, manage to learn the overly weird alien language and find yourself confronted with the message "I CAN GET NOOOO SATISFACTIOOOON."

      Actually, I wouldn't be too surprised if any alien race takes that as a perfect excuse to blow up Earth...

    10. Re:What if.... by applemasker · · Score: 1
      Each record is encased in a protective aluminum jacket, together with a cartridge and a needle. Instructions, in symbolic language, explain the origin of the spacecraft and indicate how the record is to be played. Pioneers 10 and 11, which preceded Voyager, both carried small metal plaques identifying their time and place of origin for the benefit of any other spacefarers that might find them in the distant future.

      Here is a diagram: http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/images/VgrC over.jpg

      --
      Bush Lies On the Record.
    11. Re:What if.... by Craig3010 · · Score: 1

      Whatever you do, don't show them the Matrix Trilogy...they'd be so pissed when they got to Revolutions they'd blow up the earth.

    12. Re:What if.... by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      the aliens that find voyager only have CD players? How will they play the record that strapped to the craft?

      At least they'll get some good human soft porn. :-)

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  63. Its not "the" its "our" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    there is more than 1 you know ? our solar system is merely 1 of trillions

    1. Re:Its not "the" its "our" by pclminion · · Score: 1

      There are many star systems, but only one Solar System, since there's only one star called Sol.

    2. Re:Its not "the" its "our" by BTWR · · Score: 1

      seriously, only geeks call THE SUN "sol"

      Our star is called "The Sun," and our biggest natural satellite is called "The Moon."

      Yes, yes... it seems very earth-centric, and other planets/systems have their own moons and suns, but there is only one Sun and Moon. (there may be many gods in mythology and religion, but when you write it with a capital G you know who someone is talking about).

    3. Re:Its not "the" its "our" by NullProg · · Score: 1

      Our star is called "The Sun," and our biggest natural satellite is called "The Moon."

      That is why the Apollo program produced all those Moonar landings :)

      But seriously, there are lots of Suns and Moons in the universe, but only one Sol and Luna.

      Enjoy,

      --
      It's just the normal noises in here.
  64. Re:Knock it off, Asshat! by armyofone · · Score: 1

    Sorry to have to inform you of this but
    Persis Khambatta passed away in 1998.

    Looks like you'll have to find yourself another future wife...

    --
    "A revolution without dancing is... a revolution not worth having"
  65. Voyager is coming BACK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can only hope some day we catch up to Voyager. Either with a probe that could pass it up, or NCC-1701 :-)

    We don't need to worry about catching up to Voyager. It comes back to Earth looking for it's creator sometime down the road in a gigantic pulsating cloud of energy.

  66. Where is it going? by Atario · · Score: 1

    Has anyone done any simulations/calculations about what path Voyager 1 (and 2, and the Pioneers, and so on) will take in future centuries? What stars it will encounter first? There seems to be scant info about this on the JPL site...

    --
    "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
  67. Re:Look, this isn't all that important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You posted as AC, wtf difference does it make if you get modded down?

  68. When my Mom reached Heliopause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    she became a real bitch! Let's hope Voyager has a better time of it. Though I'll bet those hot flashes come in handy that far from the Sun.

  69. sonic means mean speed of particles by typical+geek · · Score: 2, Informative

    So, a supersonic velocity means the space probe is moving faster than the mean speed of the errant hydrogen atoms.

    Subsonic means it's moving slower than the mean speed of the atoms, and a wave can propagate ahead of it.

    In this case, the velocity of the particles from the sun slows down when they encounter interstellar particles.

  70. Tell Art Bell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why don't you send this lovely story to Art Bell? His email is artbell@mindspring.com

    Or tell George Noory at coasttocoastam.com .

    Voices heard through a fan or air conditioner are right up their alley.

  71. NICELY DONE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AAHAHAHHAAHhahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

  72. Re:Easy but . . . Re:How long before we catch up.. by Jesrad · · Score: 1

    I have interest in both fusion and rockets. Would you share some pointers about these humongous-ISP fusion drives ?

    --
    Maybe we deserve this world ?
  73. morons challenge /..org stuff that matters slowgun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    again.

    more&more storIEs about almost nothing, &/or touting/shilling for payper liesense corepirate nazi ?pr? ?firm? scriptdead fairytail stock markup fraud execrable.

    tell 'em robbIE? tell 'em about being soul DOWt? just so they know how it FEEls?

