Slashdot Mirror


Cassini Alters Path. Phoebe Now In Sight!

Anonymous Explorer writes "This week the Cassini-Huygens Spacecraft finally entered the Saturn system and made its first main-engine burn in five years in preparation of for the Phoebe flyby. This long journey has been one filled with much promise and peril. Launched in 1997, Cassini is expected to have a rendezvous with the moon Phoebe on June 11. For those of us who are lazy, that's just a tad under two weeks away. After the Phoebe flyby, it's on to the ringed planet, with an anticipated July 1 ground orbit insertion. The ESA's Huygens probe will descend into the atmosphere of Titan a few months after Cassini is inserted into orbit. This mission promises to be one that brings a very psychedelic and beautiful area of our solar system into clearer focus. This multinational mission is one the most ambitious scientific explorations yet undertaken and promises some truly otherworldly images in the near future. With 31 moons/natural satellites thus far discovered orbiting Saturn, there should be a lot to keep us occupied. Anyone else excited about the journey to a ringed world? Lets all enjoy this ride. It promises to be a unique one as much as for the scenery as for the science. Informal discussion regarding the Cassini-Huygens mission can be found at #cassini on irc.freenode.net."

119 of 186 comments (clear)

  1. Whoooaaa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    a very psychedelic and beautiful area of our solar system into clearer focus

    Heeeey man.. ::puff:: You don't need no stinkin' satellite.. ::puff:: in order to see psychedelic spaaace, maaaan! ::puff::

  2. I'll be sure to tell my cat (Phoebe). . . by kfg · · Score: 4, Funny

    to keep her head down 'round about the 11th.

    She gets a little freaked when things flyby without warning (although I've rather been looking forward to it myself).

    I'm still trying to figure out though, why I, as the more massive of the pair, appear without question to be the captured object.

    KFG

    1. Re:I'll be sure to tell my cat (Phoebe). . . by ByteSlicer · · Score: 1

      Smelly cat, smelly cat, ...

    2. Re:I'll be sure to tell my cat (Phoebe). . . by red+floyd · · Score: 1

      Mod up funny. I was thinking the same thing.

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
    3. Re:I'll be sure to tell my cat (Phoebe). . . by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Well, if you think of the contents of a cats litter box as the missing dark matter in the universe, you'll understand that cats are actually super-massive dark-matter factories.

      Hence, your belief in being the more massive of the two objects is incorrect. =)

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  3. Phoebe flyby by DrMrLordX · · Score: 3, Funny

    I predict they'll get some footage like this.

    1. Re:Phoebe flyby by Pidder · · Score: 1

      God damn.. that's so fucking weak it's funny.

  4. protests by minus_273 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    while we are talking about Cassini, let us remember the protesters who were so opposed to it.
    Remember cassini is nasa's deadly space probe. It is nice to see that these groups have other stuff to protest these days. Hope that stuff is not as deadly as cassini...

    --
    The war with islam is a war on the beast
    The war on terror is a war for peace
    1. Re:protests by el-spectre · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That last link sure is a doozy. Gotta love people who panic over half-assed assessments and ad-hominem attacks.

      We've been using nukes in space for 30 years without significant problem. If we could have used them on MER, the damn things could run for years.

      This subject needs a Penn & Tellerish "Bullshit!" show :)

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    2. Re:protests by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Of course they have other things to protest about these days. Weren't their concern that it would blow up before leaving Earth, along with its 60 pounds of plutonium-238? I agree they're crazy though if they still think Cassini is a concern.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    3. Re:protests by PalmerEldritch42 · · Score: 4, Funny
      Plutonium is commonly referred to as "the deadliest substance known to man" and for good reason.

      That is great. I hadn't heard that common referral before, so I googled the quote. Just to check their facts. I did the I Feel Lucky search. Lo and behold, I did find an article about the deadliest substance known to man. Apparently, it is not plutonium as is commonly referred. It is in fact dihydrogen monoxide

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une sig.

      :wq!

  5. Well... by ErichTheWebGuy · · Score: 4, Funny

    This mission promises to be one that brings a very psychedelic

    Guess the mission engineers took the brown acid. Bummer.

    --
    bash: rtfm: command not found
    1. Re:Well... by kfg · · Score: 5, Funny

      Guess the mission engineers took the brown acid.

      "Gimme an Ph!"

      And it's one, two, three, what's this Cassini for?
      Don't ask me I don't really care,
      I suppose just 'cause Titan's there

      And it's five, six, seven, open up the pod bay doors.
      There ain't no time to wonder why,
      Whoopee! It's a Phoebe flyby.

      KFG

    2. Re:Well... by shadowbearer · · Score: 1


      ROFL! Well done, nice filk!

      and the images from Cassini will no doubt induce shock and awe among us pointy-headed types :) (well, Voyager certainly did...)

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  6. water on earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    And though there is no liquid water, what water does on Earth, methane does on Titan.
    Do the Saturnians drink eight glasses of methane a day?
    1. Re:water on earth by anothy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Their doctors tell them to, yeah, but just like on earth, nobody actually does.

      --

      i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
    2. Re:water on earth by barakn · · Score: 1

      If your doctor has been telling you drink 8 glasses a day, get a different doctor. It's a myth. But apparently a lot of people actually follow this extreme regimen.. Just look at how big corp.s can sell bottled tap water.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    3. Re:water on earth by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      Now that would suck!

      Saturnian Surgeon General: We all need 8 glasses of CH4 a day to live! And the nearest sources is...

      Saturnians (looking up): ... FUCK!

      And that's before you consider ther day is only ~10 hours.

  7. Images by Whitecloud · · Score: 4, Informative
    some cool images and data:
    Map and Images of Titan from Hubble Space Telescope
    Nasa Titan Photojournal
    Saturnian Satellite Fact Sheet
    Phoebe best image so far, from Voyager2 in 1981!

    --

    Do you need a website upgrade?

    1. Re:Images by Phigrin · · Score: 1

      If you want to get a good perspective on it all then there really is only one way: Celestia!
      Then download the model and the trajectory information of the cassini probe from some able contributors!

