Slashdot Mirror


Messenger Spacecraft Prepared for Mercury

An anonymous reader writes "NASA's first orbiter to the planet Mercury is shown today in cut-away, revealing the parasol design that will protect it from intense heat. Twenty layers of aluminized Kapton will be its sunshade. Curiously since the innermost planet is so close to the Sun, the Mercury mission itself will look for (cometary) water-ice preserved on the less baked north pole."

142 comments

  1. The probe's slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "My future's so bright, I've got to wear shades."

    1. Re:The probe's slogan by Overzeetop · · Score: 1
      Been listening to Club 977 again, eh?

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  2. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  3. Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Finally, a spacecraft where using an RTG wouldn't be a huge benefit. Knew it was going to happen someday, right?

  4. Is that even possible? by mindless4210 · · Score: 5, Funny

    The outside of this 6-foot solar umbrella will rise to 680F (360C), while its special insulating properties will keep its inside surface below 212F (100C) - and the spacecraft operating at room temperature.

    How can you keep the spacecraft at room temperature if everything around it is at least 212F? I need to get some of those fans for my computer.

    --
    Wireless News www.DailyWireless
    1. Re:Is that even possible? by yiantsbro · · Score: 1

      well, rooms on Mercury are slightly hotter than rooms here on Earth...

    2. Re:Is that even possible? by Geoffd1 · · Score: 0

      Fans do no good, if there is no air.

    3. Re:Is that even possible? by Xandu · · Score: 4, Informative

      How can you keep the spacecraft at room temperature if everything around it is at least 212F? I need to get some of those fans for my computer.

      It would be amazing if it was true that everything around the spacecraft was at 100C. But the side which doesn't face the sun A) doesn't need the sun shields, and B) sees the cold vacuum of space, a great place to passivly radiate unwanted heat to.

      Check out this page from the MESSENGER site showing the sun shields only on the side facing the sun.

      --


      --Xandu
    4. Re:Is that even possible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here's the key concepts: Stefan's Law states that the net power of radiated heat absorbed is proportional to the surface area, the emmissivity (black = 1, white = 0), and the temperature difference to the fourth power (T_you ^ 4 - T_them ^ 4). Since them is the Sun in one case, you aren't going to win so you put up the Parasol to block off the Sun. In the second case, them is just space, so all you have to do is adjust your emmissivity to have the power created by your electronic components equal the power radiated into space.

    5. Re:Is that even possible? by Overzeetop · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, it seems infeasable, since you lack both convective and conductive heat sinks, but you do get to radiate your excess heat to a 3K (-270C) heatsink.

      It's still an annoying problem, as radiators take up valuable surface area / FOV space which would preferable used for observational instrumentation.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    6. Re:Is that even possible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I understand that efficient radiant cooling to "cold" space is still very difficult problem in terms of heat budget vs. dissipation capacity.

    7. Re:Is that even possible? by johneee · · Score: 1

      a great place to passivly radiate unwanted heat to.

      See, I always thought that vacum was a BAD place to try to radiate heat to... Heat being a property of how active the molecules were. Vaccum, having nothing in it, doesn't transfer heat - which is why we have vaccum flasks, which keep hot things hot and cold things cold.

      Of course, I'm not a science guy, so what do I know, right?

      --
      - ------- There are ten kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who... Huh?
    8. Re:Is that even possible? by Detritus · · Score: 5, Informative
      There are three modes of heat transfer:
      • Conduction
      • Convection
      • Radiation

      Conduction and convection are not going to work in a vacuum, but radiation works just fine. This is electromagnetic radiation, like light and radio waves, so it does not need a medium.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    9. Re:Is that even possible? by johneee · · Score: 1

      Well there you go, I learned something today.

      Cool.

      --
      - ------- There are ten kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who... Huh?
    10. Re:Is that even possible? by Bandman · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty uneducated in this arena, probably along the lines of the original poster, but if he was speaking of radiating heat to space from the dark side, would electromagnetic radiation still leach heat from the soil / spacecraft?

    11. Re:Is that even possible? by Gil-galad55 · · Score: 1

      Radiation is one of the poorest means of cooling something down. That's why serious cooling is done with a conduction/convection system (the cooling in your car's engine, for instance). However, since the only heat the spacecraft will be receiving is by radiation, it is reasonable that it can radiate enough of the heat it absorbs to maintain a cool temperature, provided it doesn't absorb too much radiant heat--and that is precisely what the sunshield is for.

      --

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

    12. Re:Is that even possible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you meant to phrase that:

      What good is a fan, Mr. Anderson, if there is no air?

    13. Re:Is that even possible? by StateOfTheUnion · · Score: 2, Informative
      BTW: Stefan's law has nothing to do with the color of an object. A perfect blackbody has a emissivity of 1 but this has nothing to do with color.

      If an object only gets rid of heat only through electromagentic radiation, it's emissivity is one (this is a perfect blackbody), if it gets rid of heat through other means, the emissivity will be something less than one. Color is not relevent . . . radiation of heat is.

      Note that for very hot objects, other methods of getting rid of heat can be assumed to be negligible (e.g. stars) and one may assume an emmisivity of one.

