Slashdot Mirror


A Deep Space Primer

phil reed writes "With the latest Mars missions still in the news, people might be curious about what it takes to actually run a deep space mission: how a spacecraft is designed, how the communications are handled, what kind of project management is in place to make it all work. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory has a primer online that gives broad general coverage of all aspects of putting a satellite into orbit and how to manage it once it's there. Fascinating reading, with lots of links to more detail."

118 comments

  1. No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I am waiting for Build your own space mission For Dummies to come to my local B&N.

    1. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Whoever wins the X-Prize will write it.

    2. Re:No thanks by sessyargc · · Score: 1

      i think reading Douglas Adams' The Ultimate Hitchhiker's Guide would be more fruitful and entertaining.

      --
      - not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted
    3. Re:No thanks by photonX · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I remember a Mad Magazine piece when I was a kid (mid-Sixties, I guess) titled something like: "Kids: build your own 707!" It used four of those cylinder-type Electrolux vacuum cleaners for engines, presumably with really long extension cords...If we could only build a *really* big catapult, then the sky's the limit!

      Seriously, it's easy to forget that just a century ago we were literally a horse-and-buggy civilization, and how amazing it is that we can make these things work at all. I was talking to a youngster at work the other day, and was suprised to learn that he didn't know what a slide rule was. Now our tools and toys are an order of magnitude better than when we went to the Moon, but we still have a lot of learning to do.

      I can never get tired of watching those same rehashed rocket shows on the science channels, so thanks to the originator for the link!

      --
      Anti-gravity? That was *my* little secret! But I never patented it! Boy, was *that* dumb!
  2. Its Mind Boggling by MonkeysKickAss · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It is so mind boggling when you think aabout the actual costs to make one of these mars rovers and how much it costs to send it up in space. After all these are basically disposable because they most likely will never get them bac unless we make a succesfull manned mission to mars.

    --
    MonkeysKickAss
    1. Re:Its Mind Boggling by morcheeba · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Would you really want them back?

      The objective of these missions is to learn more about mars.. if we were just interplanetary joyriding, then, yes, I'd want the rover back -- but that's not the case here.

      Besides, the rovers are only a small portion of the cost of the mission - even if we could magically get these back for free, it would be worth the effort to build new rovers that incorporate the things learned on previous missions and provide new and different capabilities.

    2. Re:Its Mind Boggling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you think the cost is mind boggling, you haven't seen what it would cost to if they were designed to return to earth when they were done.

    3. Re:Its Mind Boggling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But they would make a heck of a trophy for the winner of X Prize XVII: Homebuilt Rocket to Mars.

    4. Re:Its Mind Boggling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cost estimate in the early 90's was $10-13 billion.

  3. JPL by miketo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are a lot of smart, dedicated, and *unsung* heroes at JPL. NASA tends to get all the celebrity, but JPL deserves it just as much. Thanks to all who are working on our Mars missions and the various other missions that are increasing our knowledge of our universe and ourselves.

    1. Re:JPL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, the folks who spend so much time researching and practicing putting satellites in orbit, aren't the ones who will eventually have to bring them down out of orbit.

      Look at what will eventually happen to the ISS, or the Hubble. Yes, a major feat of engineering to get them up there, but once they're deprecated, then what?

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

      Yes, down they go. Fortunately, everything they have told us and everything learnt from experiments is preserved.

    3. Re:JPL by rk · · Score: 5, Informative

      Erm, JPL is part of NASA. Caltech manages JPL, and therefore a part of Caltech, but it's also as much a part of NASA as KSC, JSC, or any of the other NASA facilities.

  4. Ron Popiel satelite: by big_groo · · Score: 2, Funny
    Set it, and Forget It!

    1. Re:Ron Popiel satelite: by Deitheres · · Score: 0

      and don't forget, it's SO easy to clean!