  8. Photographic mission by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's gonna be nice to see a photo-intensive orbiting mission to one of the big gas giants. The Galileo orbiter for Jupiter had an antenna problem that greatly reduced the imaging volume.

    However, based on Voyager flybys, Saturn's moons are not quite as photogenic as Jupiter's. Titan is covered with a thick feature-poor haze and most of the other moons are too small to have many of the interesting tidally-caused features of the Jupiter moons. But there are still some interesting features on some of the moons.

    And, Cassini will drop a probe into Titan's atmosphere that should return some interesting images and data. Titan may have a methane ocean and the Titan probe may possibly land in it and float for a few hours. The ocean may have giant waves because the gravity is so weak compared to Earth, similar to the way that sand-dunes are easier to make on Mars because of the lower gravity there. Things can get taller and weirder under low gravity. It would be the first time liquid could be seen from the surface of another world (aside from the Apollo Tang drippings).

    1. Re:Photographic mission by deglr6328 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Photographic indeed. Take a look at the DISR page that details the optics and detectors that are aboard the Huygens probe. There are even some test images taken with the flight spare that give an idea of the images to be returned from the surface of Titan (sans palm trees perhaps). Huygens is expected to relay ~175 MBytes of data through Cassini and back to Earth for a nominal mission, this is almost 500 TIMES the total data returned from the Galileo atmospheric probe!! There are many other experimental devices attached to the bottom of the probe which are beautifully elegant in design that will tell us about just what it hits when it gets to the surface ice...liquid hydrocarbons...etc. The surface science package also contains a piezoelectric transducer to determine the depth of the ocean it may land in using sonar pulses. It can measure the height of waves on the surface with its accelerometers and the density of the liquid with a refractometer to determine the liquid's index of refraction. The amount and quality of information retured from the dim frigid surface of this strange world hundreds of millions of miles away will be positively awe inspiring.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    2. Re:Photographic mission by canavan · · Score: 2, Informative

      the Titan probe may possibly land in it and float for a few hours.

      It may float for an eternity, but its batteries will run out only a few (possibly ony three, depending on how long the trip through the atmosphere lasts) minutes after the impact/splashdown. See the mission timeline on the esa webpage.

    3. Re:Photographic mission by blamanj · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One of the interesting items in a previous Cassini press release is that Hubble's cameras and optics are so good that Cassini had to get a billion-with-a-b miles closer to Saturn before its photographs could compare.

      Of course, it will get even closer and do much more that take picture, but I thought that said a lot for the Hubble.

    4. Re:Photographic mission by waveclaw · · Score: 1

      There are many other experimental devices attached to the bottom of the probe which are beautifully elegant in design that will tell us about just what it hits when it gets to the surface ice...liquid hydrocarbons...etc

      I would love to see NASA slap a standard interface on the back of these devices. A standard probe framework would be nice too.

      Then anybody could just grab a NASA catalouge and order up a probe for their X Prize launch.

      I mean, many of these sensor systems were on the bleeding edge of design for their time. Now may are probably just cutting edge. If it's anything that IBM and Compaq taught us about computers, it's that Henry Ford was right: mass produced, standard parts beat one-off custom jobs most of the time.

      There must be a market for cheap (relatively) space probe hardware, isn't there?

      --

      "You cannot have a General Will unless you have shared experiences. You cannot be fair to people you don't know."
    5. Re:Photographic mission by MrScience · · Score: 1

      Of course, you just know it's going to land on an island. :)

      Though I hope it doesn't.

      --

      You quitting proves that the karma kap worked. The most annoying of the whores shut up. --CmdrTaco

  9. I've been waiting for this... by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Informal discussion regarding the Cassini-Huygens mission can be found at #cassini on irc.freenode.net.

    I more than half expected the channel to be Slashdotted, as happens to all websites when their address is mentioned here. But strangely, there are only about ten people over there right now.

    On another note, I am very excited about the upcoming part of this mission. I was finishing high school when they launched this thing, and when they talked about it, it seemed like it would be forever before that thing reached Saturn. Needless to say, it has been a lot less than forever.

    I wish the fine engineers at Nasa the best of luck in accomplishing this portion of the mission.

  10. Ummm by mog007 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    After the Phoebe flyby, it's on to the ringed planet

    All the gas giants have rings, not just Saturn. They're not as easy to see, but they have been detected.

    1. Re:Ummm by VanillaCoke420 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've seen it in my own telescope. It's quite a sight that I can recommend to anyone. Pictures from spaceprobes and Hubble are truly nice and informative and all, but even in the space age it's magic to see Saturn and it's rings with my own eyes.

    2. Re:Ummm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When someone says "look at the fat woman", do you correct them with "there are several women in this room who appear to be overweight" or do you just look at the huge wobbling blob of a woman to whom they are clearly referring?

      Everyone knows which one is the "ringed planet". If one of the outer planets is slightly red-tinged will you object to us calling Mars the "red planet" ?

  11. Beauty is important by Tri0de · · Score: 5, Insightful

    IMHO quality images do more to create and maintain public enthusiasm for space exploration than all the statistics in the world about the benefits of the space program; far too many geeks and/or scientists underestimate and underutilize the best of all marketing tools we have for getting funding and support for the space program. I hope they don't forget about the value of a pretty picture.

    --
    "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
    1. Re:Beauty is important by deglr6328 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Judging from previous releases from the imaging team(CICLOPS, they seem to be a very, very competent bunch. During the Jupiter flyby 4 years ago, they used the spare seconds between scheduled observations to take extra images of Jupiter in true color which they then stitched together later to form the highest detailed full planet image of Jupiter ever taken. With Cassini actually passing through a gap in the inner rings during its orbit insertion it's hard to imaging the spectacular images that await us.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    2. Re:Beauty is important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Absolutely. The people crave the bread and plays, and pretty pictures from space.

      Some European space scientist said that space exploration is necessary for a society for the same reason an art gallery is.