    14. Re:Is that even possible? by StateOfTheUnion · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, there is no heatsink . . . space may be cold, but it also has no heat capacity. Heatsinks rely on conduction (which requires heat capacity). Stefan's law states that radiating heat in the form of electromagnetic radiation has nothing to do with the ambient temperature, only the temperature of the radiant object.

    15. Re:Is that even possible? by jerde · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Conduction and convection are not going to work in a vacuum, but radiation works just fine. This is electromagnetic radiation, like light and radio waves, so it does not need a medium

      Which is why vacuum flasks also use silvered glass, to help reflect the infrared radiation back into your hot soup. :)

      - Peter

      --
      INsigNIFICANT
    16. Re:Is that even possible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An object that doesn't absorb any radiation will appear white, hence white approaches an emissivity of 0. An object that absorbs all radiation will appear black, with an emissivity approaching 1.

    17. Re:Is that even possible? by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 4, Funny

      Of course, I'm not a science guy, so what do I know, right?

      Apparently. I thought the energy from the sun reaching the earth through 150 million miles of hard vaccum might have been some clue.

    18. Re:Is that even possible? by MrIrwin · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of when I saw baked alaska being made when I was six years old.

      --

      And if you thought that was boring you obviously havn't read my Journal ;-)

    19. Re:Is that even possible? by chachob · · Score: 1

      what is room temperature in space?

    20. Re:Is that even possible? by barakn · · Score: 2, Informative
      150 million miles

      150 million kilometers, or 93 million miles.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    21. Re:Is that even possible? by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 2, Funny

      I work for Nasa, you insensitive clod.

      I do'nt kneed on dman pvriev buton!

    22. Re:Is that even possible? by StateOfTheUnion · · Score: 1
      Reflectivity and Emissivity are not the same.

      It is important to distinguish between reflectivity and emmissivity. The white color of an object that doesn't absorb radiation is a measurement of reflectivity. An object that doesn't absorb any radiation will have a reflectivity or albedo of 1, however, it's emissivity depends on how it disipates heat energy which has aboslutely nothing to do with reflectivity. Even if the object is white with a reflectivity of 1, if it produces its own heat, then it is emitting blackbody radiation even though it is not absorbing electromagnetic radiation.

      Also, assuming that your postulate is true, the argument is also flawed as it assumes that the negative of a true statement is necessarily true . . . which is incorrect. The contrapositive is also true, but not the negative.

      Assume your postulate An object that doesn't absorb any radiation will appear white is true. Then the contrapositive must also be true: An object that appears white might not be absorbing any radiation. Or in terms more closely associated with your postulate, A white object may approach an emissivity of 0. Note that this is not a necessary condition.

      However, the negative of the original statement which you postulate as true "hence white approaches an emissivity of 0" is proposed as a necessary condition. However we all know of white objects that radiate heat (blackbody radiation). So this statement is incorrect as it may or may not be true. The first statement does not prove the second statement (the negation of the first).

      The same is true of the other statement. If a statement is true, the negative might or might not be true, the contrapositive is always true.

  5. This could be a marketing opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps Oakley or Cinzano or someone could boost NASA funding for some minor logo placement.

  6. Ion drive by Geoffd1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    At first glance, I thought they were using an ion drive, or something - classic design for such a thing is to have a giant "sail" at the back, powered by the "wind" generated by an ion drive... slow at first, then gets very fast.

    1. Re:Ion drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not how an Ion Drive works. Not even close.

    2. Re:Ion drive by cbiffle · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're thinking of a solar sail. Ion drives derive thrust directly from the force of the escaping gas (lightweight but high energy), generally xenon.

      Trying to ride the 'wind' from your own ion drive is very similar to trying to windsurf by blowing into your own sail -- or, to use a more familiar analogy, pulling one's self up by one's own bootstraps.

    3. Re:Ion drive by betelgeuse-4 · · Score: 1

      Ion drives derive thrust from ions (often caesium IIRC) escaping in the direction opposite to the required motion. That's why they are called ion drives. The ions don't have great mass, but they can be accelerated to very high speeds (close to the speed of light). This makes them very efficient, even though they only produce small amounts of thrust.

    4. Re:Ion drive by Bandman · · Score: 4, Funny

      when I was about 3 years old, I took my matchbox cars, and mounted a magnet on the front of one. Then I took a metal beam from my erector set, taped it to the top of my car, and put one end way out in front, on which I taped another magnet, opposite poles facing each other. It took me a couple of seconds to realize why it wasn't going to work :-) It sounds pretty similer to an ion drive pushing it's own sail.

    5. Re:Ion drive by cybermace5 · · Score: 1

      At least you realized it wouldn't work at that age. A lot of people these days believe worse nonsense all the time, and invest money in some swindler's scam.

      --
      ...
    6. Re:Ion drive by physicsnerd · · Score: 5, Informative
      Sorry, I keep seeing this misconception about Ion engines and it's bugging me. Ion drives do not have exit velocities anywhere near the speed of light. The absolute best Ion engines on the drawing board have a maximum Isp below 10,000s. The conversion between exit velocity and Isp is simple Ve=Isp*g so the best engines even on the drawing board have exit velocities no greater then 100,000 m/s while the speed of light is roughly 30,000,000 m/s. Production engines like the one on Deep Space One have Isps closer to 3,000s.