  74. The real question in all this... by DJ+Spencer · · Score: 0, Troll

    No, the real questions is... When the new-clear power supply runs out, does it switch from suck to blow??

  75. Rising to the Bait by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 1

    Will it be able to find anything interesting outside the solar system in the next 17 years?

    This begs the question: did it really find anything interesting inside of the solar system? Certainly not intelligent life....

    --
    Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
  76. Re:MICHAEL SIMS HAS BEEN FIRED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Source! I need a source! Please please please give me any sources you have! This would be so great if it were true

  77. Re:Good News by Bastian · · Score: 1

    Only one year left 'till we get a chance to give up this experiment with pathologically homicidal cowboy oil barons and go back to putting crooked lawyers in charge of the United States.

  78. Re:to paraphrase in a little detail.. by abhisarda · · Score: 2, Informative


    from-JPL.NASA "The solar system does not end at the orbit of Pluto, the ninth planet. Nor does it end at the heliopause boundary, where the solar wind can no longer continue to expand outward against the interstellar wind. It extends over a thousand times farther out where a swarm of small cometary nuclei, termed Oort's Cloud, is barely held in orbit by the Sun's gravity, feeble at such a great distance. Voyager 1 passed above the orbit of Pluto in May 1988, and Voyager 2 will pass beneath Pluto's orbit in august 1990. But even at speeds of over 35,000 mph, it will take nearly 20,000 years for the Voyagers to reach the middle of the comet swarm, and possibly twice this long for them to pass the outer boundaries of cometary space. By this time, they will have traveled a distance of two light-years, equivalent to half of the distance to Proxima Centauri, the nearest star. "

  79. 17 years later.. by Cassanova · · Score: 3, Funny

    Voyager crash lands on this deep and remote planet..as each of its systems start to shutdown in turn, its external microphones pick up the voice of Charleston Heston, screaming in the distance "Take your paws off me you damn dirty ape!"....
    [muffled horse hooves pounding on the ground]
    Voyager 1 signing off. Goodbye earth...
    ;-)

  80. Re:to paraphrase in a little detail.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hmm.. cometary nuclei. Interesting.

  81. Sending a nuclear device into space - dangerous? by EMIce · · Score: 1

    I have heard arguments that it would be dangerous to jettison spent nuclear fuel into space, because an accident on the way up would spread nuclear waste over a wide area of earth.

    Now that only begs the question of if it's dangerous to send a nuclear engine into space. How risky is such a thing?

    I don't know much about the subject at all, so excuse me if this sounds like ignorance.

  82. Re:right. sure. got it. by cens0r · · Score: 1

    prozac and zoloft aren't for the mentally ill... they're for the average person who finds it more socially acceptable to take them then medicate with pot, alcohol, xtc, or another drug.

    --
    Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
  83. Re:MICHAEL SIMS HAS BEEN FIRED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The effectivness of this troll is admirable. +3, Troll is in order! Just believable enough to hook the gullible, and tempting enough to cause rampages in /.'s search for news regarding Sim's departure. Bravo, I say...bravo.

  84. Sagan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I only wish Carl Sagan was alive to see his baby leave our little corner of the galaxy.

    R.I.P. Carl Sagan

  85. Re:right. sure. got it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hey're for the average person who finds it more socially acceptable to take them then medicate with pot, alcohol, xtc, or another drug

    What makes you think they're not mentally ill? If you need to medicate yourself at all with anything, then you are ill.

  86. Re:MICHAEL SIMS HAS BEEN FIRED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No stories have been posted by michael for many many days now. Either he's lazy, or he's on vacation, or he's been fired.

  87. Heliopause vs. Termination Shock by seeks2know · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For those interested in scientific accuracy, there is a little bit of misinformation in the statement:

    ...Voyager 1, now some 8.4 billion miles (90 AUs) from the sun, has left the solar system and entered interstellar space by reaching the heliopause.

    What scientists are speculating is that Voyager 1 has reached termination shock, which is the where the solar wind first meets interstellar plasma.

    Heliopause is the outer boundary of the solar wind. This Astronomy Picture of the Day (APOD) from June 24, 2002 provides a nice graphically illustrated explanation of Heliopause and Terminal Shock.