  12. Al Sharpton by jayrtfm · · Score: 1, Informative

    Al Sharpton (2004 democratic presedential hopeful) led a protest in harlem at NASA's Goddard center.

  13. lazy people first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Cassini is expected to have a rendezvous with the moon Phoebe on June 11. For those of us who are lazy, that's just a tad under two weeks away.

    Does this mean that those of us who are not lazy have to wait a few more weeks before we can learn about Phoebe's observations?

    1. Re:lazy people first by anothy · · Score: 1
      Does this mean that those of us who are not lazy have to wait a few more weeks...
      this is slashdot. i think the author was assuming that "people reading this and not lazy" was the null set. ;-)
      --

      i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
  14. Odyssey 2004 by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Phoebe best image so far, from Voyager2 in 1981

    "My God! It's full of pixels!"

  15. Hubble Heritage by Cuprous · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think astronomers realize the importance of beauty when trying to get public support. Check out the Hubble Heritage project. The main reason for this project is to take pretty astronomy pictures.

  16. Re:I prefer.... by KevinKnSC · · Score: 3, Funny

    I know you're just going for a lame joke, but for the record, Uranus does have rings.

  17. Phoebe in sight! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    If I had Phoebe in sight, I'd certainly want to perform an insertion if you know what I mean... ** Nudge, nudge, wink, wink ***

    She was the hottest of the Friends.

  18. hrm. by abscondment · · Score: 3, Funny

    its first main-engine burn in five years

    This, as we all know, is the spaceship equivalent of a middle aged man gettin' some for the first time in a long while.

    1. Re:hrm. by applemasker · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Maybe it was more like just testing the plumbing.

      This burn was only for 56 seconds, (insert joke here), and changed Cassini's velocity by about 78 mph.

      June 30 is the real show when Cassini performs its orbit insertion burn for over 90 minutes, resulting in a delta-v change of in the area of 1,400 mph.

      What's remarkable is that because of the distance between Earth and Saturn, there is an hour and 20 minute lag, so Cassini is pretty much on its own for this (and most other) maneuvers.

      --
      Bush Lies On the Record.
  19. [OT your sig] Re:protests by sould · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Current death toll from Amnesty International's actions in Nepal: 9000

    You want to give us the slightest shred of evidence for that?

    I hate unsubstative, emotional, unable to be backed up sigs. Especially stupid ones.

  20. queue the obligatory rant by barakn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    about so-called "obligatory" jokes. If you repeat them over and over, they are no longer funny, and thus aren't jokes. Just mindless filler, waste of mod points, etc..

    --
    "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    1. Re:queue the obligatory rant by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      OTOH, at least the obligatory jokes are enjoyable to people who haven't seen them before. Rants about the pointlessness of obligatory jokes are never enjoyable to anyone but the author.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
  21. Reporting as ordered -- by Buran · · Score: 2, Funny

    Planet Druidia's in sight, sir!

  22. It's comin' right for us! (oh, false alarm?) by irving47 · · Score: 1

    Seriously, though... You have to admit the opposition managed to put out some scary stuff... I saw it in the hallway at college and wasn't pleased. Got over it though.

    --
    I had a sucky sig.
  23. On "Beauty" by droleary · · Score: 1

    With Cassini actually passing through a gap in the inner rings during its orbit insertion it's hard to imaging the spectacular images that await us.

    I'm sorry, but goatse.cx has made it impossible to utter phrases like that without a collective cringing. The only way you could have made that more mentally disturbing is if this were a mission to Uranus.

  24. Re:[ot]Re:protests by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Excuse me, but whatever your feelings about AI are, they do not fund anyone. Not communists, not capitalists. AI's guiding principles are human rights and the abolition of torture. It is AI's policy not to take sides in any conflict.

    --
    http://www.rootstrikers.org/
  25. Re:if only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    From what I know, Alyssa Milano has a great personality and is a kind person. Of course I have no experience of this myself. Anyway, what is wrong about liking someone's appearance, if we assume that is the only thing Alyssa has in her advantage?

    And yes I do prefer women with personality before those without, but then again it all depends on what kind of relationship we'll have, doesn't it? Also, I'm kind of tired of people claiming that looks are not important. They are, for everyone.

  26. Re:[ot]Re:protests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You seem to assume that slashdot trolls are somehow affected by facts. So let me be the first to say... You must be new here!

  27. Its amazing. by dj245 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does anyone else think its amazing that the thing actually works after five years of no activity? Seriously, I wouldn't trust my router, cable modem, or toaster (all devices of comparable embedded computing power) to run nonstop for five years. I think it speaks well for the Nasa engineers, and the things they actually do right. Its a shame only their mistakes make the news.

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    1. Re:Its amazing. by VanillaCoke420 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Amazing indeed, but they can do even better. Just look at the Voyager spacecrafts, they've been out there since the 70's and the reason they will be shut down within a few years is because they're running out of power, rather than hardware failure or something. Now imagine a much faster spaceprobe with an actual reactor onboard. Could last for a century or more? This is why I think the Prometeus and the JIMO projects are great.

    2. Re:Its amazing. by alienmole · · Score: 1

      It's not so amazing if you think about it. NASA spends enormous resources on reliability. Your router, cable modem, and toaster are all mass-produced at more or less the lowest possible cost, with no redundancy, and often with built-in obsolescence in mind.

    3. Re:Its amazing. by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Does anyone else think its amazing that the thing actually works after five years of no activity? Seriously, I wouldn't trust my router, cable modem, or toaster (all devices of comparable embedded computing power) to run nonstop for five years.

      Perhaps we should launch HP III Laserjets

    4. Re:Its amazing. by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Amazing indeed, but they can do even better. Just look at the Voyager spacecrafts, they've been out there since the 70's and the reason they will be shut down within a few years is because they're running out of power, rather than hardware failure or something.

      Voyagers use radioactive decay units for power. I don't think it is so much "running out of power" (although there is continuing power recepter corrosion IIRC), but that the probes are simply getting too far away to communicate with Earth.