      --
      Just like driving a car:
      (D) to go forward
      (R) to go backward

  5. so close! by fjordboy · · Score: 4, Funny
    From the Primer:
    The BSF is intended to be used online via the worldwide web (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/basics). There are interactive quizzes to let you check your own progress; no records are kept. No academic credit is offered for completion.
    Bummer...just when I thought I could get academic credit for cruising the web...
    1. Re:so close! by whathappenedtomonday · · Score: 3, Funny

      well, at least you can get the certificate without taking the tests ;)

      --
      I hope I didn't brain my damage.
  6. Tweaking, JPL Style by lpangelrob2 · · Score: 5, Funny
    And in the animation section...

    Too many windows on your screen may tax computer "power" causing animations to run too slowly, but if they're too fast, you might choose to run additional programs to use up computing power and slow the animations.

    So it looks like JPL's also providing a newbie guide on "tweaking your system." :-)

    I'd like to see how someone with a 3.0 GHz PC handles this...

    1. Re:Tweaking, JPL Style by enosys · · Score: 4, Funny
      I haven't had to deal with this issue since Wing Commander. I would have thought JPL would be capable of making software that plays animations at the same speed on all computers that are fast enough for it.

      Then again if they forget to handle filesystem full errors on Mars rovers who knows... ;)

    2. Re:Tweaking, JPL Style by Doug-W · · Score: 2, Funny

      Off topic but amusing let's see if the moderators think it balances out!

      When I was in College I had a brand new and blinding fast 386/SX-16 that I wanted to play Wing Commander on. Alas it was designed to be run on a 4.77Mhz XT and I could not control the ship at the blinding speed. However I quickly thought to load up the new at the time Windows 3.0 and play Wing Commander in a dos box from that. This worked flawlessly and led to my tag line of, 'Windows, the 8086 Emulator for your 80386!'

  7. Warning by savagedome · · Score: 4, Funny

    They forgot the statutory warning.

    DO NOT attempt this at home

    1. Re:Warning by Zocalo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Ah, but the beauty of this is that if you did actually did try it at home, then one way or another you wouldn't be at home for long. Depending on how successful you were you would be leaving in either a deep space probe, ambulance or meat wagon.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    2. Re:Warning by Ouroboro · · Score: 1

      Ah, but the beauty of this is that if you did actually did try it at home, then one way or another you wouldn't be at home for long. Depending on how successful you were you would be leaving in either a deep space probe, ambulance or meat wagon.

      Or if your failure is spectacular enough you just might be evaporated, leaving as a wisp of smoke on the breeze.

      --
      When I want your opinion I will beat it out of you.
  8. Nice to see. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's nice to see that space exploration has come so far in my lifetime. When I was a boy during WWII, travel to Mars, even by machines, was just science fiction, and the stuff of magazine covers. Most of the world's scientists and engineers were at work developing weapons of war, and for some of them, rockets, high altitude airplanes, etc. were allowed projects that laid the foundation for today's space miracles.

  9. The quiz is messed up... by Beolach · · Score: 1

    On the first quiz on the Solar System, on the questions that you can select multiple answers it keeps telling me I didn't select any answer, and marks it as wrong.

    --
    Join moola.com, play games to earn money.
    1. Re:The quiz is messed up... by Zonekeeper · · Score: 0

      He's right. It's fuXored.

    2. Re:The quiz is messed up... by ragefan · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, what do you expect? Making web-based quizzes is not rocket science. ;)

  10. did anyone check the html source? by coolgabe · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    the jpl's web peeps use tags?

    1. Re:did anyone check the html source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's because IE can't render CSS correctly.

  11. Re:Perfect by FrancisR · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    But if Bill owns the moon, then Microsoft would have a monopoly on the tides of the ocean, giving them a firm grip on the beach vacation industry.

  12. How it should have started... by el-spectre · · Score: 5, Funny

    "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."

    R.I.P. DNA

    --
    "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    1. Re:How it should have started... by sahonen · · Score: 1

      I like this one better: "In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded." Terry Pratchett.

      --
      Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
  13. Misinterpretation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    When I first read the title I thought it said "Deep Space Printer"

    1. Re:Misinterpretation by TR0GD0RtheBURNiNAT0R · · Score: 1

      Though I bet NASA is working on one of those, too.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  14. Long-feedback cycles and good design by G4from128k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This type of careful planning and careful execution is useful for any endeavour with long or expensive feedback cycles. That includes terrestrial tasks like creating nuclear powerplants. Too many engineers have a hands-on, tweak-and-see hacker mentality, where projects like Mars rovers, nukes (and many other projects)need to work as planned right out of the box.