      For comparison purposes the best Isp from a chemical rocket system in use is pretty much Lox/H2 which gives you an Ispvac in the 460s range.

      More info here: http://nmp.jpl.nasa.gov/ds1/tech/ionpropfaq.html

      And yes, I am a rocket scientist.

    7. Re:Ion drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, will the real Slim Moderator please stand up, please stand up? I wanna have a word with you... :)

    8. Re:Ion drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And yes, I am a rocket scientist."

      No you aren't, Mr. speed-of-light-is-"roughly 30,000,000 m/s." You're a troll, and a very, very good one.

    9. Re:Ion drive by Russ+Steffen · · Score: 1
      speed of light is roughly 30,000,000 m/s.

      I believe you meant 300,000,000 m/s. Only off by an order of magnitude.

    10. Re:Ion drive by physicsnerd · · Score: 1

      Yep, it was a typo.

    11. Re:Ion drive by another_henry · · Score: 1
      The conversion between exit velocity and Isp is simple Ve=Isp*g

      Is that g as in 9.8 ms^-2? Or is it the universal constant of gravitation? Either way I'd be interested if you could tell me how it relates to an ion drive in the middle of space? Thanks Henry

      --
      "Studies have shown that people who eat peanuts live longer than those who do not eat."
    12. Re:Ion drive by physicsnerd · · Score: 4, Informative
      It's little g, 9.8m/s^2. Isp is defined as the total impulse per unit of propellant weight on Earth. It's basically a rating system to tell us how efficent a particular rocket system is with respect to it's fuel. We use weight because that's what you get when you stick something on a scale on Earth.

      Let me define a few things real quick
      It=total Impulse=Thrust*Time [N-s]
      F=Thrust [N]
      t= time [s]
      Mp=Propellant Mass [kg]
      dMp/dt=Propllant mass flow rate [kg/s]
      Wp=Propellant weight [N]

      Isp=It/Wp=F*t/(Mp*g)
      which if you solve for F in terms of Isp you get:
      F=Isp*Mp*g/t

      Then, you have Newton's law: F=dP/dt=d(mv)/dt which for a constat exit velocity you get:

      F=Ve*dMp/dt
      which for a constant mass flow can be written as:
      F=Ve*Mp/t

      Setting the two equations for thrust together you get:
      F=Isp*Mp*g/t=Ve*Mp/t
      which if you cancel out the Mp/t on both sides of the equation you get that:

      Ve=Isp*g.

      One of the real nice things about using Isp is that it's one of the few things that is the same in both EE and metric because it's units are seconds. For more info on this I recomend Chapter 2 from 'Rocket Propulsion Elements' by George Sutton and for a more advanced look at this stuff check out 'Space Propulsion Analysis and Design' By Humble, Henry and Larson. Both books can be purchased through Amazon or other large book sellers.

    13. Re:Ion drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the moderators keep modding this UP! Why? Don't you people READ what you mod up? Or do you simply look at the content/random buzzword ratio?

    14. Re:Ion drive by mpspence · · Score: 1

      Bravo! (Why is this model of a worthwhile /. post rated so LOW?)

    15. Re:Ion drive by another_henry · · Score: 1

      Thanks! I've actually had Sutton's book on my to-read list for a while, been interested in learning more about rockets. I'll try and find a copy.

      --
      "Studies have shown that people who eat peanuts live longer than those who do not eat."
    16. Re:Ion drive by Mukaikubo · · Score: 1

      Oh god, SPAD. The frelling bane of my life now that I'm doing semesterlong design courses. (AIAA: God hates you.)

      Of course, since I'm trying mightily to focus on engines, I learned it as V-equivalent and not V_exit. (for those who dunno: V_eq=V_e if the pressure of the gas that's escaping your nozzle is at the same pressure as Whatever Surrounds Your Craft. Not actually possible in vacuum.)

    17. Re:Ion drive by physicsnerd · · Score: 1

      Yea you are absolutely correct. I just figured that I'd leave out the pressure thrust correction. I didn't want to get into all of that and everything else I did was perfectly ideal anyways. Oh, and long live SPAD!

    18. Re:Ion drive by Bandman · · Score: 1

      so about my elephant repeller charm...uhh... ;-)

  7. Ice? by seanmcelroy · · Score: 5, Informative

    Being the closest planet to the Sun you would expect Mercury to be the hottest but this is not true. Mercurys maximum temperature falls 50C short of that of Venus. The reason for this is that Mercury has very little atmosphere so there is no 'greenhouse' effect on the environment. The 430C daytime temperature is dictated purely by the Suns radiation. The Mercurian day is 176 terrestrial days long, the night is 88 terrestrial days long with a minimum temperature of -180C.

    --
    Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. -Thomas Cardinal Wolsey
    1. Re:Ice? by internewt · · Score: 4, Informative

      Quick google search reveals this too:
      http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/ice/ice_mercu ry.html

      --
      Car analogies break down.
    2. Re:Ice? by subtropolis · · Score: 1

      How can the night be 1/2 of a day's duration? What am i missing here?