    5. Re:Its amazing. by Xilman · · Score: 1
      Perhaps we should launch HP III Laserjets

      Indeed. These are truly amazing beasts. I have a HPIII at home, still working as well as when it was bought, god knows how many years later.

      Paul

      --
      Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate
    6. Re:Its amazing. by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      They are indeed running out of power, the RDU on the Voyager probes have a half-life of a few years only. Voyager 2 doesn't have enough power to run all of its intruments anymore.

  28. wonderful by VanillaCoke420 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Can't believe how much I'm looking forward to this. It's going to be exciting to learn more about the rings (especially the F-rings perhaps), Saturn itself and then the landing on Titan. It's a good thing there are so many mysteries out there, or the world would be a bit boring.

  29. Re:Haha - yes, those "stuupid" environmentalists by el-spectre · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Funny, I never post AC. It says something about a person's character when they will only be controversial when they are not held accountable.

    Anyway, I didn't say "environmentalists" are stupid. Most mean well, and some are even well informed and productive. Unfortunately, many mistake passion for evidence, and can't be bothered to investigate opposing viewpoints.

    RTGs are hardened and designed to withstand explosion and extreme temperatures. They do not explode, and I believe that they do not even become active until after launch. Radiation has been "The R Word" since the 50's, but we actually use it all the time and know how to handle it. Only in cases of extreme incompetence and lack of precautions (see Chernobyl - 1986) do we need to be concerned.

    Returning to the planet, a nuclear plant is far less likely to cause ANY harm than most power technologies or chemical processes (See Bophal, India). We KNOW that radiation can be dangerous, hence the extreme precations we take.

    Incidently, NOTHING is 100% safe... along with fearing (and guarding against) the risk, you should consider the rewards.

    --
    "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
  30. Approaching Phoebe by payndz · · Score: 2, Funny
    It's a bit late for that now, isn't it? She already married Mike, and then the series ended!

    "Smelly probe, sme-elly probe..."

    (Unless it's the other Phoebe. Meh, she does nothing for me. Wake me up when the probe approaches Piper.)

    --
    You must think in Russian.
    1. Re:Approaching Phoebe by Lispy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, this whole mission is so 1997. ;-)

    2. Re:Approaching Phoebe by LittleGuy · · Score: 1

      It's a bit late for that now, isn't it? She already married Mike, and then the series ended!
      "Smelly probe, sme-elly probe..."


      Now it's on Planet Joey to bring 'Drina back to life!

      (Unless it's the other Phoebe. Meh, she does nothing for me. Wake me up when the probe approaches Piper.)

      Paging Paige....

      --
      Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
  31. Re:Haha - yes, those "stuupid" environmentalists by Roydd+McWilson · · Score: 1

    Health of all future generations? The article cited said the plutonium dioxide fuel had a half-life of only 89 years, and they were talking about lung cancer, not something inheritable.

    --
    THE NERD IS THE COMPUTER.
  32. risk by hak1du · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Remember cassini is nasa's deadly space probe. It is nice to see that these groups have other stuff to protest these days. Hope that stuff is not as deadly as cassini...

    The protests were about a risk, that is, an accident that could have occurred with a certain probability. Everybody pretty much agreed that the risk of an accident was at least fairly low. What people disagreed on was the cost should such an accident acctually occur. The fact that a fairly low-risk event didn't occur does not tell you anything about whether it was prudent to engage in the activity in question.

    I'm sorry that such elementary scientific and economic concepts as "risk" and "cost" elude you. Without an understanding of those concepts, you are simply in no position to even participate in such debates.

    1. Re:risk by Xyrus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I call troll.

      It seems that you don't understand the concepts of risk and probability.

      You never have a "certain probability". All you have is probability. Probability is a best guess in cases such as this since there are numerous factors to take into consideration.

      72 lbs. of plutonium re-entering the atmosphere BY ITSELF without shielding would cause insignificant damage at best. It would be vaporized and scattered in the upper atmosphere, where cosmic radiation would rapidly turn most particles into unstable elements that breakdown even faster.

      In fact, the chances of said particles reaching the surface of the earth is minimal. And even if it did, we are talking fractions of microcuries at best.

      BUT IT WILL DAMAGE THE ENVIRONMENT! 36 kg of plutonium vs. 6.14X10^24 kg of Earth? With the way people make radiation sound, you'd think it was magical death wraith just waiting to be set loose on the poor undefended Earth.

      And while we're talking about probabilities, I think you should be more concerned with your fellow drivers than an errant space probe. You're far more likely to die in a car crash than any sort of radioactive accident, least of all from a space probe.

      To put it in perspective, you have a risk when you take a shower in the morning. There's a risk that you could slip, crak your head and die. The risk is small, but it's there. Does this mean you shouldn't take showers? Do you do a risk/cost analysis everytime you step in the shower? Do you have life insurance, a will, savings, etc. for anyone left behind? Do you estimate how much a funeral will cost? What taxes will be due? How much lawyers will cost? What about your job? The cost it would take to replace you? The list goes on. And this is all just based on you taking a shower.

      Do you trully know your risk/cost? I doubt it. It's not possible to know all the repercussions of your demise because no one can predict the future. If you were smart though, you would be prepared as you could be for such a thing and you'd go on living your life and taking showers.

      You're just one person. NASA has hundreds who run computer simulations, analysis, environmental impacts, emergency scenarios, etc. . The probe was launched in 1997, but they were probably testing the hell out of it for at least a decade. And NASA has been doing this since the 60's.

      They are not infalliable, but they have numbers to back up their claims. And I would take a 100 scientist recommendation over an elitest snob.

      ~X~

      --
      ~X~
    2. Re:risk by firewrought · · Score: 1
      The protests were about a risk, that is, an accident that could have occurred with a certain probability.

      Mod parent up.

      Even if you disagree with these protestors, be glad that they are protesting. If there's no political pressure to "get it right", then somebody somewhere will get it wrong, with far-ranging consequences...

      --
      -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
    3. Re:risk by waveclaw · · Score: 1

      What people disagreed on was the cost should such an accident acctually occur.