    A former boss and engineer had a great story about his early job experience designing circuits for a guided missile. He showed his first circuit design to the boss and the boss noted all the little adjustable pots in the circuit. The boss simply said, "Are you going to fly with that missile to tweak all the pots?"

    Although simulations, testing, and prototyping are great, truely great engineering just works because it was designed correctly from the beginning to just work.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
    1. Re:Long-feedback cycles and good design by steveha · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You are absolutely right -- for the current way we do space.

      But I look forward to the day when we can develop space hardware the same incremental way we develop other things. When flying into space is as cheap as flying to Australia, we won't have to have massive, incredibly careful engineering projects. We can just try stuff and go with what works.

      P.S. Am I naive to think we can go to space as cheaply as going to Australia? No. We can't do it with the Space Shuttle, which requires many man-years of labor to rebuild after each flight. And we can't do it with expendable boosters, which are completely destroyed when you use them. We will need actually reusable spacecraft. I fear that NASA is no longer, as an organziation, able to build them, but someone else will. Go Xcor! Go Armadillo Aerospace! Go... anyone building these things.

      steveha

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    2. Re:Long-feedback cycles and good design by iggymanz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not true. To design something very complicated like an aircraft or Mars rover there are *many* models and experimentation done, because almost all textbook equations are only approximations of reality. Since you used example of missile, there is NO WAY to model the turbulence, forces, torques, etc. involved with a real missile in flight, though we are getting better at approximating them. Any missile design will have many man-years of "twiddling, tweaking, and hacking" in the evolution of its design.

      To use an even simpler exmple, what if one burns 2.00000 moles of hydrogn and 1.00000 moles of oxygen, how much water is produced? If you answer that question based on what you learned in freshman chemistry you'd be wrong. In the real world, reactions never go to 100%, reagents aren't pure, and other chemicals besides water (like hydrogen peroxide) would be produced. And the ONLY way to know how much water would be produced under given conditions would be to actually do it. And then, you'd find for repeated experiments the amount wouldn't quite be the same!

      And finally, I'd point out that when systems fail aboard a Mars rover, they're very much back the realm of hacking, tweaking and fiddling.

    3. Re:Long-feedback cycles and good design by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      But I look forward to the day when we can develop space hardware the same incremental way we develop other things. When flying into space is as cheap as flying to Australia, we won't have to have massive, incredibly careful engineering projects. We can just try stuff and go with what works.
      Except... Flying to Australia is cheap because the aircraft you fly on was a massive, incredibly expensive engineering project. It requires guarunteed performance and near absolute reliability, and that comes from engineering, not just 'trying stuff'. It's not cheap because they 'just tried stuff to see what works', but because the cost of the project can be amortized (by the manufacturer) across hundreds of aircraft, and by the owner across tens of thousands of passengers.
      We will need actually reusable spacecraft. I fear that NASA is no longer, as an organziation, able to build them, but someone else will. Go Xcor! Go Armadillo Aerospace! Go... anyone building these things.
      Xcor? Jeff has stated on many occasions he's in the business of developing and building only what people will pay him for, and to date that's not re-useable spacecraft. Armadillo? John has stated that he's building an X-prize contender, and nothing more.

      The blunt fact is nobody is working on re-useable spacecraft beyond powerpoint presentations and pipe dreams while waiting for an angel. (Jeff Bezos, maybe, but he's being secretive as hell. Paul Allen? Nope, SpaceShip One, despite it's name, is an X-prize contender only. It does not lend itself to being scaled up.)
    4. Re:Long-feedback cycles and good design by steveha · · Score: 1

      Flying to Australia is cheap because the aircraft you fly on was a massive, incredibly expensive engineering project.

      Perhaps so. Of course, what I actually said was that once we have cheap access to space we can "try stuff" in space.

      But also of course, we can use incremental development (build and test, then build and test some more) to get our reusable spacecraft. Yes it requires engineering; I never said otherwise.