      --
      "Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
    3. Re:Ice? by uujjj · · Score: 2, Funny

      I belive what you are missing here is "the obvious"

    4. Re:Ice? by calyxa · · Score: 4, Informative
      --
      Decay! Decay! Decay! -Helium
    5. Re:Ice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The parent post ambiguously uses the term "day" to mean "one day and one night". Ambiguously because an apparent contrast is then made to "night" (a 50% subset of "day").

      That's it - I'm switching to Esperanto.

    6. Re:ice? by snake_dad · · Score: 1

      You are pretty naive if you think that's the only science goal for such a space mission.

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
    7. Re:ice? by Gleng · · Score: 1

      Seeing as we're water based life forms, mapping out the exact location of all the water deposits in the solar system seems like a pretty good idea to me, if we're ever going to explore it.

      I get your point though, where are the frozen alcohol deposits?! ;)

      --
      "Proudly Posting Without Reading The Article"
  8. Bright future my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    We should be practising manned flights and surviving on other planets on this crap.

    The ultimate goal for all space science is to give us the means to colonize other planets.

    1. Re:Bright future my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Tell you what Chuckles, when it comes time to colonize Mercury, we'll send you first to see if it's worth the bother and what the hazards are. ("Whoops, no oxygen. Okay, noted. Send the next one.")

  9. Re:Neat by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1

    But this mission has nothing to do with WMD or oil. It's SCOs mission to check if mercury doesn't run linux without paying.

  10. Looking for water... by guile*fr · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    isn't there anything better to look for water on the various planets?

    looks like NASA don't have any goals.

    1. Re:Looking for water... by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Funny

      Dubya's new space initiative to look for extraterrestrial oil hasn't filtered through to the mission planners yet...

      (Just proof that any dumb @$$ can get elected in America...ooooh, pretty shiney!)

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    2. Re:Looking for water... by guile*fr · · Score: 2, Informative

      since oil is organic matter more or less fossilized, in facts it would be interresting to look for extraterrestrial oil :D

    3. Re:Looking for water... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah there's already plenty of water here at home.

    4. Re:Looking for water... by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Ummm...my point exactly, hence the dumb @$$ comment about the current man-in-charge in D.C. I doubt he has enough science background to understand such things. Not that putting an engineer in the White House would result in a utopia - we tried that in the late 70s...nice guys make poor presidents.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    5. Re:Looking for water... by guile*fr · · Score: 1

      who are you refering to (the engineer @ whitehouse in the 70s) ?

    6. Re:Looking for water... by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Jimmy Carter. Smart fellow, nice guy. Will never make the top 10 list of American Presidents.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    7. Re:Looking for water... by hitchhikerjim · · Score: 1

      Carter was a nuclear engineer trained at the Naval Academy. Hi just played a peanut farmer on TV and in retirement.

      It's no wonder that most of the big military tech that Reagan claimed credit for was actually initiated during Carter's time, nor that we had the most progressive alternative energy programs during that time. That was his field.

      But yeah -- nice guys make poor presidents in this country. We really don't respect honesty, and that makes someone like Carter pretty ineffective in the political arena here at home. You've got to play the game that you're actually in, not the game you wish you were in.

    8. Re:Looking for water... by October_30th · · Score: 1

      Professors tend to be smart, connected and have, out of necessity, developed some political survival skills without being total politicos.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    9. Re:Looking for water... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      1. Smart fellow
      2. nice guy
      and...

      "Will never make the top 10 list of American Presidents."

      Coincidense? I think not.

    10. Re:Looking for water... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      (Just proof that any dumb @$$ can get elected in America...ooooh, pretty shiney!)

      Yup. And Clinton got elected twice!

      I'm really surprised at the Slashdot crowd. Understandably some are upset at the decision to stop funding Hubble. Others are upset that Bush wants a moon shot before a Mars shot. Still others are quite upset about the lack of tech jobs. But I figured that any president that was for NASA spending would be supported here. Sure, Bush isn't the greatest president - he should have gotten out of NAFTA and tried to reverse the trend for the one-world economy to help save American jobs. But Clinton was the one that signed on to NAFTA.

      Complaining about gas prices? No one wanted Bush to drill for oil in the Alaskan refuge. I don't know that we would have been self-sufficient for oil (mostly because we have few refineries and we don't know how much oil is there). However, we're now owned by OPEC. Not to mention the environmentalists that force us to have many different varieties of gasoline manufactured and imported to meet the environmental laws. We did it to ourselves, folks. Bush was smart to shy away from the Kyoto treaty. Environmental devices to reduce air pollution are expensive - so companies are either going to pass the cost along to you or look for cheaper labor that, again, may affect you. Capitalism should drive a market - good old supply and demand. Unions drive up the cost of labor which sometimes drives those industries out of the country. (Look at the coal and steel industries that are all but defunct now. They were thriving up until the '80s and '90s, respectively.)

    11. Re:Looking for water... by Tango42 · · Score: 1

      How can anyone is the USA complain about gas prices? It's practically free compared to UK prices.