    It will take a number of years more for Voyager 1 to reach heliopause. Voyager 1 is currently about 90 AUs away. Heliopause is speculated to exist at 110 to 150 AUs.

    1. Re:Heliopause vs. Termination Shock by coolmacdude · · Score: 1

      Well they seemed to be saying it reached the start of the heliopause, which would be correct. It will take a few more years for it to reach the end of it.

      --

      -You may license this sig for only $6.99.
    2. Re:Heliopause vs. Termination Shock by seeks2know · · Score: 1

      I understand what you are saying - and I hate to nitpick (but I guess I am)...

      Here is a better picture of the subject.

      Termination shock refers to the point where the solar wind first meets interstellar plasma. It is the innermost edge where the two mix.

      The heliopause marks the region where the solar wind no longer exists and interstellar plasma rules. It represents the outmost boundary of our solar system.

      Just trying to be accurate...

  88. Before revising theories of gravity ... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Voyager has been moving through space in ways unexplainable by physics. There is a small acceleration that can't be accounted for using known laws. It's almost like gravity doesn't work quite the way we think it does.

    Of course, there is always the possibility that we just can't see the source of the acceleration, and it'll turn out to be something simple. However so far, all proposals put forth to explain it have been shown to be incorrect.


    I'd do a bit of computation on the shape of voyager interpreted as a solar sail, along with how any magnetic field it may have interacts with the solar wind, before worrying about whether to tweak the models of gravity.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Before revising theories of gravity ... by pclminion · · Score: 1

      You sure have very little faith in the ability of space physicists to come up with obvious theories... As I said, all of these things have been checked and rejected as potential causes.

    2. Re:Before revising theories of gravity ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where can I find more information on this? Google isn't turning up anything.

    3. Re:Before revising theories of gravity ... by pclminion · · Score: 4, Informative
      Don't I feel stupid.

      The spacecraft in question wasn't Voyager, but PIONEER 10. My point stands however, that having probes in the far reaches of space away from the solar system will be extremely valuable in the study of theories of gravity. Here's a link to a good place to start. A good Google search is "pioneer anomalous acceleration"

      Near the end of the article I linked, they explain that this effect is not observed with Voyager because of the way Voyager is stabilized by boosters (as opposed to spin-stabilization for Pioneer). If the effect is occurring with Voyager it is completely swamped by the booster accelerations. They also indicate that (obviously) the best way to continue studying this is to launch another probe outside of the solar system.

      If you spend any time researching this, you'll find groups of people all over the place who claim to have explained it. But none of them agree with each other. I think it's accurate to say that nobody REALLY knows what's happening.

    4. Re:Before revising theories of gravity ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the info, I'm gonna have to read up on this.

  89. It's Time by tqft · · Score: 1

    to build a new set of probes, take the Deep Space One platform and build six.

    One for each cardinal direction. And keep going.

    Also anyone heard anything about the probe design involving basically using a solenoid to create a magnetic field around the craft and creating/capturing plasma as reaction mass. I have been googling for over 10 min and can't find what I was looking for. Also tried searching nasa.gov (a dead loss).

    --
    The Singularity is closer than you think
    Quant
    1. Re:It's Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Bussard Ramjet".
      See Larry Niven's Known Space novels. :)

    2. Re:It's Time by tqft · · Score: 1

      Thanks.

      The first one - M2P2 (I actually tried searching for M2D2 and M2H2 as these were floating around my head). I have a hard copy of a report by Winglee hiding somewhere in my study.

      http://www.geophys.washington.edu/Space/SpaceMod el /M2P2/
      This updated Aug 2002.

      They are still working on it (I hope).

      Such a great concept and apparently quite cheap.

      --
      The Singularity is closer than you think
      Quant
  90. Well. by AmoebafromSweden · · Score: 1

    Well, if it can travel for 17 years, it is certain it will leave the solar system sooner or later, the point is only when.

    1. Re:Well. by Gewis · · Score: 1

      RTFA The probe has left the solar system. That's the whole point.

  91. Re:Sending a nuclear device into space - dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The chances of having an accident where the craft's plutonium fuel kills lots of people are next to nil. It's a distribution problem. You've got to get it into people's bodies.