      The important difference between a Boeing 747 and a Space Shuttle is that it takes an army to overhaul the Shuttle after each flight, whereas the 747 can be maintained by a few people and spend most of its time flying.

      The blunt fact is nobody is working on re-useable spacecraft

      Perhaps so. The blunt fact is NASA will not build the spacecraft we need, and our only hope is private industry.

      The existing industry is trying to crawl before it tries to walk, and walk before it tries to run. In other words, they aren't making bold promises about cheap access to orbit -- yet.

      It's a closer step from an X-Prize winner to a real spacecraft, than it is from a Shuttle to a real spacecraft.

      steveha

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
  15. how the communications are handled by iminplaya · · Score: 3, Interesting

    veerryy sloowwly. What is it? 20 minutes to mars and back? Light speed won't cut it when we talk about going anywhere farther than the moon. At our current level of comprehension, it's just not practical to go any father than Mars. We need to dream up something entirely different. Something that works like a very long tube filled with ping pong balls for example. Push one into one end and one pops out the other instantly, no matter how long the tube. I'm sure somebody has thought of this and has a name for it, but I sure don't know what it is.

    --
    What?
    1. Re:how the communications are handled by red+floyd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Doesn't work. The vibrational impulse is passed through the medium in the tube. This impulse goes slower than light.

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
    2. Re:how the communications are handled by nathanliesch · · Score: 5, Informative

      your ping pong ball example is essentially how a electrical wire works. The electrons don't actually travel the length of the wire, they just "push" the ones next to them. Yet this is still limited by the drift velocity of electrons which is slower than the speed of light.
      I think the only way to do speed up the conversation would be quantum entaglement but that's not been done outside the laboratory.

    3. Re:how the communications are handled by another_henry · · Score: 2, Informative
      I thought of that too ;) Sadly, it doesn't work. The balls at the far end of the tube don't 'know' to move until the signal, in this case a pressure wave, reaches them. In fact in this case the limit is the speed of sound in the ping pong balls.

      I hope we can beat relativity some day. At the moment though, it doesn't look promising.

      --
      "Studies have shown that people who eat peanuts live longer than those who do not eat."
    4. Re:how the communications are handled by Shut+the+fuck+up! · · Score: 5, Informative

      Something that works like a very long tube filled with ping pong balls for example. Push one into one end and one pops out the other instantly, no matter how long the tube

      why that won't work

    5. Re:how the communications are handled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      These are called gravitational waves, with the theory being that although light only travels so fast, gravitational effects are instantaneous, and their effects can be seen immediately. What we need is the ability to use gravitational properties (gravitons anyone?) to communicate with deep space missions.

    6. Re:how the communications are handled by Shut+the+fuck+up! · · Score: 0

      Yet this is still limited by the drift velocity of electrons which is slower than the speed of light.

      A LOT slower. Electrons through a thin (~.001mm) copper wire at 10A move at .25 millimeters per second.

    7. Re:how the communications are handled by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't that assume some compressability? If there were absolutely none, would this still an issue? Obviously this is only theory, but I'm just trying to see what's possible out there.

      --
      What?
    8. Re:how the communications are handled by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      I understood the part about hitting the stick and so on, but what happens if you simply move the stick? Doesn't the whole stick move at the same time? I didn't read the whole page. I'm going to try to comprehend the rest it now to see if it answers that question.

      --
      What?
    9. Re:how the communications are handled by GigsVT · · Score: 2, Informative

      Push one into one end and one pops out the other instantly

      Well, that's sorta how electromagnetic signal propagation already happens. :)

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    10. Re:how the communications are handled by addaon · · Score: 2, Funny

      In theory, zero compressibility is still impossible.

      --

      I've had this sig for three days.
    11. Re:how the communications are handled by f2professa · · Score: 2, Funny

      Something that works like a very long tube filled with ping pong balls for example. Push one into one end and one pops out the other instantly, no matter how long the tube.

      It's called Pez. Nothing to do with space travel kid, but keep trying.

      --
      Someone, please shake me from this wide-awake nightmare.
    12. Re:how the communications are handled by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I posted this thought in another reply...If the "wire" is perfectly rigid, and you push the wire itself, will the whole wire move at the same time?