      I heartily agree about the risk/cost issues. The Cassini Probe was worth $1.5 billion before launch. Now that it's been taken out of the package, the value to collectors will go WAY down. As anybody who collects pristine government space probes knows, once you turn it on, it's never like new again. And you know that nodoby's gonna put out another limited edition big science probe like Cassini.

      I mean, how can all that knowledge that will be discovered and awe that will be inspired and general benefit to mankind be weighted against the value of a mint collectable like this?

      Just think of the money! After all, that's what is most important. Just think of the risk that a launch presents to the museum value: would you rather go visit a fresh, in-the-box space probe or one that had been on a unique mission of exploration the edge of the last frontier?

      THINK OF THE CHILDREN! Now, they won't have Cassini around with which to play.

      This message brought to you by the Ludite community - stopping "dangerous" progress since Ug the Caveman invented fire.

      --

      "You cannot have a General Will unless you have shared experiences. You cannot be fair to people you don't know."
    4. Re:risk by hak1du · · Score: 2, Informative

      You never have a "certain probability".

      Sure you do. The expression just means "some well-defined but unknown probability value" and suggests it is different from zero. It's common usage in statistics and stochastics. Search on Google for examples (about 19300 of them).

  33. public policy and democracy by hak1du · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Soviet leadership could deploy whatever technologies they liked because the people had no say in the matter. But we live in a democracy and a nation of laws, not a totalitarian state. Before you can do something, either as part of a government project or as a private company, you better convince people that you are not going to cause any harm. How strongly you believe that RTGs are safe is irrelevant, what matters is whether you can convince almost everybody else of that belief.

    Because, while RTGs may be reasonably safe (and I think they are), some lunatic may decide to engineer a "curative HIV virus" and just get it wrong, or release some wonderful new chemical into the environment.

    For scientists and engineers to force technologies on people that they aren't comfortable with is arrogant and ultimately harms the standing of science and technology in our culture. Yes, that means people like you.

    1. Re:public policy and democracy by el-spectre · · Score: 1

      Am I the forcer or forcee?

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    2. Re:public policy and democracy by el-spectre · · Score: 1

      You are of course right. We don't want a situation where science has absolute political power, any more than we'd want religion to.

      Turns out that people have the right to have extremist/reactionary opinions. It is then the duty of opposing viewpoints (the more rational, im my opinion) to respond to them. Theoretically, that's the best way to get to the truth.

      Unless of course this is slashdot "you-can't-have-an-opposing-opinion-because-I-don' t like-it" conversation #5,123,234 , in which case I don't give a damn :)

      People confuse having the right to an opinion with the right to be correct :)

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    3. Re:public policy and democracy by hak1du · · Score: 1

      Obviously, you are a forcer, since you are saying that people should either just acquiesce or spend time "investigating opposing viewpoints". But people have no obligation to "investigate opposing viewpoints" just so that your pet project can take place. If you want some project to happen, it is your obligation to explain why it is interesting and safe patiently until there is no widespread concern about it anymore.

      What happened with Cassini was harmful to the relationship between science and the public. Let's hope that the results are spectacular enough so that people can come to believe that it was worth whatever risk they thought there was in hindsight.

    4. Re:public policy and democracy by el-spectre · · Score: 3, Informative

      Oh, nonsense. All evidence says that RTGs are very safe. Therefore someone saying that they are not has the burden of proof. Whether or not a person _likes_ the truth (or our best estimation thereof) doesn't change it.

      The greater damage was done by irrational fearmongering than any launch.

      This silly thing where "my side need only be plausible, your side needs to be 100% concrete" is stupid. I think we're done.

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    5. Re:public policy and democracy by hak1du · · Score: 1

      Oh, nonsense. All evidence says that RTGs are very safe. Therefore someone saying that they are not has the burden of proof.=

      Yes, RTGs probably are very safe, but that is not the point. The point is how ordinary people, whose lives might be affected by them, get to the point of being convinced of that.

      In economics, information itself has a cost. Now, lets say, you are a scientist and you want to perform some experiment which involves dangerous materials and has little perceived benefit to most people. For them to determine that your safety arguments are valid imposes a significant cost on them: they'll have to listen to your arguments and understand them, or they at least have to determine whether there are some authorities they can trust on the matter and evaluate their credibility. You are saying they should bear that cost for something you, but not they, benefit from. Why should they?

      This silly thing where "my side need only be plausible, your side needs to be 100% concrete" is stupid.

      No, it's not stupid, it's rational economic behavior. And you will behave the same way when faced with the same kind of situation--you just have trouble putting yourself into their shoes in this case.

      Asking people to behave differently is irrational, arrogant, and, in the long run, doomed to failure anyway.

    6. Re:public policy and democracy by astar · · Score: 1

      Where to start.

      I think your use of rational is as a deductive argument. As had been demonstrated by deductive argument, with finite axioms, deductive arguments are not a path to truth.

      As to using the term rational as a modifier on economic arguments, it makes me think of game theory. From where I sit, that is a severe criticism.

      Looking broadly at your argument, it can never be economically justified to perform basic research. Nor can large infrastructure projects be implemented.

      Looking specifically at your claims about human nature, it would seem to be fixed and a fit subject for despair. I much prefer Liebniz.

    7. Re:public policy and democracy by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      The point is how ordinary people, whose lives might be affected by them, get to the point of being convinced of that.

      So we need only convince ordinary people whose lives might be affected by it? We don't have to convince ordinary people who definitely won't be affected but who are terrified anyway because of the nasty N-word?

      Or do we have to convince every superstitious idiot on the planet that they absolutely won't die horribly as a result, before we do anything at all anywhere?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    8. Re:public policy and democracy by CodeMonkey4Hire · · Score: 1

      I don't believe that a democracy has the responsibility of convincing every single person. Even if the number were 1% of the population, they don't need to go along before we take a certain course or action. Their opinion should be taken into account, but this small minority should not be given larger than their share of democratic representation. If they want to quibble over this then let them. However, they should not be surprised if the government does things that they don't like when they represent a small minority.