    Yes the plutonium on the craft is toxic, but you yourself (should you be a typical fertile male) produce enough sperm to impregnate every woman on the planet. Are there protesters outside your door demanding the dismantling of, uh, your missle?

  92. Mod parent up interesting by daniel23 · · Score: 1


    as that post was interesting enough to start some discussion

    --
    605413? Yes, it's a prime.
  93. Half-life, decay away evetually to lead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The P238 will decay away to U234 which will decay away into lead (Pb) after many tens of thousands of years, ultimately becoming inert.

  94. Scientists Unsure? by Macsimus · · Score: 2, Funny
    Couldn't they just turn a camera toward the heliopause border and look for the "Now Leaving the Sol System" sign ... you know, like these:

    National Park Service Entrance Signs

  95. Re:Sending a nuclear device into space - dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not just simply dump them into an active volcano?

  96. Re:Your sig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Better written as:
    I was only wrong once, when I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't.

  97. Re:right. sure. got it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "What makes you think they're not mentally ill? If you need to medicate yourself at all with anything, then you are ill."

    well i would say at least 50% of the world drinks on occasion or more.. put that in with the other drugs (i know some people who dont drink but smoke blunt after blunt) and you have most of the population of earth being "ill". by that rationelle(sp?), you could say most of the world is infected with the skin pigmant virus and only albinos are not ill. its the same exact reasoning your using.

    besides ive never met more mentally fucked up people than people who are strait edge. usually they compensate it with denial of the fun that they are missing or some philiosophy like christianity, which in a way, is a sort of medication.

  98. Fusion drives Re:Easy but . . . by StefanJ · · Score: 1

    I learned about these via a collection of papers I read at Carnegie Mellon University. Damned if I remember the title.

    But if you google for these phrases, you'll find a lot:

    "inertial confinement fusion" propulsion

    "magnetic confinement fusion" propulsion

  99. A probe with ion engines . . . by Idou · · Score: 1

    "Good thing they have several years"

    Would allow us to decide A) whenever we pleased, probably. However, I suppose we do just have a couple years for B).

    --
    Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
  100. Space Exploration vs. E Voting by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    Hm lets see a probe explores the solar system completing numerous diverse missions, travels though space for 26 years dodging planets and bits of rock and still provides useful data. Voting machine whos sole purpose is to count the number of times people press buttons, lasts 5 minutes in an airconditioned room and even then provides no useful data.

    The only thing that would come close to explaining it would be that NASA had 50 Billion times more money for their project, do i see bad budgeting by the government?

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  101. Subsonic means slower than 343 m/s by Gewis · · Score: 1

    Well, it varies based on temperature and pressure, of course, but when you're talking about an article written for most everybody who isn't a scientist to read, 'sonic' is referring to the normal speed of sound we're accustomed to, approximately 343 m/s. There is no implication here that there is sound propagating effectively through the heliopause. Nobody's trying to pull the wool over your eyes. 'Sonic' is just a common reference point when talking about velocities.

    YIAAP (Yes, I Am A Physicist)

  102. Re:right. sure. got it. by cens0r · · Score: 1

    I'm sure that prozac and zoloft do help a few people who are mentally ill. But I refuse to believe that 10 million americans are actually truly mentally ill. Quite a few just need a fix.

    --
    Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
  103. Capitalism is the problem by David1982 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Homelessness and poverty will always exist under captialism. I am not saying that this is good or bad, I am saying that we do not live in the Star Trek utopian society in which there are jobs that pay enough for people to survive available for everyone.

    You might be able to teach someone to fish, but the but at some point the economy may not have any need for more fishermen (or whatever other job skill). All the unempolyed coders reading this can attest to this.

  104. Compare Current Solar to Nuclear by n-baxley · · Score: 1

    How does the current standard of using solar power compare to the nuclear power used on Voyager? I know that most satelites using solar are staying close to earth so there's plenty of sun, but would they work at the distances we're talking about? If we wanted to send another long range probe, would it need something other than solar for power? Would that something be nuclear?

    1. Re:Compare Current Solar to Nuclear by applemasker · · Score: 1
      It appears that current solar-powered satellites are impractical beyond Mars because of the dropoff in solar intensity at the distances involved (inverse square law).