      --
      What?
    13. Re:how the communications are handled by el-spectre · · Score: 1

      The wire isn't a solid object though... so no.

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    14. Re:how the communications are handled by Shut+the+fuck+up! · · Score: 4, Informative

      Gravitational effects travel at the speed of light. Here is a decent explanation

    15. Re:how the communications are handled by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Being that gravity and radiation are opposite ends of the same thing(I think), it would seem to me that gravity waves also are limited to light speed. If a mass were to instantly appear, I think the gravity wave would propagate at the speed as radiation(light). IDHAC(I don't have a clue)

      --
      What?
    16. Re:how the communications are handled by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Even if it were perfectly rigid, if you push one end, the other end can't start moving faster than light could travel the length of the wire.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    17. Re:how the communications are handled by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      In my theoretical perfectly rigid wire nothing would move faster than the actual push. The whole thing would simply move at the same time. No?

      --
      What?
    18. Re:how the communications are handled by Captain+Nitpick · · Score: 1
      Wouldn't that assume some compressability? If there were absolutely none, would this still an issue? Obviously this is only theory, but I'm just trying to see what's possible out there.

      An object's structure comes from the electromagnetic forces between the atomic nuclei and electrons in the material. When you move an object, the electric repulsion between the atoms in your hand pushes the atoms in the object that are on the surface. These atoms in turn push on the atoms below them, which push on the next layer, and so on until the motion reaches the end of the object being moved.

      An ASCII diagram:
      A ~~~~~> A ~~~~~> A ~~~~~> A

      Even in a hyopthetical "perfectly" rigid material, these atomic-scale EM forces still only travel at c.

      --
      But then again, I could be wrong.
    19. Re:how the communications are handled by phil+reed · · Score: 2, Informative
      but what happens if you simply move the stick? Doesn't the whole stick move at the same time?

      No. If you push the end of the stick, that push travels down the length of the stick as a shock wave, moving at the speed of sound.

      --

      ...phil
      "For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
    20. Re:how the communications are handled by mog007 · · Score: 1

      That's easy, just get some soup cans, and a REALLY FRIGGIN LONG string, then we can communicate directly to Spirit, and find out what the hell is the matter.

    21. Re:how the communications are handled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, but your theoretical material couldn't really exist in our universe either, so what satisfaction is there in that?

    22. Re:how the communications are handled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      No quantum entanglement will not work either. There is no known way around relativity.

      In case of quantum communication, to read the message being sent to you, the sender needs to send you a classical bit which travels, like all other information, at the speed of light or slower. See for example: Nature 398, 189 - 190 (1999) (and related refereces)

      As for the recent news of superluminal transport in nanomaterials and such, it is important to remember that is only the phase velocity > c. Information velocity is still c. See for example:
      Nature 422, 271 - 272 (20 March 2003)

      This disregard for Einstein is disturbing in a community that is supposed to be interested in science.

    23. Re:how the communications are handled by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Well, I think if it were really perfectly rigid, you wouldn't be able to push it at all.

      I'm no physicist, but that seems to be the logical conclusion. Since no perfectly rigid objects exist, I guess we can't test the theory. :)

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    24. Re:how the communications are handled by GigsVT · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Hey, I found exactly this question addressed.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    25. Re:how the communications are handled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever had a physics teacher? If so, he or she should be beat, unmercifully across the head and shoulders. Again. And again. And again. You are a very very bad person who needs to learn the principles of physics before spouting off about them. Oh, and hit yourself too.

    26. Re:how the communications are handled by Rorschach1 · · Score: 1

      Try this on Earth and you can see that it's not instantaneous. Find a long, solid object - a nice long stretch of unused train track will do. Have a friend go a few hundred meters down the track, and put your ear up to the rail while they hit it with a hammer. You'll notice that the impulse travels much faster than it does in air, but it's far slower than the speed of light. It's exactly the speed of sound in steel, in fact.

      Remember, your 'solid' matter is still better than 99% empty space. Motion isn't just magically transferred between atoms - it takes time.

    27. Re:how the communications are handled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C'mon folks, it's so simple.

      (1) Go to Starfleet Academy, study physics, drop out after first year
      (2) Build sub-space comm network
      (3) ???
      (4) PROFIT!!!