      When they start using math correctly then I might start listening. Until then, either try to appeal to our emotions without engaging in pathetic (or worse, deceitful) statistical analyses. (It's too bad we can't bed against the odds that they post. If they put their money where their mouth is, we'd be rich.)

      --

      Let's go Hurricanes!!! 2006 Stanley Cup Champions!!!
  34. How does one orbit a ringed planet? by Ruarl · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Given that the rings are made up of lumps of rock and ice, how do you avoid them? Will Cassini orbit inside the rings? Outside? Or does it have a bulldozer plough on the front to just barge it's way through?

    1. Re:How does one orbit a ringed planet? by applemasker · · Score: 4, Informative
      Although one of the Voyager probes whizzed through Saturn's ring plane (which is only about a km or so thick), no such daring maneuver is planned for Cassini.

      There is a preliminary plot of Cassini's possible orbital tour here . According to it, Cassini will make around 69 orbits during its planned mission. Note that one of Cassini's primary targets, Titan, orbits at around 40 Saturn radii, well outside the rings.

      Oh, and, look for all the pretty pictures from Cassini to be posted over at CICLOPS (Cassini Imaging Central Laboratory for Operations).

      --
      Bush Lies On the Record.
    2. Re:How does one orbit a ringed planet? by applemasker · · Score: 1
      Oops, that's Iapetus that orbits at 60 Saturn radii, Titan is about 20 radii.

      I haven't heard or read about any ring-crossing, so I am assuming not b/c it seems like a bad idea to take a multibillion dollar probe through a rock garden where the rocks are flying at a few kilometers a second. If anyone knows different though, I'd be interested though.

      Sorry about the self-reply.

      --
      Bush Lies On the Record.
    3. Re:How does one orbit a ringed planet? by bluemartian · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, Cassini will pass through Saturn's rings twice during orbital insertion. Although it will be "driving" through one of the gaps between rings, it will still be going directly through the ring plane.

    4. Re:How does one orbit a ringed planet? by red+floyd · · Score: 1

      that's Iapetus that orbits at 60 Saturn radii,

      Are they going to check Iapetus for a 1Km tall black monolith?

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
  35. Kudos to the mapmaker by waterbear · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "first main-engine burrn in five years"

    [only a] 78 mph change in speed

    One thing that comes out again here, but only by implication, from these reports, is the amazing accuracy and precision (still amazing to me anyhow) of the ephemerides (~ solar system maps) used to plan these missions. They knew where Mars would be for MER to within, what, was it about a meter or two? Maybe not that close for Saturn but still good enough not to need main-engine course corrections in five years ...

    Kudos to the chief JPL mapmaker Dr Myles Standish and his crew!

    -wb-

    1. Re:Kudos to the mapmaker by Xybot · · Score: 1

      I'd give the Kudos to Newton and a good dollop to Einstein before anyone else

      --
      God was my co-pilot, but then we crashed and I was forced to eat him.
    2. Re:Kudos to the mapmaker by MrScience · · Score: 1

      Bob Farquhar is the man that turns it into an art. He invented double lunar swingby, necessary for economicaly using gravity to get to other planets.

      "It was no coincidence Farquhar had visited his first wife's grave that morning [the date of the main engine burn to decelerate]; December 20 was Bonnie Farquhar's birthday. January 10, 1999, the day the spacecraft was due at Eros, was the fifth anniversary of his civil marriage to his second wife, Irina. The mission's nominal completion date, February 6, 2000, was the anniversary of his church weddings to both Irina and Bonnie.

      Farquhar fine-tuned the mission's design to get NEAR to Eros a little earlier than it would otherwise have done, in order to commemorate the loves of his life.

      --

      You quitting proves that the karma kap worked. The most annoying of the whores shut up. --CmdrTaco

  36. missing the point by hak1du · · Score: 1

    Returning to the planet, a nuclear plant is far less likely to cause ANY harm than most power technologies or chemical processes (See Bophal, India). We KNOW that radiation can be dangerous, hence the extreme precations we take.

    While many people may be afraid of the potential harm from nuclear power plant accidents, the real problem with them is that nobody has figured out what to do with the waste.

    Bhopal may have been a terrible chemical accident, but the chemicals that were released can be destroyed fairly easily if anybody cared to. But with nuclear waste, once you have generated it, you are pretty much stuck with it for millennia.

    Incidently, NOTHING is 100% safe... along with fearing (and guarding against) the risk, you should consider the rewards.

    Well, and your reward metrics may be very different from other people's. Most people on this planet probably couldn't care less about the scientific data Cassini yields. It isn't even worth their time listening to you (or me) why Cassini is safe. Likewise, given a realistic choice, many people might well prefer using less energy to using nuclear power.

    1. Re:missing the point by el-spectre · · Score: 1

      Depends, in the US not very much power is nuclear, I think less than 5%, as no new plants have been built in more than a decade.

      Personally, I use a lot of energy (I drive a not particularly fuel efficient vehicle in California). I made that choice when I bought it, and thus can't bitch too much about _paying_ for said energy...

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    2. Re:missing the point by el-spectre · · Score: 1

      No shit? No, I did not know that. 20%. Wow.

      We just gotta hold out for 2050 when we get the spiffy fusion plants.

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
  37. DOOM by Dumbush · · Score: 2, Funny

    wow, we should build a base on Phoebe(call it UAL), do some time-altering research, and prepare for imp onslaught...

    By then, we better have BFG

  38. Re:Haha - yes, those "stuupid" environmentalists by mopomi · · Score: 3, Informative

    I AM an environmentalist, and I KNOW that there was more danger with the rocket (bomb) that was sitting under Cassini hurting people than the RTG becoming a problem. IF the RTG did somehow become a problem, the "probability * consequences" was still so low that it's more dangerous for you (and the rest of the world) to drive your car to work. The issue is that there are some rather uninformed emotional reactions to the word "radiation".

    Do you drive a car? Do you use a computer? Do you smoke? All of these have very real and very bad risks to yourself and others. Nothing you do is 100% safe. You're still doing it.

    The problem is not that you oppose nuclear power, it's that you seem to be uninformed about nuclear power (and the rest of technology). The "risk" associated with your using electrical energy to power your computer is more than the risk NASA generates by using an RTG to power a spacecraft. The environmental consequences of burning coal, damming rivers, or however else you produce your electricity are much worse than the use (or even (VERY unlikely) destruction within Earth's atmosphere) of an RTG.

  39. Re:I wouldn't expect a landing by VanillaCoke420 · · Score: 1

    Yes it is a risky endeavour, but we must try, and really, it's not a moment too soon! Perhaps in the future we can go there ourselves, with balloons, rovers, even amfibian vehicles. In a somewhat distant future...

  40. Re:Haha - yes, those "stuupid" environmentalists by another_henry · · Score: 4, Informative
    Actually FYI RTGs are active from as soon as they're made... basically it's just a hunk of radioactive material that gets warm and a Peltier junction that turns the heat difference between that and the colder environment outside into electricity. All wrapped in some really hefty shielding of course.

    This doesn't mean they're dangerous. They are all quite capable of surviving reentry and impact, and in one case (the NASA Nimbus B1 satellite in 1968) an RTG was recovered and actually reused in another spacecraft!

    Furthermore even if one did break up in the atmosphere and somehow vapourise despite being made in a ceramic form that would stay in a few lumps, it would cause bugger all damage. Plutonium isn't especially radioactive, although it is moderately chemically toxic. The small amount in an RTG completely pales in comparison to the plutonium in the environment from all the nuclear tests, and those make up literally 0.5% of the radiation we receive each year. (The rest comes mostly from natural sources but a significant amount also from medical xrays.)

    --
    "Studies have shown that people who eat peanuts live longer than those who do not eat."
  41. eh by mnemonic_ · · Score: 1

    The /. mods are the same as the /. users, and I'd say they are anything but right-wing...

  42. Re:Haha - yes, those "stuupid" environmentalists by el-spectre · · Score: 1

    I did not know that, thanks. I was under the impression that something akin to control rods (in function, not form) kept the radiation very minimal until someone threw the switch. Good to know.

    --
    "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
  43. Re:what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Are you trying to determine the net efficiency of a US scientist versus a European scientist?

  44. What? We call this news? by halivar · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wake me up when we plant a flag on Jupiter.

  45. Re:Well we can still hope by aldoman · · Score: 1

    Why the hell is this troll? Beagle was a freaking disaster and a terribly ran project. Nothing wrong with that at all...

  46. What about the other moons? by Ugmo · · Score: 1

    With 31 moons/natural satellites thus far discovered orbiting Saturn, there should be a lot to keep us occupied. Anyone else excited...

    Excited? Pictures of Phoebe? 31 moons?

    When do they get pictures of Rachel? That would be some moon! I like that one better than Phoebe, at least to look at, but Phoebe is more entertaining to listen to. You can skip Ross, Joey and Chandler but take a few of Monica mooning while you're at it. That will get me excited :).

    1. Re:What about the other moons? by mrkurt · · Score: 1

      It had to be said...
      With 31 moons, Saturn is the "Baskin-Robbins" of planets.
      My favorite is Butter Pecan...

      --
      Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)
  47. Re:Haha - yes, those "stuupid" environmentalists by another_henry · · Score: 3, Informative
    They're heavier than batteries for the same power out, but they last a LOT longer - many years in most cases, with the power output slowly decreaseing as the radioactive material decays. In Soviet Russia they used them to power remote automatic lighthouses.

    They're also really damn expensive because you have to make the fuel in a nuclear reactor. Probably not suitable for home use. Also, there hasn't been much success making them really really tiny like you'd want for portable equipment.

    --
    "Studies have shown that people who eat peanuts live longer than those who do not eat."
  48. Anyone else excited ... by Ralconte · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... about the journey to a ringed Apparantly not, we're having the same old discussion about that hazards it posed for having a nuclear power source, and dumb jokes about a character on a defunt sitcom. Perhaps it would save some bandwith on /. if mods just decided to forgo future Cassini stories. Those who want to see the pictures know where to go.

  49. Saturn history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    For those of you interested in Saturn's larger roll in the formation of our solar system, check out this site. Lots to read, but pretty interesting:

    http://www.jnocook.net/saturn/

  50. misinformed mods by barakn · · Score: 3, Informative
    Although one of the Voyager probes whizzed through Saturn's ring plane (which is only about a km or so thick), no such daring maneuver is planned for Cassini.

    The ring plane extends out to infinity, and so even the Earth passes through it occasionally. The ring plane is considerably tilted with respect to the ecliptic, so it would have been impossible for the Voyagers to not pass through the ring plane. Both went well outside the rings, not, as you imply, through the rings (In Saturn radii: closest approaches V1=3.09 & V2=2.67, outer ring lies at ~2.3) Someone has already pointed out your misinformation about the Cassini orbit. Your links are interesting, but none support your assertions.

    --
    "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
  51. Sorry, couldn't resist by red+floyd · · Score: 1

    its first main-engine burn in five years>/I>

    Cassini comm hardware: We get signal
    Cassini CPU: Main Engine Turn On

    --
    The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
  52. The things that move us forward... by Justifiable_Delusion · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Things like this are among the things that move our entire world forward. Maybe not as big as landing on the moon within ten or anything...but, we are about to plunge a highly sensitive instrument into the atmosphere of a moon that is a solid distance away. It amazes me sometimes what we as a race are able to create and act upon. Our thoughts coming to fruition. This is the type of advance that could show us life. As I have said before...that time when we do discover and know of the existence of a growing reacting and whatevering life form will be a very bright day.

    --
    Mad, adj : Affected with a high degree of intellectual independence. Ambrose Bierce - The Deveil's Dictionsary
    1. Re:The things that move us forward... by DerWulf · · Score: 1

      I call bullshit! What exactly gets 'moved forward'? Clean water, food, medicine consumer technology moves most people forward, in a very individual fashion.
      There is no need to view 'mankind' as anything but a species designation, let alone a collective. Even if watching photos from space probes is your favourite past time, it doesn't justify proclaiming it as the be-all and end-all activity for all humans.

      --

      ___
      No power in the 'verse can stop me
  53. Massive telescope versus deep space probe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If all a probe is going to do is image from outside .. what's the use of it? Compare Hubble's photos of Titan to Voyagers.
    The small telescope on Voyager can be matched by Earth or Earth orbit based telescope. If the ESO's massive 100m telescope can be built, we'll get shots better than what voyager or other space probes took.

    My point is this. If the probe doesn't land on the surface .. it's useless.

    Cassini is carrying Huygens, that's what I consider the "use" of Cassini.

    1. Re:Massive telescope versus deep space probe by pease1 · · Score: 1
      Compare Hubble's photos of Titan to Voyagers.

      Ah, could it be that when they built Vogager's camera's they didn't what to look for? They didn't know the nature of Titan, so how could they build cameras to look for it?

      My point is this. If the probe doesn't land on the surface .. it's useless.

      Ah, again, I don't think any space or land based telescope is going to be able to directly sample the makeup of the Titan atmosphere... you know actually measure the parts? Nor will remote sensors be able to measure the pressure and temperatures nearly as well as a in-situ sensor. And we haven't reached the surface yet. BTW, Huygens isn't designed to reach the surface... it will just be a bonus.

  54. Shadows by l0wland · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Just out of curiousity: The pics show that the rings cast shadows on the surface of Saturn. I wonder what it would look like if you were on the surface of Saturn, and would be in an area covered by ring-shadow. Is the light just more dim, or would it be completely dark? And would the rings be visible through the atmosphere (in both shadow or light)?

    Hmmm how about an artist-impression of that... :-)

    --

    "Honey, I feel a certain distance between us..." "Really? A 31ms ping ain't that bad..."
  55. #cassini Chat available to all... by pandelirium · · Score: 4, Informative

    We have a room on the irc.freenode.net servers called #cassini which is available to all who are interested in the Cassini project. Here you will find a wide range of interests discussed, from the informal to the most scientific details of the mission. Some of the Cassini staff have shown interest in participating to further support the project's public interest so don't be surprized to meet them there.

    We also support the ' Maestro ' program which is the Public-Outreach software created for the Mars Exploration Rover Project from JPL . As a result, we helped maintain the #maestro room (also on freenode.net) which is still in operation today.

    With such high interest building as Cassini-Huygens approaches orbital insertion and the Phoebe flyby, we expect a bigger rush in the next weeks. Join in and share the experience!

    If you are not sure how to do 'IRC' there are many good primers online to help and you can visit http://freenode.net for details about connecting as well as links to assist you to set things up to chat online.

    See all "/.'ers" there... ;^)

    Pandelirium
    http://www.pandelirium.net irc.freenode.net
    #cassini
    #maestro
    #pandelirium

  56. does anyone else feel the need... by nobody13 · · Score: 1

    to get really high on june 11th?

    "very psychedelic and beautiful area of our solar system into clearer focus."

    1. Re:does anyone else feel the need... by Photon+Ghoul · · Score: 1

      Get your psychotropics ready, people!!! It's time for a trip through space.

  57. Re:Alll look shithouse to me by Xilman · · Score: 2, Interesting
    All those images look pretty bad to me. Which begs the question, are the pictures of Saturn all fake? How do we know it has rings?

    It had rings last time I looked at it through a telescope.

    Guess I may have been hallucinating or perhaps my memory is not what it was.

    How do we know anything?

    Paul

    --
    Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate
  58. Re:Well we can still hope by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

    Hellifiknow, I guess you can only make fun of American and how shittly it's ran, and not Europe. Just proving Slashdot is a Leftist site.

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
  59. missing the point by hak1du · · Score: 1

    My point was, clearly stated, that people generally agreed that the probability of an event was low, even people who opposed the Cassini launch. Therefore, absence of an event does not prove, as the post implied, that the launch was low risk because the event itself was low probability.

    Beyond that, you are just reiterating the usual arguments that the risk was low. I happen to agree with that. But arguing, as the original poster implied, that absence of deaths resulting from the Cassini launch suggests that Cassini was safe is a bogus argument, and presenting bogus arguments in support of some policy is a bad idea because, while people may not understand the safety of RTGs, they generally have a pretty good everyday understanding of probability, risk, and cost.

    [NASA] are not infalliable, but they have numbers to back up their claims. And I would take a 100 scientist recommendation over an elitest snob.

    NASA is publicly financed. If they acquire a reputation for going over people's heads with missions that are perceived to be dangerous, they'll lose political support and funding. It doesn't matter whether they are objectively right, what matters is whether they can convince the taxpayer that what they are doing is valuable and safe.

    The only way to achieve that is to increase the general level of interest and understanding of science and technology in the US and around the world. Sending up space probes against significant objections and then presenting bogus arguments in hindsight to "show" that it was safe only does harm.

    And, frankly, given how much trouble you seem to have participating in a coherent dissection of an argument, it seems to me your science education could stand some improvement as well. You see, just because one agrees with a conclusion does not mean that every argument leading to that conclusion has to be right.

  60. Re:Wow by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

    I'll second that Wow, and add a holy shit.

    Kinda makes the CGI from the movie 2010 (which was amazing back then) look pathetic, doesn't it? :)

    I have a new wallpaper...now if I could persuade someone to print a wall-sized poster of that, well ;-)

    SB

    --
    It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  61. Re:Mod Parent Up [was Re:risk] by tsadi · · Score: 1
    i was the first poster who brought attention to this good post, when it's score was still zero. in the end, it got modded +5, yet i was modded -1 Redundant.

    wtf! some mods sure are fucktards who have no idea what they're doing.

  62. Huygens not released until December by hpulley · · Score: 1

    The submission isn't really wrong, 5-6 months could still be considered a 'few' months but the Huygens probe won't be released until December, 2004, and won't reach Titan until January, 2005.

    --
    $#!^ happens, but why does it always have to happen to me???