      Saturn is on average 9.54 times as far from the Sun as Earth is. The inverse-square law tells us that the intensity of sunlight falling on Saturn is thus 1/(9.54^2) or about 1/91 or 0.011 of the light falling on Earth. The standard value for the energy in sunlight is 1350 watts per square meter at 1 AU (Earth's distance from the sun, 93 million miles). As far away as Saturn, you see about 15 (14.83) watts per square meter.

      According to this from NASA, http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/safety/solar .pdf, if Cassini were designed with solar arrays, they would have to be over 500 square meters (5,380 square feet)in size.

      --
      Bush Lies On the Record.
  105. How far? by ottffssent · · Score: 1

    How many Libraries of Congress away is that?

  106. ATTENTION FAT MODERATORS!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    prepare to get modded down by an overweight moderator. no one believes in personal responsibility anymore! god forbid people actually are forced to take care of themselves! no, we need the supermarket to only sell good foods! and we need someone to tell us to exercise! honestly, people these days are in a constant state of childhood.

    now watch this go to -1 as some giant beast who can't do a situp to save his life flexes his mighty moderation muscle - the only muscle he has.

  107. 8.4billion miles...... by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
    starts up units(1)
    That's 12.52 light hours.... or to put it in Internet terms:
    a 9.0e8 ms ping time.

    Not a good place to put a quake server.

    --
    Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
  108. yes! but not really by iLeader · · Score: 1

    Will it be able to find anything interesting outside the solar system in the next 17 years? I sure hope so, though most likely not.

  109. Re:to paraphrase - space sucks by HermanZA · · Score: 1, Funny

    Nothing strange about that small accelleration - space sucks...

  110. Riiiiight. by zCyl · · Score: 2, Funny

    Simple concept, drop a nuclear bomb behind a craft, and ride the shock wave forward. Needs a pushing plate, shock absorbers, etc of a good magnitude, but the system can and does work.

    Great idea. We'll build it, you get in the ship, and then after we detonate the bomb we'll design an atomic spatula to remove you from the rear end of the space ship.

    Without manipulation of gravity, the fastest humans can possibly accelerate is a few times the acceleration of Earth's gravity. And to get to decent speeds with that kind of acceleration takes a very long sustained force. You would need a giant spring lightyears long which could somehow magically not shred itself or melt under the kind of stress you're describing. You'd have better luck designing the spatula.

    1. Re:Riiiiight. by juhaz · · Score: 1

      What's your definition of a very long time?

      With constant acceleration of no more than 1 g, you would reach 10% of speed of light in bit over month.

      Of course, sustaining 1 g for a month would require a humongous pile of nuclear bombs...

  111. Re:to paraphrase - space sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Space neither sucks or blows; there's only differences in pressure.

  112. Re:to paraphrase - space sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If space doesn't blow then I have no reason to go.

    BUSTA RYMES yo!

  113. I'm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    anorexic, and have no mod points, you insensitive clod!!

  114. Re:Money isn't the problem - partial solution mayb by ElderKorean · · Score: 1

    A few years ago a youngish lady approached me on the street asking if I could give her some money so she could get a prescription filled as she couldn't afford it.

    I just assumed that she was being truthful, though later I had my doubts when I saw her talking to another person while still holding the script.

    Thinking about it - I should have gone with her to the pharmacy and paid to get the prescription filled - that way I know that the money was getting used to do what she asked for.

  115. The real question.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the real question is... how long until William Shatner finds it approaching earth again, surrounded by this giant cloud of gas that sounds like an untuned electric guitar?

  116. I'm sure SOMEBODY on the Trek staff knows this. . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Borgs can be HOT! Ooooooooo....gimme that robotic vagina!

    SEVEN OF NINE (BENDING OVER): We are Robo-B00ty! Resistance is futile. We will be fudge-packed by YOU.

    (Unreleased outtake from Rick Berman's private unproduced Voyager Episode "Borgasm.")

  117. Mysterious slow-down by bar-agent · · Score: 2

    What I'm really interested in finding out is: now that we have something that's reached or passed the heliopause, will the mysterious deceleration our probes have encountered cease?

    No one has any idea what is causing the slow-down. Dark matter? Interstellar anti-gravity? Who knows? It's...mysteeerious! Maybe it has something to do with the heliopause.

    --
    i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    1. Re:Mysterious slow-down by ciphertext · · Score: 1

      You know, I recently read a Discover magazine in which just that topic was discussed. Gravity. There is a physicist named Moti Milgrom who in 1994 gave a talk at Cambridge University about the subject of gravity. He has a "tweak" for Newton's equations whose results predict just such a slow down. Here is the Discover Magazine article that discusses his findings. It is entitled nailing down gravity.

      While Discover is not a technical publication by any stretch of the imagination, it is a fun read. Hope you enjoy it.

      --
      To know is to have knowledge....to understand is to be enlightened.
  118. Long Term Perspective by nAsCz · · Score: 2

    Working at NASA a few years ago I saw an old painting of voyager's path through space over the next several million years. In that time it will pass close (relatively speaking) to more than a half a dozen stars. For a moment I was taken into this artist's imagination, and saw the vision of humanity setting out on a voyage far beyond all previous scope of space and time. I returned this year to where the painting had been and it was gone. Speaks a lot for the problems facing NASA from inside and out.

  119. Re:right. sure. got it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd suggest you learn a bit about anti-depressants before voicing your ignorance to the world. You cannot get a fix from them. In fact, they do absolutely nothing to people with normal seratonin levels. Maybe the fact that 10 million Americans are on them is an indication that society as a whole has become a cesspool, and there are still a few people left who actually care.

  120. I'll be old! by Kyrthira · · Score: 1

    Tis a shame I'll be old and grey by the time we actually find out. With the length of time the signal would take to arrive...

    It's only a guess, since I'm not very good at math (and don't know the transmission speeds)...

    24 -- Current age
    17 -- Years till the signal arrives?
    41 -- Yup, old and grey. Thanks, Mom...

    --
    ~Kyrthira Phelan~
  121. But if the RIAA.. by Nonillion · · Score: 1

    But if the RIAA/MPAA had their way they would be required to have a CD/DVD player that could only play disks from solar system reigon 1..

    --
    "I bow to no man" - Riddick
  122. The CNN Article Is Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Never trust the mainstream media to get a science story right!

    Voyager 1 *might* have reached the Termination Shock--NOT the heliopause. The termination shock is where the solar wind--electrically charged (ionized) hydrogen atoms blown off the surface of the sun--slows from 700,000-1.5 million miles per hour, down to under 250,000 mph. This indicates it's getting nearer to interstellar space because the solar wind is getting weaker, and it's having more trouble pushing against the interstellar winds of the galaxy. The termination shock lies somewhere between 80 and 100 AU. Between the termination shock and the heliopause (the true edge of the solar system), is the "heliosheath" region--kind of the Siberia of our solar system (distant, cold, dark). The heliopause lies around 120-150 AU.

    In effect, Voyager 1 may have reached the outtermost region of our solar system (which no craft has ever done before), but it still has 10-20 years to go to reach interstellar space. Here's NASA's press release. Note they say Voyager is about to reach the solar system's final frontier--not the edge of the solar system:

    http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2003/1105voyager .html

  123. Re:to paraphrase in a little detail.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    isnt that quote a little dated?

    Shouldnt voyager 2 have reached pluto 13 years ago?

  124. Depends on probes reolution. by dilvish_the_damned · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    For instance, what quality is the porno out there and can we get close enough to make it R rated?
    Doubt it.

    --
    I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
  125. It's so boring... by raider_red · · Score: 1

    It's even worse than driving to El Paso after dark, and there's nothing out there.

    --
    It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
  126. A bunch of physicists thought it would work... by Goonie · · Score: 1
    I'm not a mechanical engineer or a physicist, but apparently a substantial number of both working on the idea have considered the shock problem manageable, if you cast big enough springs and dampers - and, no, they weren't light-years long.

    Freeman Dyson worked on the project, called "Project Orion", in the 1950's. His son wrote a book on the subject. One of the major problems with the damping was the springs getting out of control if one of the bombs was a dud...

    Modern designers have looked at alternative approaches for damping the shock, like using a more sail-like structure at a much greater distance from the bomb detonation. Most of them seem convinced it can be made to work. The biggest problem is the radioactive fallout, which will likely preclude their use as a way to lift off from Earth.

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
    1. Re:A bunch of physicists thought it would work... by CaptnMArk · · Score: 1

      Also, the reuse of the launch site would be problematic, no?

  127. Give 'em an inch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    Funny, I see it exactly the opposite way. Because she's sick, she clearly needs far more help than we can afford.

    Inpatient treatment for alcoholics costs a good $20,000, only $12,000 of which is paid by insurance. It's estimated that 10% of the North American populace is alcoholic, though most aren't far gone at any moment. Do you have $30 billion to treat them all? And indeed, far more, because currently only a few are treated, and facilities are limited. To treat them all, we'd have to build vastly more.

    STDs, diabetes, cancer... these are all things you have to deal with once the starving people aren't dying. Once they're healthy and thriving, new things like heart disease and anorexia start to be major problems.

    Charity is a never-ending well. The world doesn't have the resources to fix all the problems, no matter how many studies say we can cure world hunger, because world hunger is just a dam on the river of woes that mankind can suffer. If the world can't solve them, no man can. Not even Bill Gates, with his measly $40 billion.

    So try this old maxim, admittedly a bit tarnished from use by the Soviets: "Take according to need, give according to ability." If your ability is sending up rockets, fine. If your ability is healing the sores of lepers, great! The world will lurch forward and evolve on it's own. It's far too big for you to about-face.

    And anyway, the most useful things in moving man forward in the past have been what others have considered a waste, like art, literature, and philosophy. Newton saved more lives being a self-absorbed man, in the long run, than ever Mother Teresa did.

  128. Damn right! by Channard · · Score: 1
    Voyager will find the long lost Weapons of Mass Destruction, and Rumsfeld will use this as an excuse to overhaul the space program! We all know the Iraqis have had a secret space program since 1950.

    Damn straight. We should bomb those filthy terrorist-hiding moon-rock loving Clangers back the stone age!

  129. Future JPL interstellar probes.. by adeyadey · · Score: 1

    Why not supply a link to the JPL voyager page , it has much more info.

    Voyagers 1/2 have to be the most most productive space missions ever - so much of what we know about the outer planets/moons (volcanos on Io, oceans on Europa, storms on Neptune) came from Voyager first..

    But Voyager was not primarily designed as an interstellar probe, and will probably run out of steam around 2020, so JPL are proposing various possible new missions - one is a solar sail based Interstellar probe which will travel around 200 AU in 15 years - much faster than Voyager. Because of its speed (14 AU/year) it could be doing science at 400 AU and beyond.. Its instruments will be far more powerful (and smaller) than Voyagers, probably including a modern CCD telescope to look at Kupier belt objects.

    I say make a few of these and let them rip..

    --
    "You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
  130. Interstellar Currents by $nyper · · Score: 1

    I have not done much research on this so I am asking this question here, please do not flame me for my ignorance. Has it been theorized that their may or may not be in existence some sort of interstellar currents? By asking this, I am making reference to the types of underwater currents that we find in the ocean on Earth.

    So what about this possible existence of a system interstellar currents that run between the solar systems? Has it been shot down as negative, ruled as possible or not even considered?

    --
    "Help me Obi-/.-Kenobi,your my only hope!" -$
  131. Did it ever occur to you... by DrMorpheus · · Score: 1

    ...that maybe he was bullshitting you? Or that he was psychotic and believed that he was making 45K per year, dating Natalie Portman and had a hugh penis too. Geez, what some people will believe...

    --
    Debunking the "59 Deceits"
    1. Re:Did it ever occur to you... by HeyLaughingBoy · · Score: 1

      If you bothered to read my entire post you'd notice that I said I tested his knowledge. Sure I can be fooled, but I think I'm capable of discerning whether someone is spouting buzzwords he saw in the New York Post or he really has knowledge of computer programming.

  132. That pesky cosmological constant by Mouth+of+Sauron · · Score: 1

    Maybe there is something 'pushing' on Voyager now that it is outside Sol's gravity well. Einstein called the cosmological constant the greatest mistake of his career, and since then few physicists have dared to examine the idea. Funny if he turned out to be right after all.

  133. Voyager is *not* outside of the solar system! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is outside of the innermost part where the planets are, but has not come anywhere near the Oort cloud, where most of the comets are.

    1. Re:Voyager is *not* outside of the solar system! by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      I had forgotten about the Oort Cloud , interesting stuff .

      Oort Cloud

      Peace,
      Ex-MislTech

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"