  16. Misleading title... by pla · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Humans have yet to perform any "Deep space" exploration.

    The Voyager missions come the closest, but still remain fairly near home, on any meaningful interstellar scale.

    The linked article discusses interplanetary exploration. Quite a bit of a difference.

    1. Re:Misleading title... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you. The OP is either misleading or misinformed. I'd have mod'ed you up but you're already maxed.

    2. Re:Misleading title... by phil+reed · · Score: 1

      Better tell that to NASA then, since their big antenna complex is called the "Deep Space Network."

      --

      ...phil
      "For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
  17. Deep Space? by glrotate · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is Mars Deep Space? Shouldn't that term at least be reserved for regions outside the solar system? Or is that "Outer Space"?

    1. Re:Deep Space? by Detritus · · Score: 4, Informative
      Most NASA satellites are in low-Earth orbit. Some are in geosynchronous orbit, like TDRSS. Some, like satellites that study the solar wind, are in unusual orbits that take them far away from the Earth. JPL handles the satellites that leave the vicinity of the Earth and the Moon.

      NASA's satellite tracking and communication systems are adequate for spacecraft in the vicinity of the Earth and the Moon. They are not good enough to handle spacecraft at larger distances. That is why JPL's DSN (Deep Space Network) has much larger antennas, super low-noise preamps, and higher performance receivers and transmitters. Their systems are designed and optimized to work with very weak signals.

      The difference between near space and deep space is more a matter of operating conditions than of geography.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    2. Re:Deep Space? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      NASA's satellite tracking and communication systems are adequate for spacecraft in the vicinity of the Earth and the Moon. They are not good enough to handle spacecraft at larger distances. That is why JPL's DSN (Deep Space Network) has much larger antennas, super low-noise preamps, and higher performance receivers and transmitters.

      You do know that JPL is NASA?
    3. Re:Deep Space? by Detritus · · Score: 1

      It's a joint operation of NASA and CalTech. It's simplistic and incorrect to say that it is just another part of NASA. There are NASA standards and there are JPL standards. They cooperate and interoperate but they are distinct in many ways.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  18. Re: communications: Interplantary Internet by G4from128k · · Score: 4, Interesting

    20 minutes to mars and back? Light speed won't cut it when we talk about going anywhere farther than the moon.

    Its more than just the long delay. Interplanetary networking is quite tricky due to the limited bandwidth, line-of-sight interruptions, the need to slew expensive high-gain antennas into precise scheduled pointing directions, as well as the massive levels of latency.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
  19. Cheaper future vs. the vicious cycle of cost by G4from128k · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But I look forward to the day when we can develop space hardware the same incremental way we develop other things.

    Absolutely! I look forward to a range of advancements such as lower cost access to space (personal fav is a space elevator), truely routine manned space operations, and better adaptive/autonomous robotic systems.

    Yet I fear that the foreseeable future (next 20 years at least) will be dominated by rare and expensive space projects in which every lauch counts and every EVA-hour is carefully scripted and rehearsed.

    Its a vicious loop, really. Because space is expensive, space projects are very carefully planned and executed. And because space projects are so carefully planned and executed, they are expensive.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
  20. Broken Quiz? by grantdh · · Score: 2

    Maybe it's my browser but I got kinda disappointed with the first quiz - it keeps saying "Wrong, no selection made." on each of the checkbox responses - no matter which ones I check.

    I couldn't imagine JPL putting up a web quiz that didn't work - I mean, that'd be like having different modules in a probe using different units of measurement.... oh, yeah, oops... :)

    --

    I left my body to science, but I'm afraid they've turned it down...
    1. Re:Broken Quiz? by wittyesotericmoniker · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes.

      Here are my results:

      Your score: 57%

      There were 15 possible choices. Results for each choice you selected are shown below. Use your browser's BACK function to return to the quiz.

      Question 1.01:
      Right

      Question 1.02:
      Right

      Question 1.03:
      Wrong, no selection made.

      Question 1.04:
      Right

      Question 1.05:
      Wrong, no selection made.