    12. Re:Looking for water... by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1
      There was another engineer in the whitehouse; Hoover. Hoover's Bio

      Hoover is the only OTHER president besides Bush to have a net job loss during his presidency. Think you're right about the engineers.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    13. Re:Looking for water... by johnjay · · Score: 1

      But I figured that any president that was for NASA spending would be supported here.

      I hypothesize that the knee-jerk anti-Bush vitriol found on this site is produced largely by college students who haven't grown up enough to realize that being blindly against one party/candidate just leaves them open to abuse by the other party/candidate. They've also had so much anti-Bush rhetoric forced on them on campus that they haven't stopped to think that there are other valid positions.

      Just my theory, though. I have lots of grown friends who can't seem to realize that not every single thing Bush does is bad or stupid.

  11. Bottom of the (gravity) well by maggard · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Curiously since the innermost planet is so close to the Sun, the Mercury mission itself will look for (cometary) water-ice preserved on the less baked north pole.
    Curiously? One of the best places to look for anything is at or near the bottom of a well (gravity well in this case.)

    Sure there are lotsa other places to look too but this is a tidally-locked object not far from where many inner-system comets end up, ie the Sun. It'd be curiouser if Mercury hadn't intercepted a few comets over the eons and there weren't some traces of those collisions left on the benign parts of the planet.

    --
    I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
    1. Re:Bottom of the (gravity) well by DudeG · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's worth mentioning that although it's true that Mercury is tidal-locked with the sun, it's in a 3:2 lock, not 1:1.

      This means that it does rotate relative to the sun, so there's no permanent "dark side".

      (For comparison, the moon is tidal-locked 1:1 with Earth, so we never see the far side.)

    2. Re:Bottom of the (gravity) well by Suidae · · Score: 1

      One of the best places to look for anything is at or near the bottom of a well

      Ha! Unless its helium you're looking for!

      Oh, wait..Crap!

    3. Re:Bottom of the (gravity) well by Marovingian · · Score: 1

      The actual reason the scientists are looking for water-ice at the north pole of Mercury is because there are small regions of permanent shadow in craters at the poles.

      Permanent shadows = lower temperatures which could mean ice.

      Similar studies have been done for other celestial bodies (including our Moon).

      --
      Cursing in the French language is like wiping your ass with silk.
  12. Is it hot or is it me? by malia8888 · · Score: 2, Funny
    From the article: the spacecraft's temperature would climb to unmanageable levels without special protection. The outside of this 6-foot solar umbrella will rise to 680F (360C), while its special insulating properties will keep its inside surface below 212F (100C) - and the spacecraft operating at room temperature.

    Then in the case of Mercury, I guess it really is the heat, not the humidity that gets to you :P

    --
    Harpo Tunnel Syndrome--my wrist feels funny.
  13. Maybe interesting... by Tagren · · Score: 1, Redundant
    from http://www.nineplanets.org/venus.html
    There are several layers of clouds many kilometers thick composed of sulfuric acid. These clouds completely obscure our view of the surface. This dense atmosphere produces a run-away greenhouse effect that raises Venus' surface temperature by about 400 degrees to over 740 K (hot enough to melt lead). Venus' surface is actually hotter than Mercury's despite being nearly twice as far from the Sun.

    ---
  14. Looks like crap to me by bperkins · · Score: 4, Insightful


    This image beautifully illustrates the multilayered approach the team devised to fend off the excess heat while the spacecraft is near Mercury


    Are we looking a the same picture?

    This is not an informative image.

    It could just as well be Fruit Fucker Prime with a tarp over it.

    Impressive technology. Abysmal photography.

    1. Re:Looks like crap to me by richie2000 · · Score: 1

      I don't have any modpoints right now, but I'll write you an IOU: +1 Funny.

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
    2. Re:Looks like crap to me by StateOfTheUnion · · Score: 1

      I especially like the perhaps aptly named but technically uninformitive designation of "sun sensors" on the picture.

    3. Re:Looks like crap to me by puppet10 · · Score: 1

      These are an easier pictures to get the idea of what they are doing - Artists Impressions

      --
      -------- This space intentionally left blank --------
  15. Re:Ice? (human & robotic missions) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What to do with this? It was worked out a decade ago. See:

    HUMAN AND ROBOTIC PRECURSOR MISSIONS TO THE POLAR ICECAPS OF MERCURY

    http://www.magicdragon.com/ComputerFutures/Spacepu blications/Mercury_Ice.html

    and related papers in:

    http://www.magicdragon.com/ComputerFutures/SpacePu blications/210Ways.html

  16. Send a rover! by qualico · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They should send a rover on over.

    Mercury must have some interesting elements collected from solar winds.

    A good landing site would be on the dark side obviously to avoid overheating.
    However, if I remember correctly, Mercury also sports the coldest temps in the solar system due to its rapid evaporation.
    Kind of like the cooling effect one gets when a wind blows on wet skin.
    But I somehow doubt those rumors with it being so close to the sun.

    So how about playing on the transitional areas of light and dark areas.
    This planet was thought to be like our moon in that the same face points towards the Sun, leaving a perpetual dark and light side. However, it was shown to have a strange rotation of three rotations every two of its years.

    What I would like to see from a rover is a video showing the sunsets and sunrises.

    Its suppose to be really bizarre.
    The sun rises and picks up speed as it grows in size! Then it pauses at the top and reverses the process.

    If they did find ice water on the planet, do you think huddling some poor humans in a crater there would be beneficial or sacrificial?

    Just some musings.

    1. Re:Send a rover! by panurge · · Score: 2, Insightful
      OK, I'll bite.

      The rover would have to move continuously to stay in the correct temperature zone. So you would need to know in advance that you could travel round a significant part of the circumference without encountering obstacles.

      It would obviously have to stay in the dark because any level of sunshine would overheat it. So it would never see a sunrise or sunset. It would just crawl sadly around staying in the zone that current electronics and motors can handle (say -25 to 70C) until the batteries ran down (no solar power, you see.)

      Who modded this interesting?

      --
      Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
    2. Re:Send a rover! by qualico · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, the sunrise and settings last over many months. So it would be boring to watch unless you time lapsed it.

      Further, with such a slow procession, there would be no need to worry about getting caught in the sun. Mapping would take place with the current messanger anyway.

      As for overheating, just give the thing 20 Kapton Umbrellas. :-)

      Here is a short movie I created in StaryNight Pro to give a good visualization of a sun rise and set:

      spacecanada.org/mercuryrising.mov

    3. Re:Send a rover! by VanillaCoke420 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Bepi-Colombo project was meant to carry to orbiters and one lander, but the lander was scrapped. I think that they should have sent a rover or two... I mean, someone will do that some day anyway. Why wait? Also a sample return or two would be nice, one from the nightside, one from the dayside, or something.

    4. Re:Send a rover! by qualico · · Score: 1

      Interesting, was not aware of the BEPICOLOMBO project setting sail in 2012.
      It has time to reactivate the rover deal.
      They should include the already proven Mars rover technology. Although, with little atmosphere its probably going to need different braking tactics.

      Since the night and day sides both get exposure to the Sun over a the year, I would imagine there to be no difference in samples, but you never know.
      http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/ind ex.cfm? fobjectid=31273

      A core sample would be interesting to reveal information about layering.

      Someone on this thread mentioned gravity wells being the best place to get samples.
      Have to agree.

      Mercury probably has a rich resource of different elements and molecules collected from the Sun, Comets, and whatever else it sweeps up at the bottom of our well like a big ball of Aerogel.

    5. Re:Send a rover! by Tango42 · · Score: 1

      There isn't a nightside and a dayside. All bits of mercury get sunlight at some point.

    6. Re:Send a rover! by qualico · · Score: 1

      True, however, that cycle happens 3 times every two years because it rotates around its axis very slowly.

      Mercurian Year: about 90 Earth Days.

      So its one hell of a long night. (about 2 Earth months)
      Great for partys though!
      Imagine the money Rave clubs would pull in. :->

    7. Re:Send a rover! by Tango42 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but I don't think it's long enough for rock samples from different sides to be all that different.

    8. Re:Send a rover! by VanillaCoke420 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're absolutely right, thanks for correcting me!

    9. Re:Send a rover! by VanillaCoke420 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      True, I wasn't aware that Mercury did not face the same side to the sun at all times... Anyway, the landing is a bit more difficult, but it could be done of course. A rover would be nice... but the lander was scrapped because of budget restrictions. If they get more funding quickly, they might be able to throw in one, but it wont happen. I do agree though that a core sample return would be very valuable.

    10. Re:Send a rover! by qualico · · Score: 1

      Hmmm...wonder what the rocket payload is capable of?

      You could bundle the rover seperately and then use its onboard cameras to monitor Bepi during the voyage.
      Although you'd have to share the shielding or make another umbrella.

      The information would be far far more valuable with a rover.

      The landing should be no more difficult than the moon landing.

      Hey, I just figured something.

      Could you not deploy a big solar wind grabbing parasail to do the braking?
      This would greatly save on propellants.

      more musing.

    11. Re:Send a rover! by qualico · · Score: 1

      Well it is baking in the sun stripping rays enough to be exposed for a cyclic 2 earth months.

      Thats got to change the nature of things.

      Hmmmm...

      How about deploying a reflective blanket onto the surface or in orbit if you can keep it there?

      Then we could bounce lasers off it and use it to keep a probe protected like a bug under the rug.

  17. Oh, layers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one that read it as:
    Twenty lawyers of aluminized Kapton will be its sunshade.

  18. Metalized Kapton Film by StateOfTheUnion · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I figured that Kapton had to be some new fangled high tech insulating product but . . .

    Kapton is a polyamide film duPont product that's been around for some 30 years . . .

    I wonder if its the same metalized film used in some automobile window heat shields (or might that be metalized biaxially oriented nylon film)?

    1. Re:Metalized Kapton Film by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wakey wakey! Anything remotely interesting has already been done. Mostly in the gung-ho "tech#1" 60s. All the stuff we have now are just refinements of that era's ideas.
      And to think, back then univerisities were for the few, there were no pocket calculators, and people had no home computers, had free time and job security!
      Now, everyone and their dog has to get a bachelor's to work at Wal-Mart, works 80 hours a week plus school, buys lots of gadgets and has less than their parents!
      Weeee!!!!!!

    2. Re:Metalized Kapton Film by October_30th · · Score: 1
      Now, everyone and their dog has to get a bachelor's to work at Wal-Mart, works 80 hours a week plus school, buys lots of gadgets and has less than their parents!

      Are you trying to say that there is something wrong with us working so hard and being good consumers? What are you? A communist? Don't you see, it's all for the good of the markets?

      If you don't work and buy all you can, the markets will get sick like a baby that's not fed and kept warm - you don't like babies getting sick, now do you?

      So get out there and start working and buying until we're all free!

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    3. Re:Metalized Kapton Film by wass · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I've been using Kapton tape for years in electronics in the lab. It's a great insulator, and coming on a roll of tape with adhesive it's really easy to use.

      And recently I've been using it in my cryogenic experiments. In the dilution fridge in my lab we can get to temperatures as low as 20 mK. Kapton tape is stable at these low temps, and provides a good way to ensure insulation between two conductors while still being 'removable'.

      --

      make world, not war

    4. Re:Metalized Kapton Film by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      eye eye Kapton!

    5. Re:Metalized Kapton Film by GordoTheGeek · · Score: 1

      Interesting. Based on the investigation into the 1998 SwissAir 111 crash off Nova Scotia, the airline industry (And the US Navy it turns out) was prohibited from using Kapton-insulted wire in aircraft.

      I would have thought NASA would want something that doesn't easily burst into flame to shield the probe from the Sun. Oh well, not my tax dollars.

  19. Better yet, don't send anything... by Simonetta · · Score: 0, Interesting

    This is another example of a space exploration project that should be shelved until the problems on Earth are dealt with.
    A mission to Mercury can wait two or three hundred years. Mercury isn't going anywhere and there isn't anything that we could learn from the massive expenditure for such a project that will be of any direct and servicable use to us for another 200 years.
    For NASA to request funds for projects like this only confirms the growing public perception that the entire space program is nothing more than a big welfare handout for scientists and engineers who forgot to study anything useful in grad school.

    1. Re:Better yet, don't send anything... by FrostedWheat · · Score: 1

      should be shelved until the problems on Earth are dealt with

      If we wait for that, we'll never learn anything about our universe except how imperfect humans are.

    2. Re:Better yet, don't send anything... by tealover · · Score: 1

      This is another example of a space exploration project that should be shelved until the problems on Earth are dealt with.
      A mission to Mercury can wait two or three hundred years. Mercury isn't going anywhere


      The problems on Earth aren't going anywhere either. I'm a firm believer that spending more money on Space Exploration will eventually help solve earth problems, or give us an escape plan.

      --
      -- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
    3. Re:Better yet, don't send anything... by mattkime · · Score: 1

      This is another example of a space exploration project that should be shelved until the problems on Earth are dealt with.

      ....and the problems with earth are solvable entirely by engineers? Ah yes, nothing to do with cheap oil. or an industry dedicated to finding more of it. or your general suv loving suburbanites.

      --
      Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
    4. Re:Better yet, don't send anything... by mpspence · · Score: 1

      Friend. Many times I find myself tempted by the same sentiments. Especially given how the fortunes of ordinary citizens like myself have declined with the recent political, economic and military tides, both domestically and globally. But as I reflect on the matter I realize that from the time we left the place now known as Olduvai Gorge, we've been constantly restless things. Human beings must SEE. Human beings must KNOW. These traits are no more to be denied than the other basics of our nature.

  20. Mercury Mythology by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

    Naming a probe to Mercury Messenger is fitting because Mercury was a god of messengers. Of course, that wasn't his only devine attribute, so I expect the next probe to be called Thief, Traveller, or Merchant.

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  21. Re:Neat by Bad+D.N.A. · · Score: 1

    Close.... APL (who built messenger) actually uses an SCO product.

    I use Bill as a desktop but when I need to do any real work I log on to one of our many Linux systems and guess what...."Vision" (I think thats it's name) or something like that is what we use for X windows software and it's an SCO product.

    So what I'm saying is simple.

    When I need to do a detailed simulation on a Red Hat Linux system the results are presented to me through an SCO product on a Windows system.

    What a world... What a world.....

    --
    "Truth is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations"
  22. Re:Woah dudes, 4:20! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you're trying to *not* get baked? Dude...!

  23. Re:What bright future? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, sounds as if you've chosen to participate in an ignoble, dead-end existence. A white-trash Buddhist fatalism envelopes you.
    As it is Easter Sunday, you may ponder what the carpenter said a couple thousand years back and discover peace in truth.
    Or, you may crawl into a bottle.
    Hopefully, the former.

  24. Messenger? by ruiner13 · · Score: 0

    Ok, so we send Mercury Messenger, but will it use it? I've heard Mercury is a unix geek and prefers IRC.

    --

    today is spelling optional day.

  25. Not Merchant. by MickLinux · · Score: 1

    Merchant has got to be for Venus (Merchant of Venus, 5 players, no worms, anyone?)

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
    1. Re:Not Merchant. by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      I think Mercury/Hermes has prior art on that IP, but there might be a compromise. Mercury is more a god of travelling merchants or traders. In a modern context perhaps the probe could be called Door-To-Door-Salesperson?

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  26. Yikes, typo. by physicsnerd · · Score: 1

    Because I made a typo and put 30,000,000 m/s instead of 300,000,000 m/s I'm a troll?

  27. Good Lord, how stupid! by winkydink · · Score: 2, Funny
    Everybody knows that if you want to avoid pesky problems with being so close to the sun, you go at night.

    Sheesh.

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

  28. I HATE that attitude. by dmaxwell · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There will NEVER be a day when there is a utopian heaven on Earth. There will always be corruption, war, famine, greed and every other problem that is born from human failings. Earth's persistant failure to become a paradise is not a valid reason to postpone space exploration. And in 200 years, your great-great-great-great grandchildren will be saying "There is no reason to explore the Oort clouds until all problems on Earth have been solved....." With that attitude, we needn't have even bothered climbing out of the ocean. "There is no use exploring the land until there is enough plankton for everybody...." And it isn't as though vast amounts of money are being spent on space exploration. We spend a hell of a lot more on porkbarrel projects and foreign misadventures that won't have any sort of meaningful return at all. At least we get some knowledge and wonderment out of the deal.

    1. Re:I HATE that attitude. by Simonetta · · Score: 1

      Nonsense.

      The problems of the Earth's people do get effectively dealt with. Plague, Smallpox, and polio, and soon malaria are no longer killing millions of people.

      Famine has been solved by the 'Green Revolution' and the development of geneticially engineered food plants.

      Corruption is dealt with by systematic analysis of money flows, binding legal structures, and a growing awareness of the community of its corrosive effects. The Mafia is a pale shadow of what it was fifty years ago in the USA.

      War is dealt with by United Nations peacekeepers, while the brunt of jokes and derision in the USA, have on many occasions prevented psychopathic national leaders from engaging in genocide against minorities. The nuclear arsenals are monitored and are no longer set to burn the world each time a flock of geese flys by the radar.

      Earth's problems are dealt with by intelligent people deciding where and how many resources are allocated to address these problems.

      Given the growing awareness of truely massive problems that will require large allocations to address in the future: problems such as global warming, environmental destruction, overpopulation and the terrorism that comes from it; space exploration is not an efficient allocation of resources given that fact that there is nothing in space and it is extraordinarily expensive (and will remain so) to get vehicles off the Earth.

      My point is that space exploration can wait. That fact that no one has returned to the moon for thirty years qualifies the argument that there was no real need to go to the moon in the first place. It was an expensive political stunt and all of the supposed gains from doing it could have been realised much more efficiently by better focus of the resources that were spent to do this stunt.

      Thank you,
      Simonetta

  29. ice? by mantera · · Score: 1


    Aren't they just getting too obsessed with finding ice and water? how about looking for something else?

  30. rovers by rijrunner · · Score: 1

    Nice to see Mercury getting some action these days.

    A rover is an interesting idea, but it's pretty complicated to actually achive. Mercury is not rorationally locked to the Sun, so if you land something on the shade side, it'll rotate into sunlight within a month, or so.

    The big difference between Mars and Mercury when it comes to rovers would be that a rover on Mars is facing towards Earth every 24 hours, or so. (One Mars day is just a little over 24 hours). But, the Mercury orbit and rotation period means that the rover would only directly be able to point at Earth for a period of a week, or two, every few months. It would require retransmission from an orbitor to extend the mission beyond the initial viewing time. That is quite possible, of course. They do it with Mars all the time. It's just more significant with Mercury because of the lack of direct line communication for most of the time on the surface.

    1. Re:rovers by Wellmont · · Score: 1

      Your missing the point, there is obviously no plan in the mission for retransmission..

      The whole point is to land send data and then make molten computer parts....short of interplanetary art.

    2. Re:rovers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Nice to see Mercury getting some action these days.

      Yeah more than most slashdotters.

  31. OT reply to sig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?

    Or maybe you just haven't had enough to drink yet.

  32. Yup, and I can't mow my lawn until... by DrMorpheus · · Score: 1

    ...all the Earth's problems have been solved.

    Yup, can't chew gum and walk at the same time either.

    --
    Debunking the "59 Deceits"
  33. Avoid the heat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should just go at night.

  34. SCO's evidence is down there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or M$'s "secure" version of Winblowz.

  35. Re:What bright future? by zero_offset · · Score: 2, Funny

    you may ponder what the carpenter said a couple thousand years back

    "I'm so frigging tire of sawing logs. I wonder if I could run one of those prophet scams without the Romans catching on?"

    --

    Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005

  36. Federal budget vetoed Messenger mission by peter303 · · Score: 2, Informative

    April Physics Today reports the Bush administration cut Messenger from the budget. This in order to concentrate on remaining missions like the Kuiper Pluto mission, Kepler planetary dectection, New Technology Space Telescope, and a few others. This is an advisory to Congress, which occasionally restores programs over administration objections.