      Question 1.06:
      Right

      I went back to the quiz and sure enough 3 and 5 were answered then I tried to reset the quiz several times to no avail. More troubling is the fact that with 4 of 6 correct answers I should have a 66% rather than 57%. Is 66 fahrenheit = 57 celsius?

      God save Spirit and Opportunity.

    2. Re:Broken Quiz? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it means Wrong OR No Selection Made

  21. Blast...! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Page 2 of the article: "The're controlled by imbedded JavaScript."

    It's not rocket science, really.

    Anything close enough will do.

  22. not quite deep space by ryanw · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I would see people telneting into satalites from time to time while I worked at Motorola as a unix admin. I was at the plant that built & maintained the hardware and software for the satalites for Iridium. It was interesting to hear engineers talk about the expensive mass of satalites which was at the time (2000) an already outdated network with not enough bandwidth.

    The iridium network has only one location on the planet where communications actually uplinks and downlinks to land communications. Of course they have the ability to communicate to any one of the three or four sites if one were to fail, but it would only use one at any given time.

    So if you made a call in antartica on a iridium sat phone to someone on a land line it would back haul the traffic using line of sight communications leap frogging each satalite before having the uplink/downlink to the ground. So I think it was a total of like 6 hops or something max unless there were of course other issues with the network, it could reroute through any visible satalites.

    So the bandwidth of the entire network is limited to that one uplink/downlink which rotates satalites on an almost hourly basis. So it's not like they could make 1 satalite that could support more bandwidth communication to the ground than the others, they're all built the same. Any iridium sataliate can take the place of any other.

    I know it's way off topic, but interesting to me none the less..

    1. Re:not quite deep space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I know it's way off topic, but interesting to me none the less."

      Bravo monseuir karma whore! You left the bait and the moderators ate it up. You should post it to anti-slash.

  23. Re: communications: Interplantary Internet by djneko · · Score: 1

    So any Quake style twitch gamers we send up to remote-control our battle borgs are gonna be righteously pissed after they find out they are no longer LPBs?

    "But... but... my 802.11b lan works GREAT at home. WTF is wrong with you stupid NASA engineers?!?!"

    --
    `/\/\
    (^.^)
    (")(")
    not quite an analog pussy, just a cat that plays with vinyl
  24. Just use a long stick. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then how about just use a really long stick to push back and forth. Where is the compression there?

    Just kidding, of course.

    1. Re:Just use a long stick. by red+floyd · · Score: 1

      Within the stick itself. Somebody else pointed out that the motion is transferred by electrostatic repulsion, which being transmitted by photons, travels no faster than c.

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
  25. Tweaking vs. robustness by G4from128k · · Score: 3, Informative

    Not true. To design something very complicated like an aircraft or Mars rover there are *many* models and experimentation done, because almost all textbook equations are only approximations of reality.

    Excellent point. My heat transfer prof warned us that the equations in the textbook would get answers that had as much as 30% error (if you were lucky). And, IIRC, some theories in material science only yield answers that are within an order of magnitude (factor of 10) of the true value.

    But what I was alluding to was robustness -- designs that aren't affected by approximation errors (or the inevitable measurement errors when you build and test a prototype). Some of this is a matter of factors of safety (overdesign) but the truely great engineers create designs that are insensitive to encountered variations. At some level the ability of the Rover team to correct the recent faults represents this type of robustness. Yes, they are tweaking and hacking, but it was only because of a robust, remotely fixable design that let them do this.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
  26. Here's what it takes: by TR0GD0RtheBURNiNAT0R · · Score: 0, Redundant
    50 billion dollars (more or less to taste)
    1 Team of scientists and engineers
    1 Rocket
    Put money and team into a lab and let sit for a few years, or until product becomes feasable. Remove result from lab, and load onto rocket. Launch rocket for Mars, and Enjoy!

    --
    This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  27. nice instructions by austad · · Score: 1

    Too many windows on your screen may tax computer "power" causing animations to run too slowly, but if they're too fast, you might choose to run additional programs to use up computing power and slow the animations.

    I do this all the time when my computer at work is working so fast. Start a bunch of programs, sit back in your chair, and slack.

    --
    Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
  28. Re:I agree but.. by mge · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I cannot begin to comprehend an organism that can be so wrong in so many ways in such little space.

    to take one sentence... ...American people need to vote this year, so their minds should not dwell on 500+ unnessacery deaths.
    They should dwell on it, and their responsibilities as Citezens of the US. If the more than 200 million citezens, of the most powerful nation-state currently in existence, ever felt squeamish about the loss of 500 lives, there would be a LOT more wars, a lot more killing and a lot more misery. Or would you rather have Saddam still murdering and starving his people ?

    There's so much trouble that could have easily been solved if that energy was put to more urgent matters
    in short, my answer to your first sentence :
    The human condition is the need to explore.

  29. Re:Deep Space? What is the Definition by SgtSnorkel · · Score: 1


    Like you, I thought that "deep space" meant between solar systems (or at least outside our own). People seem to be using it as "beyond low earth orbit."

    Sigh. Another technical term gets co-opted and perverted.

  30. The now defunct Breakthrough Propulsion Project by Pausanias · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Some of us like solar system exploration just fine, but already have our imaginations fixed on what it would take to get to the other stars. Rocks from Mars may be exciting, but getting to Alpha Centauri would be even more exciting, to say the least.

    NASA used to have a project devoted to seriously studying what it would take to achieve interstellar travel. Unfortunately, funding for it got cut off in 2002. However, they did manage to publish several papers and still have their results online at the BPP site.

    Here is a quote from the abstract of one of their papers:
    To travel to our neighboring stars as practically as envisioned by science fiction, breakthroughs in science are required. One of these breakthroughs is to discover a self-contained means of propulsion that requires no propellant. To chart a path toward such a discovery, seven hypothetical space drives are presented to illustrate the specific unsolved challenges and associated research objectives toward this ambition. One research objective is to discover a means to asymmetrically interact with the electromagnetic fluctuations of the vacuum. Another is to develop a physics that describes inertia, gravity, or the properties of spacetime as a function of electromagnetics that leads to using electromagnetic technology for inducing propulsive forces. Another is to determine if negative mass exists or if its properties can be synthesized. An alternative approach that covers the possibility that negative mass might not exist is to develop a formalism of Mach's Principle or reformulate ether concepts to lay a foundation for addressing reaction forces and conservation of momentum with space drives.
  31. Zubrin! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suggest reading "The Case for Mars." Zubrin talks about a Mars mission in good detail and how it could be achieved today.

  32. Ghey by TexVex · · Score: 1

    The first quiz is broken. It says I didn't give answers to two questions (3 and 5) when I gave the correct answers. Looks like it was thrown together in a hurry to begin with. Some of the multiple-guess questions use radio buttons and others just use check boxes. Maybe it's cause I'm using a non-IE browser?

    --
    Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
  33. Long Stick by shubert1966 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I thought of that a long time ago too. Probably because of my twisted take on Archimedes' famous expression about having a big enough lever. I had reasoned that if the stick were a light-year long, then the energy would reach the other end at the same time as light. That compression-thingy-reason apparently ruins it. Of course if the stick were 100 light-years long, would the energy get there faster than light?

    Perhaps if we built a large, woooden badger . . .

    --
    Stuff that matters.
  34. "Deep"? by Simon+Garlick · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Calling the almost insignificant distance between Earth and Mars "deep space" is like calling ankle-deep water at your local becah "deep ocean".

    1. Re:"Deep"? by Simon+Garlick · · Score: 1

      Err... "beach" :)

  35. Little old... by mini_me · · Score: 1

    It's too bad that tutorial has been on that site for couple of years. That's probably why the quiz doesn't work. Not to mention that half the links are already dead! :(

  36. Deep Space: A Primer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Space is big.
    Space is dark.
    It's hard to find
    a place to park.
    Burmashave.

  37. Just wondering... by WernerStormcrow · · Score: 1

    Is this stuff taught in Evil Medical School anyway, or did NASA just enable a whole bunch of aspiring super-villains to launch their own death star?

  38. English vs Metric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe they had a radio button/check box conversion problem.

  39. Wrong. by torpor · · Score: 1

    The human condition is the need to explore.

    No, the human condition is the need to eat. All else is secondary.

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --