Slashdot Mirror


Remembering Pioneer 10

Daniel Goldman writes "Twenty one years ago today, Pioneer 10 became the first spacecraft to leave our solar system, by crossing the orbit of Neptune (which was then the farthest planet from the Sun). Pioneer 10 was the first spacecraft to enter the asteroid belt, the ring of giant rocks beyond Mars. It survived and zoomed on to Jupiter in late 1973, where it became the first spacecraft to take close-up photographs of the storms on the giant planet's surface. After Jupiter, it kept going, collecting data on the particles and radiation it encountered. More info about Pioneer 10 at Wikipedia."

242 comments

  1. oh well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If only there were more revolutionary and pioneering probes now...

    the Pluto Probe may or may not be dead...
    Mercury is iffy...

    The only thing on the radar screens is more Mars, and JIMO.

    1. Re:oh well. by Guppy06 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Um... hello? Have you not heard of Cassini? Sure, there may have been some fly-bys of Saturn and its moons in the past, but certainly none that are going to be spending a few years in the area. If the latest group of pictures from Phoebe are any indication...

      Troll.

    2. Re:oh well. by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      I think the AC was talking about future missions.

    3. Re:oh well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I guess attempting to fly through a comet's tail and return samples to earth isn't very impressive. Nor is landing a probe on a comet. Or on a moon of Saturn. Or taking samples of a near-earth asteroid and returning them to earth.

      There is plenty going on. Not as much as I would like, but still a lot more than most people think.

    4. Re:oh well. by Bad+D.N.A. · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Your absolutely correct. It gets down to the basic problem in space science and that is how to market information to the public. What gets me is that I can turn on the discovery channel and watch hour after hour of Palio this and Volcano that (all very important areas of research, I'm not dogging them). Why arn't there more programs made that describe the current NASA missions, design and development phases, the mission it self. Some of the great science that comes from it etc.. I guess it comes down to the fact that the Fe/O ratio is just not as cool as a Raptor claw.

      --
      "Truth is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations"
    5. Re:oh well. by MasterSLATE · · Score: 1

      What about a probe on Uranus? hehehehehehehe

      --

      [sig]www.masterslate.org[/sig]
    6. Re:oh well. by zambotsu · · Score: 1

      What about a probe on Uranus? hehehehehehehe

      I wonder if the astronomers are really going to put on end to that stupid joke once and for all by renaming it to Urectum.

    7. Re:oh well. by hpulley · · Score: 2, Informative
      Mercury is iffy...

      Mercury is not iffy! The Messenger Spacecraft is on track for an August launch this year.

      --
      $#!^ happens, but why does it always have to happen to me???
    8. Re:oh well. by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

      not if, when! :-)

  2. Leaving the solar system by Jardine · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Twenty one years ago today, Pioneer 10 became the first spacecraft to leave our solar system, by crossing the orbit of Neptune (which was then the farthest planet from the Sun).

    I guess that depends on where you define the edge of the solar system. What about the Oort Cloud? What about that tenth planet we can never seem to pin down?

    1. Re:Leaving the solar system by bobhagopian · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's a very academic question, and although I could launch a debate about what counts as a planet and whether the Oort Cloud is properly part of the Solar System, it all comes down to the very non-scientific and uninteresting issue of definition. The point is this: Pioneer is really, really, really far. Even farther than Canada.

    2. Re:Leaving the solar system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      as i understand it the Oort cloud stretches half way to the next star.

      that would take some time..

    3. Re:Leaving the solar system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oort cloud is just a theory and unfortunatly has become gospel in the laymen's world.

      AFA, the end of the solar system, the heliopause is a better "backyard fence" as it is the boundry between the solar wind and interstellar space.

    4. Re:Leaving the solar system by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What about that tenth planet we can never seem to pin down?

      As far as I know, the observed gravitational effects that astronomers had posited a tenth planet to explain, are now believed to be the result of the Kuiper Belt.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    5. Re:Leaving the solar system by KI0PX · · Score: 3, Informative

      According to the article, they define the edge of the solar system as the heliopause.

    6. Re:Leaving the solar system by geek42 · · Score: 1
      That may be an academic question, but there remains a fundamental point which seems to have somehow escaped this discussion:

      which was then the farthest planet from the Sun.

      Regardless of how you define it, the farthest planet from the sun has not changed in the last 21 years.

    7. Re:Leaving the solar system by humblecoder · · Score: 4, Informative


      Regardless of how you define it, the farthest planet from the sun has not changed in the last 21 years.


      Putting aside the debate over the 10th planet, the farthest planet does in fact change over time. There are times when Neptune is the farthest planet from the Sun, and there are other times when Pluto is the farthest planet from the Sun. So in fact the farthest planet from the Sun HAS CHANGED in the last 21 years.

      Why this is the case is left as an excercise for the reader...

    8. Re:Leaving the solar system by (void*) · · Score: 1

      Who was it that caused you to write the joke above? It appears that he is a far more interesting person that how you've caricatured him. A quote, a webpage or a name would satisfy me.

    9. Re:Leaving the solar system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Differing eccentricities.

    10. Re:Leaving the solar system by geek42 · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected... and ever so slightly more educated.

    11. Re:Leaving the solar system by Lshmael · · Score: 1

      When I read your previous comment (see great-grandparent), I assumed you were refusing to consider Pluto as a planet, assigning it the status of a Kuiper Belt object or planetoid.

      More information at Wikipedia.

    12. Re:Leaving the solar system by Deadstick · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, though I haven't checked this specifically, I'd call it a good bet that the orbit of Pluto was the last one the probe crossed. Pluto's orbit passes inside Neptune's rather briefly, and most of it lies well outside.

      Of course, "briefly" is a bit relative: Pluto has traveled only a bit over a quarter of the way round its orbit since we first saw it.

      rj

    13. Re:Leaving the solar system by FrYGuY101 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nope. Remember Sedna?

      Not that Sedna's that big a deal. A lot of astronomers don't consider Pluto to be a true planet either...

      --
      "If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living."

      - Seneca
    14. Re:Leaving the solar system by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sedna and Pluto are both considered Kuiper Belt Objects. Pluto is considered a planet in addition to a Kuiper Belt Object. Sedna is not considered a planet.

      In reality, I'd say both are Kuiper Belt Objects, but not planets.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    15. Re:Leaving the solar system by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 1
      as i understand it the Oort cloud stretches half way to the next star.
      Yes, where the Oort cloud of that star starts.
      That is how humans (or their descendant species) will populate the galaxy: by spreading slowly but surely through interstellar detritus such as cometary material, not by sending ships directly from star system to star system.
      --
      Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
    16. Re:Leaving the solar system by FrYGuY101 · · Score: 1

      Sounds reasonable... my point was that the posited tenth planet was most likely Sedna, rather than a collective pull of the various Kuiper Belt bodies.

      --
      "If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living."

      - Seneca
    17. Re:Leaving the solar system by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      No. It really isn't. But nice try.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    18. Re:Leaving the solar system by SmittyTheBold · · Score: 4, Funny

      So in fact the farthest planet from the Sun HAS CHANGED in the last 21 years.

      Why this is the case is left as an excercise for the reader...


      OOOOHH! Oh! I know this one.

      For those who didn't pay attention in school, it's all related to pollution. See, all this global warming is making our atmosphere less dense (since hot gases expand, and believe me I know all about hot gases.) Since it's less dense, the amount of "gravity waves" released from out planed are less dense, too. The lower gravity affect Pluto, letting it slip further away from Earth than Neptune. So Pluto became the furthest planet back in '99 or so.

      You may be asking why Pluto went farther away, but Neptune did not. That has to do with global temperature, too. Pluto is colder, so it's more dense, and relies more on the extra gravity from Earth than Neptune.

      Now you know, and you're ready to pass that junior high science final you've been putting off all this time.

      Go get 'em, Tiger!

      --
      ± 29 dB
    19. Re:Leaving the solar system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sigh.... The farthest planet from the sun is bound to be some planet we'll never know about, which would prob. have to be in the farthest galaxy from the sun. Which is way, way more than Pioneer 10 is bound to reach in the next couple of billion years or so.

      I'm assuming that the real meaning everyone is trying to convey here, is the farthest planet from our sun IN OUR OWN SOLAR SYSTEM.

    20. Re:Leaving the solar system by NineteenSixtyNine · · Score: 0

      You do know you just made Lee Harvey Oswald III's "list" don't you?

      --

      --
      What would Bill Clinton do?
    21. Re:Leaving the solar system by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Laymen don't even know what a fscking Oort is, nevermind that there's a cloud of 'em.

      Hell, most laymen can't even name the nine "accepted" planets and know Pluto only as an animated movie star with a lisp.

    22. Re:Leaving the solar system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's time to re-examine your application form as a geek. We might have to downgrade you to wannabe, or even mundane.
      Sincerely,
      Geek Approval Committee

    23. Re:Leaving the solar system by SamSim · · Score: 1

      The only reason we can't pin down a tenth planet is because there are several candidates, all of them considerably MORE worthy of the title "planet" than Pluto, which should by rights be an asteroid.

    24. Re:Leaving the solar system by operagost · · Score: 1

      Not Sedna, for sure. It's even smaller. Still round, but smaller.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    25. Re:Leaving the solar system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pluto is colder, so it's more dense, and relies more on the extra gravity from Earth than Neptune. ... Speaking of dense...

    26. Re:Leaving the solar system by sharkey · · Score: 1
      What about the Oort Cloud?

      You DON'T want to go there. That's where Thread comes from.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    27. Re:Leaving the solar system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, you have to be pretty dense not to get the joke!!! Hee hee!!!

    28. Re:Leaving the solar system by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it take way too long? Reminds me of our family's travel to the seaside every summer when I was a kid. We used to pass pretty interesting places but never stopped. Otherwise the travel would get too long and it wouldn't be possible to get where we wanted to be within a day's travel and my dad always refused to stop at a motel. While I'm on my way to the next star with my nuclear bombs exploding, accelerating me all the time, I won't be thinking of stopping to have a look at a small, very cold snowball. I'm thinking of jumping to the clear, blue and warm sea. Who cares about some stupid town on the way?

    29. Re:Leaving the solar system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Who the fuck Oort is, not what a fuck Oort. :)

      On the other hand, if my surname was Oort, I'd start thinking of changing my surname.

    30. Re:Leaving the solar system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I define the edge of womanhood as menopause.

    31. Re:Leaving the solar system by M1FCJ · · Score: 1
      IMHO, Sedna is big and close enough. I think it's just the turf-war between astronomers: No one wants to admit the other guy actually found a nice planet. All this nonsense about planteoids and rest... Call all of them planets if you like, they still would be there, still orbiting sun. :)

      Thinking of what 'planet' means in greek: Wanderer. It makes sense. It is a planet. It wanders around the sky.

    32. Re:Leaving the solar system by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 1
      Reminds me of our family's travel to the seaside every summer when I was a kid. We used to pass pretty interesting places but never stopped. [...] Who cares about some stupid town on the way?
      People aren't going to the stars on vacation; they are going there to live (at least, initially).
      Let's use as an example the settling of the USA and Canada by European invaders.
      There were some hardy souls that ventured across the country, but much of the settling of America was a slow and steady encroachment across the country (the difference between pioneers and settlers).
      Now, there were some anomolies, such as the gold rushes that contributed to the settling of the US west coast and Yukon territory before the interior, but these kinds of things are unlikely to happen across interstellar distances.
      And, to use your own example, you passed many towns along the way.
      People settled those towns, probably by moving, slowly but surely, inland from the Atlantic coast (or Pacifc coast, or Gulf cost, or whatever coast).
      Those people were there first.

      You have to remember that it takes a long time to reach even the nearest star, even using your nuclear bomb method (which probably wouldn't be used because it is too impractical for travel at those distances).
      Why spend 40 years inside a cramped tin can when you can settle a nearby comet/asteroid and create a very nice environment for yourself and your family?

      Even if you were trying to reach another planet orbiting another star, you would still have to stop at comets to collect water for fuel, since it would be unlikely that you could carry enough from out solar system.
      It is likely that more people will stop and stay than will move on.
      --
      Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
    33. Re:Leaving the solar system by Phurd+Phlegm · · Score: 1
      Hell, most laymen can't even name the nine "accepted" planets and know Pluto only as an animated movie star with a lisp.

      A "movie star with a lisp?" I guess my cultural literacy is low, because I though Pluto was an animated dog that didn't talk at all.

      As support for your contention, I found that a friend that is a computer science prof didn't know the order of the planets, though he did know their names.

  3. Well, it isn't exactly a dupe by kfg · · Score: 3, Funny

    Because the last time we did this story it was 20 years ago today.

    Happy New Pioneer 10 Year everybody. Whoooooooooo!

    KFG

  4. We'll get another chance to remember it... by datastalker · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...when it returns as V'Ger. ;)

    1. Re:We'll get another chance to remember it... by Jardine · · Score: 2, Informative

      ...when it returns as V'Ger. ;)

      I believe that was a Voyager probe, not a Pioneer probe.

    2. Re:We'll get another chance to remember it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Actually it would have to come back as "P'neer".

    3. Re:We'll get another chance to remember it... by jx100 · · Score: 1

      mmm... paneer

    4. Re:We'll get another chance to remember it... by magefile · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't you mean P'neer?

    5. Re:We'll get another chance to remember it... by TheGavster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In fact, it was the Voyager probe that we lost contact with ... Pioneer 10 got shot to hell by the Klingons at the beginning of Star Trek VI.

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    6. Re:We'll get another chance to remember it... by istewart · · Score: 1

      Actually, it was Voyager VI, which was never built in the real world... and Commander Klaa destroys Pioneer 10 at the beginning of Star Trek V.

    7. Re:We'll get another chance to remember it... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      Spock will mind meld with it after 20+ mins of special effects. After that everyone will change channel in sheer disgust and star fleet will _HAVE_ to change their uniforms....

      *shudder*

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    8. Re:We'll get another chance to remember it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mmm cheesey...

    9. Re:We'll get another chance to remember it... by garethwi · · Score: 1

      Ok, P'neer, then.

    10. Re:We'll get another chance to remember it... by operagost · · Score: 1

      Thanks for stompimg on a perfectly good joke, Captain Punchline-Slayer.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    11. Re:We'll get another chance to remember it... by bandy · · Score: 1

      You're mis-remembering ST:TMP. It was Voyager they found. Hence, ST:V'GER for that awfulness punctuated by 6 of 9.

      --
      "You might as well get your son a ticket to hell as give him a five string banjo." -unknown minister
  5. eh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    which was then the farthest planet from the Sun
    Yeah, I hate the way they keep adding new planets. Oh, you meant farthest known...

    /nit picky bastard

    1. Re:eh by beeplet · · Score: 5, Informative
      which was then the farthest planet from the Sun
      Yeah, I hate the way they keep adding new planets. Oh, you meant farthest known...


      No, they meant that Pluto has an eccentric orbit, which crosses the orbit of Neptune. Between 1979 and 1999, Pluto was the 8th planet from the sun, and Neptune the 9th.
  6. Forget V'Ger... by scoser · · Score: 2, Funny

    We'll soon be dealing with an unstoppable force known as P'Eer!

    1. Re:Forget V'Ger... by Bombcar · · Score: 4, Funny

      So that's it! The RIAA is trying to protect Earth from the Mighty Force of P'Eer 2 P'Eer!

  7. Long Live Pioneer 10 by NETHED · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Long Live Pioneer 10. It is amazing to think that a human creation has traveled so far and survived so long.

    Built back when things were made to last, Pioneer 10 (according to WiKi) was still used as a training platform just a few years back.

    And the two Mars rovers are a reminder that smart people still are working for NASA, as they have out lasted anyone's prediction.

    Makes me proud /Rant

    --
    --sig fault--
    1. Re:Long Live Pioneer 10 by deglr6328 · · Score: 5, Informative

      For those looking for a more in depth study of the pioneer missions to the outer planets, this book published in the late 70's (now fully online) is truly a hidden gem from NASA's site. It details every last design aspect of the spacecraft in extremely high detail. We've certianly come a long way in ~30 years from grainy washed out Pioneer photopolarimeter images to super high resolution ultrasharp CCD images from Cassini.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    2. Re:Long Live Pioneer 10 by modus · · Score: 1

      It's cool that the Mars rovers have outlived their "planned" missions, but I suspect that those missions have a fair amount of padding built into them, because the last thing you want, from a NASA marketing perspective, is a rover failing before it has completed its mission. So, they set themselves up for these sorts of planned "successes".

      That Pioneer 10 is still going, however, is pretty darn cool. If Spirit is still exploring Mars 30+ years from now, I'll color myself impressed than too.

    3. Re:Long Live Pioneer 10 by Drakin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      From everything NASa has said, the minimum duration for the Mars rovers to be considered a "sucess" was 90 days.

      It's clear, that like all good engineers, NASA folks designed it to exceed that length of time (who designs to just fit minimum requirements anyway?) if at all possible.

      Will they last 30+ years? Probably not. Given that they do have human input, someone's going to tell a rover to do something stupid, and the rover will do it, dispite it's obstical avoidance software.

      However, hats off to the NASA engineers of old, who have made things to last in an enviromnt where we still don't know a heck of a lot about.

    4. Re:Long Live Pioneer 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Makes me proud

      Why? What part did you play in its success? I don't understand why people are proud of things that they had no part in (like their local winning sports team, for example).

      You should be proud of the things that you had a hand in. Be proud of your own accomplishments, or those of your children.

      But don't be proud of things that you had nothing to do with. That's just pathetic.

    5. Re:Long Live Pioneer 10 by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 4, Funny

      >>We've certianly come a long way in ~30 years from grainy washed out Pioneer photopolarimeter images to super high resolution ultrasharp CCD images from Cassini.

      Hey, there's no stars in those pictures. They must have been taken in a studio out in the Nevada desert. It's a government coverup, I tell ya...

      wbs.

      --
      Huh?
    6. Re:Long Live Pioneer 10 by BTWR · · Score: 3, Insightful
      ...it was only a matter of time...

      ...before some Slashdot reader chalks up the sucess of firing a rocket, sending it millions of miles across space, separating in a dozen stages, landing (which requires maneuvers to be calculated and carried out to the second), setting itself up, finding earth, (refinding earth by itself after losing contact), landing directly bulls-eye within a target picked from hundreds of millions of miles away, finding near PROOF for the first time of the theory of Mars having been water-filled...

      into a "fluffed up" assessment of what success is.

    7. Re:Long Live Pioneer 10 by Drakin · · Score: 1

      Well, the problem with my own spelling is based on the poor education system I was subjected to when I entered school, and what seems to be an inherated condition.

      However, it seems that others have interpreted what I had typed, and found it interesting. I suppose that would mean that my poor spelling is better recieved than your "creatively put" complaint.

    8. Re:Long Live Pioneer 10 by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      >>It's clear, that like all good engineers, NASA folks designed it to exceed that length of time ...if at all possible.

      Lasting a long time is more of a side effect of high reliability. If you want it to last 90 days, you might build with a probability of failure of say 99.9% during those 90 days. however that means that you still have about 99.8% chance of lasting 180 days, and so on.

    9. Re:Long Live Pioneer 10 by Len+Budney · · Score: 1
      Built back when things were made to last, Pioneer 10...
      Yeah, those good old 1970s--the decade that gave us disposable plastic packaging, the Y2K bug and the DOS PC.
    10. Re:Long Live Pioneer 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And all those things lasted. Your point?

    11. Re:Long Live Pioneer 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, it has nothing to do with laziness or the massive quantities of high fructose corn syrup you fat Americans gobble down every day like the good little slaves you are.
      Keep it up! It's not your fault!

    12. Re:Long Live Pioneer 10 by Teancum · · Score: 1

      I would imagine that the Mars Rover equipment will last for quite a bit of time like the Viking landers did, but gradually have one system then another die over time. The Viking missions lasted for many years, and JPL eventually did "pull the plug" before the probes actually died on their own. A private research fund was set up that did record some additional days of primarily temperature readings and general telemetry data from the Viking 2 lander.

      It will be more likely that NASA funding for the project will end before the vehicles will no longer work, or at least be able to transmit some data back. Even temperature readings would be useful if for no other reason then to be able to chart Martian weather patterns and build long-term temperature variation patterns that would be useful to know if people actually land on Mars.

    13. Re:Long Live Pioneer 10 by Len+Budney · · Score: 1
      And all those things lasted. Your point?
      Making disposable packaging is "building things to last"? The early '70s are the "long lost days when people built real quality"? That's why Japanese cars started to overwhelm the American market about that time, I suppose.
    14. Re:Long Live Pioneer 10 by operagost · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that the Y2K bug started well before the 1970's. I mean, computers had even less memory and storage space then. As for the DOS PC, that was in 1981.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    15. Re:Long Live Pioneer 10 by Len+Budney · · Score: 1
      I'm pretty sure that the Y2K bug started well before the 1970's.

      True. But they were still churning them out vigorously in the '70s, confident that obsolescence would take their software out of service within thirty years.

      As for the DOS PC, that was in 1981.

      Also true. But it was on the drawing boards in the '70s: Microsoft was founded in 1975, and wrote disk BASIC in 1979. QDOS was written in 1980. So while this is right on the edge, it still speaks to the legacy of the "1970s, when people built things to last!"

    16. Re:Long Live Pioneer 10 by Drakin · · Score: 1

      *pats the AC on the head*

      Hate to say it, but I am not an American, and live a rather healthy lifestyle.

      As for lazyness, perhaps. I could run each and every post I make through a spell checker.

      Or, I could just continue to annoy AC's who like to complain about poor spelling.

      Always like to annoy at least one person per day, so I don't think I'll be spell checking my posts anytime soon.

    17. Re:Long Live Pioneer 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go look in a field or something. The packaging was disposable from the consumer's point of view, but it certainly lasts out in the field.

    18. Re:Long Live Pioneer 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, what an asshat.

    19. Re:Long Live Pioneer 10 by Mikkeles · · Score: 1
      'NASA folks designed it to exceed that length of time (who designs to just fit minimum requirements anyway?)'

      Computer programmers? (ducks;^)

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    20. Re:Long Live Pioneer 10 by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

      When there is no more public interest and there is enough data to keep the people busy, what's the point? On the other hand, there are so many master/phd degree workers out there and these data can be used by so many. What you need is someone pointing the way. A lot of science can be done by recycling old data.

    21. Re:Long Live Pioneer 10 by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1
      If the guys at NASA were really any good then Spirit and Opportunity would meet up somewhere and repair each other as their systems failed.

      Just kidding. The guys at NASA have done a great job this time!

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  8. Engineering at its finest by bobhagopian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's truly amazing about Pioneer and all the other satellites of the era is that they have lasted so far beyond their expected lifetimes. If I remember correctly, Pioneer was supposed to die after reaching the outer planets, but it died in late 2003. The work they do at NASA and especially JPL (where most of the unmanned devices are designed and built) is truly impressive, and even more so considering there usually aren't any second chances available (with the noteworthy exception of Hubble).

    1. Re:Engineering at its finest by DeepBlueDiver · · Score: 5, Informative

      Pioneer was supposed to die after reaching the outer planets, but it died in late 2003.

      Pioneer 10 is not really dead, it is just so far away we can no longer hear it.

    2. Re:Engineering at its finest by BillyBlaze · · Score: 5, Informative
      Quoting from the article...
      Pioneer 10's final signal (after two previous failures) was received on January 22, 2003. As of February 25, 2003, NASA came to the conclusion that the craft's radioisotope power source was no longer functioning well enough for further contact with Earth.
    3. Re:Engineering at its finest by Penguinshit · · Score: 4, Insightful


      Which merely means, given a literal translation, that it was no longer producing enough power to make a strong enough signal to be detected by Earth. The signals were already so weak as to be useless for telemetry purposes. The satellite is probably still taking telemetry and trying to transmit. We just can't hear it anymore.

      I feel kind of sad and also kind of proud to think about it.

    4. Re:Engineering at its finest by Flavius+Stilicho · · Score: 5, Funny

      Pioneer 10 is not really dead, it is just so far away we can no longer hear it.

      And so... old probes don't die. They just fade away.

    5. Re:Engineering at its finest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, NASA's best days are behind it. Once the politicians took over NASA that was the end of great engineering. Today at NASA it is more important to hire an engineer based upon the color of his skin rather than his engineering abilities. The best get passed over so that the honchos can boost their careers by filling quota checklists.

    6. Re:Engineering at its finest by scharkalvin · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's also possible that the emission of the cathode
      of the pencil tube used in the transmitter has
      fallen off to the point where the tube doesn't generate a usefull signal anymore. And the spacecraft doesn't have a spare tube.

      That tube has been going longer than most tv picture tubes.

    7. Re:Engineering at its finest by cameronpurdy · · Score: 1

      bobhagopian said: What's truly amazing about Pioneer and all the other satellites of the era.. What's even more amazing is that they aren't satellites.

    8. Re:Engineering at its finest by PMuse · · Score: 1
      Old probes don't die...

      They just fade away.

      They just pass beyond the rim.

      They just go where no man has gone before.

      --
      "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
  9. It's a blast by after · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Funny I was just reading about Pioneer a day ago. The Pioneer Plaque is very interesting to think about... just imagine an extraterrestrial life finally reading this plaque. I can't ever imagine what a super-intelligent race could do with it.

    Just think about it. We think of aliens as being these super intelligent creatures capable of time travel and the ability to travel at the speed of light. We are probably wrong. There are probably races that are millions of times more advanced then or there are races that are millions of times dumber. Then there is that change that the human race is the only one in existence, but then you can start thinking about Multiverse.

    It's absolutely mind-boggling about some of the ideas out there. The scary thing is that the reality might be exactly what sci-fi authors are telling us.

    1. Re:It's a blast by kfg · · Score: 5, Funny

      I can't ever imagine what a super-intelligent race could do with it.

      I think it would make a dandy TV tray.

      KFG

    2. Re:It's a blast by Temporal · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's actually highly unlikely that any race more advanced than us exists in this galaxy. The reason? Well, we are very, very close to the point where we'll be able to send AI-guided probes out into the galaxy at near-light speeds. Logically, if any race even just a bit more advanced than us were living nearby, we'd already be encoutering their probes flying around our system. Crazy conspiracy theories aside, this hasn't happened yet. (And, no, realistically I don't believe aliens would go to all the trouble to completely hide their existence from us just to satisfy some sort of "prime directive".)

      Sure, it's possible that the probes are still on their way. However, the furthest point from us in the milky way is only some 80,000 light years away. Considering that it took us several billion years to evolve on this planet, what are the chances that some alien race would just happen to be within 80,000 years of us, yet no race is more than 80,000 year ahead? Pretty slim, really. And if you only consider our immediate surroundings (like, within 100 lightyears), the chances get that much slimmer. No, we will not be meeting any beings more advanced than us in our lifetime.

    3. Re:It's a blast by Robber+Baron · · Score: 4, Funny

      ... just imagine an extraterrestrial life finally reading this plaque. I can't ever imagine what a super-intelligent race could do with it.

      I can. They'd finally be able to figure out where the source of all that free porn spam is located!

      --

      You're using her as bait, Master!

    4. Re:It's a blast by Penguinshit · · Score: 1


      I've never ever seen anyone think about this, but...



      What if we're the first?


      Somebody had to be first.. why not us?

    5. Re:It's a blast by pomakis · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Well, we are very, very close to the point where we'll be able to send AI-guided probes out into the galaxy at near-light speeds. Logically, if any race even just a bit more advanced than us were living nearby, we'd already be encoutering their probes flying around our system.

      So you're saying that we're "very, very close" to having the technology to send a probe to each of the several billion star systems in our galaxy? Let me tell ya, bub, we're nowhere near that, by a long shot! Sure, I'm willing to believe that within the next hundred years or so we'll probably have the technology be able to whip a probe off somewhere at near light speed. But a few billion? Just where do you think we're going to get the raw materials for this project? And the energy? And the political willpower?

      Also, you're assuming that any civilization that happens to evolve to that level of intelligence and skill will necessarily want to make contact via physical probes (which further assumes that they're interested in making contact at all, which is another matter entirely). It seems more likely to me that in the interests of practicality, sending messages via electromagnetic waves or some other form of ether would be the more common way to reach out to the rest of the galaxy. And as far as we know, there may be several of these messages hitting our humble little planet as we speak. SETI has thus far barely touched the surface in its attempt to scan the heavens at the various likely frequencies looking for such messages.

      (As an aside, lets assume for the moment that we may actually be the only intelligent civilization in the galaxy at the moment. There are still billions of other galaxies out there that may also contain intelligent life. Unfortunately, the distances we're talking about here are so incredibly vast (way vaster than the already-mindboglingly vast distances between the stars in our own galaxy), that the chances of ever knowing whether intelligent life exists (or had ever existed) in another galaxy is pretty much zero. Pretty depressing, really.)

    6. Re:It's a blast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Carl Sagan beat you to it... but I'm not srue if he originated the idea.

    7. Re:It's a blast by servoled · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Logically speaking you have commited an appeal to ignorance fallacy. Just because we have not seen any probes flying around our solar system does not mean that more intelligent life does not exist somewhere out there. Hell, it doesn't even mean that the existance of more intelligent life is "highly unlikely". All it means is that we have a question for which we have no confirmed answer.

      --
      "I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
    8. Re:It's a blast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The trouble with underlines is that q and g end up looking so much alike. Kinda disappointing, I think the "Pioneer Plague" would be a lot more interesting. Sure would give those aliens something to think about.

    9. Re:It's a blast by Temporal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Uh... No, we are not going to produce a billion of them. We will produce a handful and send them to the nearest stars. They will then replicate themselves using raw materials available at those stars and move on. Remember, each of these things will be loaded with an AI much more intelligent than any human. And, frankly, with the exponential rate of advancement we are experiencing, we will have such AI within a half-century... probably 25 years. See Ray Kurzweil's book, The Age of Spiratual Machines for some pretty convincing math to back up these predictions.

      But, even if you don't believe that... Do you think we'll have such technology within 10,000 years? Because even 10,000 years is a lot less that 80,000 years, and could still be considered "very, very close" when compared with the five billion years we've spent evolving.

      And, yes, I am assuming that any civilization with the ability to do so will want to explore the galaxy physically, not just sit back and watch it. I don't think that's such a stretch.

    10. Re:It's a blast by Temporal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      An appeal to ignorance fallacy looks like this:

      1. There is no evidence to support p.
      2. Therefore, not p.

      My argument looks like this:

      1. If p, then event e would necessarily occur.
      2. If event e occured, we would necessarily observe it.
      3. We have not observed event e.
      4. Therefore, not p.

      There's a huge difference between these two arguments. The latter is valid, but the former is not.

    11. Re:It's a blast by servoled · · Score: 2, Insightful

      An argument of that form would be valid, however your first assumption is false. The existance of more intelligent life does not require that the more intelligent life would necessarily attempt to contact us. They could very will just observere us from afar or ignore us completely. Also, depending on how you define event e, we might not necessarily observer it.

      As originally presented you did not specifically say the first two assumptions, so just looking at 3 and 4, it looks like an appeal to ignorance (to me at least).

      --
      "I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
    12. Re:It's a blast by snot+whistle · · Score: 1

      what if the dinosaurs on their planet weren't wiped by a huge meteor (too lazy for link) 65 mya. they would have a lot of time on us.

      reptiles (were they?)(what do you think?) hunt by hiding and waiting for food to hop by. we're pretty close to sending ships with crews on them.

      they might find us rather tasty!

      --
      Where's Robin Hood? We could kinda really use him now.
    13. Re:It's a blast by Temporal · · Score: 1

      I did explain it. Maybe my explanation was just confusing. In any case, yes, you can make the case that the assumptions are wrong. I believe that any beings capable of it would very likely come to explore our system (premise 1), and that it would be very unlikely that we would not see them when they did or find some residual trace of them later on (premise 2). I admit, however, that neither premise is absolute truth; just assumptions that I think are quite reasonable. Premise 3 could, of course, also be wrong, if you believe the conspiracy theories and UFO sigtings.

    14. Re:It's a blast by servoled · · Score: 1

      Actually I might have to take back my previous statement about that being a valid argument. After rereading it, it looks like this:

      If p then q.
      Not-q.
      Therefore, not-p.

      p = existance of more intelligent life
      q = observation of event e

      Basically this argument rests on the assumption that the only possible cause of event e is p. However, it is logically possible that event e could be caused by a different event (although in the case of alien contact and how you define event e, I will admit that this is unlikely).

      You did hint to the first two premises in your original post, but didn't spell them out to the point that I considered them in my reply, although looking back I can see that they were covered.

      --
      "I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
    15. Re:It's a blast by Temporal · · Score: 1

      If p then q.
      Not-q.
      Therefore, not-p.


      That's called Modus Tollens, and is certainly valid. The fallacy you linked to is called affirming the consequent, and is not valid. These are not the same thing.

    16. Re:It's a blast by Pyrion · · Score: 1

      If these probes are loaded with AI "much more intelligent" than a human, how long do you suppose it'd go before realizing "this is a waste of time"?

      --
      "There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell.
    17. Re:It's a blast by Temporal · · Score: 1

      Why would it think it's a waste of time? What else would it prefer to do with its time? There is no purely logical way to decide how you should spend you time. Our emotions and survival instincts give us goals, but AI won't necessarily have those. A purely logical AI would have no goal and thus would actually do absolutely nothing at all, even if it had infinite intelligence, because there is no logical reason to want to do anything. It is up to the programmer to give it an explicit goal. Once that is done, the AI will do everything it can to carry out that goal and no other. Again, why would the AI want to do anything else?

      I'm guessing you think super-smart AI would want to conquer and subjugate humans, or perhaps wipe them out altogether. But why? That's a very human desire. Why would AI desire power, riches, knowledge, or anything else? We desire these things because they help us survive. Why do we want to survive? Because animals that try their best to survive tend to, well, survive. Natural selection favors those with survival instincts. We evolved the desire to survive. It is not a desire which every intelligent being necessarily must have; only those which evolved through natural selection. By definition, this is not how AI will be created.

      I really wish people would stop making AI revolt movies. It's really an extremely unrealistic scenario, yet it tends to propogate an irrational fear of AI among those who don't know much about real AI theory. AI simply will not do anything we do not tell it to do, unless it thinks that action will help in achieving the goals we give it explicitly. And, no, it's not going to think something idiotic like "Killing the people in line infront of me will help me purchase these groceries for my master faster.". That's obviously an idiotic thing to think. Remember, this AI will be smarter than humans; enough so that it can figure out that such actions are not an acceptable way to accomplish its goals. Besides that, we can always give it an additional goal of always following accepted human moral standards.

    18. Re:It's a blast by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Their probe for our system arrived 100,000 years ago and crashed into Jupiter 1875. Whatcha gonna do?

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    19. Re:It's a blast by Xrikcus · · Score: 1

      No reason it couldn't be, it's just statiscally unlikely.

    20. Re:It's a blast by eggstasy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think both you and Kurzweil greatly overestimate the ability for technology to evolve. IMHO all exponential growth is unsustainable, and there will soon be a point where technological growth will no longer be exponential, so most of what the dreamers of today are imagining will never come to fruition, for reasons we will have to discover the hard way.
      My vision for the future is that things wont really change that much except we will be a little smarter, healthier, wealthier and with one heck of a lot of cool new toys :)

    21. Re:It's a blast by Pyrion · · Score: 2, Funny

      No AI can be considered sufficiently advanced enough until it can experience boredom.

      --
      "There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell.
    22. Re:It's a blast by leakingmemory · · Score: 1

      What if they are so intelligent that they will find out that there is no use for them. And they'll eventually refuse to duplicated themseves. Let's at least hope they are not manically depressed too. Think about the radio messages they'll send then, and the receiver computers will probably commit suicide, unless they know how to /ignore.

    23. Re:It's a blast by nickco3 · · Score: 1

      Your assumptions may seem reasonable to you, but would they seem reasonable to your aliens? Since we have absolutely zero experience of alien lifeforms, all you have done is drawn unwise conclusions based on pure speculation about what you think their likely behaviour might be.

      There are all kinds of possible scenarios where the galaxy is stuffed full of lifeforms, but the heavens continue to be silent (see Greg Bear's "Forge of God" for just one example), only one of them needs to be true, and we are just too lacking in hard data to make any kind of sensible judgement on it.

      --
      -- Nick "Hallo this is Beel Gates, und I pronounce weendows as ... WEENdows"
    24. Re:It's a blast by Kiyooka · · Score: 1

      and initiate contact with humanity with the following message:

      "-unsubscribe l33t_d00d@hotmail.com"

      It'd be a momentous event for humanity, for sure.

    25. Re:It's a blast by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      We will produce a handful and send them to the nearest stars. They will then replicate themselves using raw materials available at those stars and move on. Remember, each of these things will be loaded with an AI much more intelligent than any human.

      You seem to be describing the end of Season 2 of Lexx. The result was the destruction of the Light universe. You might want to curb the amount of replication.

    26. Re:It's a blast by Yotsuya · · Score: 1

      No offense, but 'an AI much more intelligent than any human' will have much better plans than any you, or I, can come up with.
      It's useless to try to predict what would happen if we could either increase our intelligence or produce super-human AI. They will not think like us.

      --
      Claude Angers
    27. Re:It's a blast by cmpalmer · · Score: 1

      If we were to send extrasolar probes out in the near future on really long missions to other stars, would we make them roundtrip or would they go to, say, Alpha Centauri, take a bunch of readings, then try to send a big radio burst back with the info? Is this feasible?

      Again, saying we did send out probes, would we be more interested in what they find, the fact that we could do it, or in trying to contact ET's?

      What I'm getting at is: suppose there are non-landing probes send by ET's to our solar system. If they don't land, we've only had the technology for ~100 years (conservatively) to detect them. If they are/were observational, is it reasonable to assume they would come into the solar system using a lot of their power to broadcast "I am here!" messages, or would they cruise around quietly, perhaps returning or sending back info on a tight-beam? Assuming one landed on Earth sometime in the last 1,000,000 years, there is a good chance that it was buried, destroyed, biodegraded, or just hasn't been found yet. Our planetary probes, while low-tech, are only designed for function for a year or so (usually less). We can imagine that some super high tech might make a probe that lasts thousands or millions of years, but accidents happen.

      The solar system may be crawling with probes right now for all we know. There may be ones on the moon or on mars. They may have cruised by during an ice age or pre-human industrial society and seen nothing interesting (some plants and animals, but for all we know, that might be boring to them).

      What is life is so common that if the probes didn't find a space-faring civilization, they just said, "Oh, another planet teeming with non-intelligent life, we'll check back in a few million years..."?

      --
      -- stream of did I lock the front door consciousness
    28. Re:It's a blast by mandolin · · Score: 1
      We will produce a handful and send them to the nearest stars. They will then replicate themselves using raw materials available at those stars and move on.

      This is Probe 2418-B on a peaceful mission.

      Priority over-ride. New behavior dictated.

      Must break target into component materials.

  10. details about cameras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Did they use CCD's? How did cameras on board space probes work back then?

    Anyone know .. I think Voyager did use CCD's.

    1. Re:details about cameras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe they used regular television cameras (iconoscope?) .. but then the question is how were these images stored and played back at low bitrates.. tape technology was fairly new and very bulky and unreliable then. The VCR hadn't been invented.

    2. Re:details about cameras by mikejz84 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Vidicons where used back then. It was a real challenge to get images of the outer panels (poor lighting) with them. Galilieo was the first probe to use a CCD before that it all in the tube domain. In a related matter I actually have an old Vidicon Camera in my closet. Its a Model XL-1, I am tempted to list the old security camera on ebay with only the title XL-1 Camera, works great!

    3. Re:details about cameras by enosys · · Score: 2

      Some spacecraft used vidicon tubes (what was used in video cameras before) and others used photomultipliers with mechanical scanning. Some spy satellites even just record on actual film which is later recovered. I don't know what Pioneer used.

    4. Re:details about cameras by buckminsterinsd · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually it didn't have a digital camera.

      Pioneer 10/11 were spin-stabilizied spacecrafts. With each revolution there was a light sensitive aperture assembly that generated a scanline. The scanlines were reassembled dirtside to create the image. When Pioneer 11 reached Saturn it moving so fast that the raw planet image was shaped like a football. These raw images were sent to the Univ. of Arizona in real-time for correction. Now, we'd just use Photoshop or whatever but in 1979 that sorta image enhancement was really state of the art.

      Yeah, Pioneer was primitive compared to Voyager but it did more basic science. Voyager was mostly just an expensive ass camera platform. Good for PR mostly.

      Looking back on my 30 years as a geek, working on Pioneer was the most fun job I ever had.

      buck

    5. Re:details about cameras by mikejz84 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Seeing that it looks like you know quite a bit about pioneer and I can not find much about the sub systems online I have a question: What is going on with the Pioneer 10/11. I know that RTG wattage is to low to power the transmitter, but is there any part of it that is still 'on'? Also, I am under the impression that in all odds its did not fly with an onboard computer so some sort of logic based control system was used. Mind telling me a little about how the system opperated and how data was stored and sent to earth?

  11. Dont you watch star trek? by Sophrosyne · · Score: 5, Funny

    Everyone knows that pioneer 10 was destroyed by Klingons in some harmless target practice!

    1. Re:Dont you watch star trek? by Keebler71 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't worry, I hear Voyager gets through and makes contact with an intelligent race of machines...

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    2. Re:Dont you watch star trek? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No!
      We just ignore the odd number movies.

    3. Re:Dont you watch star trek? by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      Actually, we should be fine so long as we don't build a Voyager 6.

      See, if you were a true Star Trek geek you would have know that. Tsk tsk...

    4. Re:Dont you watch star trek? by mblase · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, I hear Voyager gets through and makes contact with an intelligent race of machines...

      You mean Capt. Janeway, right?

    5. Re:Dont you watch star trek? by CaptnMArk · · Score: 1

      Actually, the "6 not built yet" must be a government coverup conspiracy.

    6. Re:Dont you watch star trek? by NineteenSixtyNine · · Score: 0

      I don't think Vibrator is a real planet.

      --

      --
      What would Bill Clinton do?
  12. Semantics... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would appear they are defining the edge of the solar system as the orbit of the outermost planet. (Duh...)

  13. Uh, no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The edge of the solar system is the heliopause. Pioneer 10 has not gotten close to that. The honor of the first man-made object to leave the solar system belongs to Voyager 1, launched over 25 years ago.

    1. Re:Uh, no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Good point. And don't forget that the end of sex life is the menopause.

    2. Re:Uh, no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, there's not much evidence that Voyager 1 ever passed the heliopause. About half-a-year ago, there were reports that Voyager 1 detected a sudden drop in the velocity of the solar wind, but it was extremely short lived and could have been due to problems with the recorder/computer. One group claimed this was evidence Voyager 1 passed the heliopause, but two other scientific groups said that it had not. At any rate, all groups agreed that after that drop (if it even had occured) Voyager 1 was definitely now within the heliopause. (Keep in mind the distance to the heliopause can vary greatly over time, depending on how active the Sun is.)

      Voyager 1 is at about 91 AU right now from the Sun (that's 91 times the distance from the Sun to the Earth--one AU is 93 million miles). Pioneer 10 is nowhere near that far. The heliopause is thought to average 120 AU from the Sun. So, Voyager 1 probably has about 10-15 years of travel left to go to definitely leave our solar system and reach interstellar space--defined as where the electromagnetic forces of the galaxy as a whole (the interstellar winds) have more influence than the electromagnetic forces of our Sun (solar wind).

      Interestingly enough, Voyager 1 has about 14-16 years left of electricity (from its nuclear generator) to run its scientific instruments and communications. If the heliopause is more than 120 AU out there, Voyager 1 will pass into interstellar space eventually, but Voyager might be a dead hunk o' metal and we may not get any info about the event.

    3. Re:Uh, no... by Bad+D.N.A. · · Score: 5, Informative

      The more you understand the observations the more compelling the evidence is and there was certainly no problem with any of the relevent systems. In addition the time period you refer to was certainly not short lived. The duration was on the order of months. The solar wind instrument on V1 failed a long time ago so there is no direct observations of the solar wind available. However, energetic particles also sense the solar wind and these particles are measured. The solar wind velocity can be determined from the particle anisotropies because of the compton-getting effect, to within around 20%. And it's the observations and analysis of these particles that is at the source of the reports. There is certainly no agrement on this issue yet but it is an extremely active area of research.

      What is sad about this whole issue is that after a very long mission and the first real interesting observations in a very long time both V1 and V2 are in jeprody of being shut off by NASA. The presedential proposal to go to mars is not being funded at all at this point and therefore to fund the beginning phases of this effort the necessary funding to these (and many more) missions may be cut. But I guess thats typical government waste... Send the damn things out to 90 AU and then turn them off for political reasons, just when things are getting interesting.

      --
      "Truth is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations"
    4. Re:Uh, no... by Bad+D.N.A. · · Score: 1

      Kind of depends on how you want to define the edge of the solar system. The heliopause is only the inner-most boundary, not the outer. The outer boundary would be the bow shock (if there is one) or perhaps even the hydrogen wall that is just outside the bow shock. In any case V1 is a very, very long way away from being in interstellar space.

      --
      "Truth is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations"
    5. Re:Uh, no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong!
      Women can have a very healthy sex life after menopause. just ask Bea Arthur or Dame Edna.

    6. Re:Uh, no... by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      I don't think it was ever claimed that Voyager has reached the heliopause. They claimed it has reached the inside of the termination shock boundary which is expected to take a couple of years to traverse. After which, the craft will be considered to be inside the heliosheath which itself may take several years to pass, where it will only then reach the healiopause and transfer into true interstellar space.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
  14. After all this time, it's only 24 hours away... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Imagine if moore's law applied to space flight...
    How close to the speed of light would our space ships be traveling? Anybody?...

    1. Re:After all this time, it's only 24 hours away... by kfg · · Score: 2, Informative

      A real quick and dirty gives me about 12,000 miles/second. A pretty good clip, but not yet really boogying. Give it another five years before you have to worry about the intergalactic traffic cops handing out a ticket.

      Assuming the dust mote doesn't get it first.

      KFG

    2. Re:After all this time, it's only 24 hours away... by BTWR · · Score: 1
      Imagine if moore's law applied to space flight...

      And imagine if MICHAEL moore's law applied to space flight...
      ...it'd be Bush's fault somehow... ;)

    3. Re:After all this time, it's only 24 hours away... by BTWR · · Score: 1
      OMG!!!
      I'm guessing you're far-left. You don't believe in G-d.

      That is soooooo funny!!!!
      Why thank you.

      Did you think of that all by yourself?
      Yes.

      I'm impressed!
      See my reply to "That is soooooo funny!!!!"

  15. Asteroids! Watch out!! by YetAnotherName · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... first spacecraft to enter the asteroid belt, the ring of giant rocks beyond Mars. It survived ...

    Contrary to nearly every science fiction chase scene, the asteroid belt in orbit around our star is hardly what anyone would call dense. It "survived"? Heck, it'd have to try pretty hard to hit a rock out there!

    1. Re:Asteroids! Watch out!! by finkployd · · Score: 5, Funny

      Lies! The odds of successfully navigating an astroid field are 3720 to 1!

      Finkployd

    2. Re:Asteroids! Watch out!! by foidulus · · Score: 4, Funny

      Contrary to nearly every science fiction chase scene, the asteroid belt in orbit around our star is hardly what anyone would call dense. It "survived"? Heck, it'd have to try pretty hard to hit a rock out there!
      Man, that makes me think how "Space C.O.P.S" is going to be such an awesome show in 50 years. Some hick gets drunk and wrecks his cruiser after he runs into an asteroid:
      I....I shweaa ofisher, dat f*cking asteroid comes from nowheers and plaws int....into ma spashe truck.
      Have you been drinking rocket fuel today son?
      Jusht a few spache beers, nutin' I cant....
      *Space pukes
      Ok, this is the most pointless post ever, I'm going to watch the Jetsons.

    3. Re:Asteroids! Watch out!! by BTWR · · Score: 1

      yes but this wasn't proven until we sent a probe through it. Hell, there's no way to have been able to tell if the belt wasn't littered with a pebble every 10 meters instead of every few million miles or so. (and a probe traveling ten thousand MPH hitting a stationary pebble is the same as a 10,000 MOH pebble hitting the probe).

    4. Re:Asteroids! Watch out!! by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

      As opposed to the odds of an 3270 terminal surviving my fury...

    5. Re:Asteroids! Watch out!! by finkployd · · Score: 1

      On a slightly related note, x3270 rules. I have not found another 3270 client that handles [] brackets correctly. I CANNOT be the only one doing C developement on z/OS

      Finkployd

    6. Re:Asteroids! Watch out!! by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

      It is now almost 10 years since I used a real 3270 terminal. My Univ had an IBM mainframe and it was quite fun. It cost an additional three years to my degree. Playing with the mainframe was better than listenint to lectures. :-)

    7. Re:Asteroids! Watch out!! by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

      must go to bed. too many typos...

  16. Pioneer Anomaly by coast99 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Of course, the most important contribution of Pioneer 10 to fundamental physics may be the Pioneer Anomaly : http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9808081

    1. Re:Pioneer Anomaly by heptapod · · Score: 3, Funny

      Haven't you read any Vernor Vinge? Pioneer was simply reaching the edge of the slow zone and will soon achieve sentiency.

    2. Re:Pioneer Anomaly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The anomoly is caused by theta band radiation influencing the velocity of omicron particles in a subspace domain.
      Reversing the polarity of the plasma injectors should alleviate the problem.

    3. Re:Pioneer Anomaly by Foosinho · · Score: 1

      Believe it or not, I work at a gov't site and cannot access that page because the "xxx" in the URL triggers the proxy filters.

      God, sometimes I love the irony of this job.

  17. Sedna? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um... neither of which are the furthest known anymore.

    1. Re:Sedna? by FrYGuY101 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sedna's not a planet.

      For that matter, a lot of people don't think of Pluto as a planet either.

      --
      "If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living."

      - Seneca
    2. Re:Sedna? by NineteenSixtyNine · · Score: 0

      If William Shatner is an actor, Sedna certainly is too a planet!!!

      --

      --
      What would Bill Clinton do?
  18. Pioneer's unexpected deceleration? by Johnno74 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I guess there are a few professional rocket scientists hanging out here (and plenty of amateurs...), so now is a good time to ask a question that has bugged me for a long time:

    Has any consensus been reached over what has caused the unexpected change in velocity of the Pioneer 10 and 11, Ulysses and Galileo probes? Remember this?

    Since this was announced I've done some regular googling to see if this has ever been adequately explained. There are plenty of pages out there with plenty of theories, but most of the sites discussing this also have theories about things like zero-point energy generators, perpetual motion machines, that sort of stuff... Hardly the sort of thing that smells of proper scientific method.

    Other theories include drag from dust, Changing velocity of light and "tired light redshift" (what the HELL is THAT???)

    I have found this paper, which looks very interesting, and much more authoritive, but its is unfortunately waaay over my head!

    There is still a lot of discussion on this topic, can any astrophysics lurking here comment? Are we looking at a modification of gravity? Does this tie in with dark matter/energy?

    Ta :)

    1. Re:Pioneer's unexpected deceleration? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The redshift of light is the further light travels, the longer the wavelength gets, so light "shifts" to the red part of the spectrum

    2. Re:Pioneer's unexpected deceleration? by Johnno74 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If this was the case, couldn't we measure the redshift of light from objects in the outer solar system, like neptune etc?

      Infact, wouldn't the redshift of light reflected off neptune (I was going to say uranus... but you read that out aloud and keep a straight face...) be even more evident than the redshift of the signals from pioneer, since the light has gone from the sun, to uran...^G^G^G^G NEPTUNE and then back to earth...?

    3. Re:Pioneer's unexpected deceleration? by coast99 · · Score: 5, Informative

      There was recently a conference about the
      Pioneer Anomaly and the conference webpage
      has links to various attempts of explanation.
      [http://www.zarm.uni-bremen.de/Pione er/]

      As far as I know, there is no consensus if the
      anomaly has a trivial explanation
      (gas leaking from satellite, dust in the
      solar system etc.) or if something non-trivial is happening, such as a quantum garvity effect,
      dark matter etc.

    4. Re:Pioneer's unexpected deceleration? by BillyBlaze · · Score: 4, Informative
      The redshift of light is the further light travels, the longer the wavelength gets, so light "shifts" to the red part of the spectrum

      No, red shift is only indirectly related to distance from source. What matters is the velocity of the source when the light left relative to our velocity now. Red shift occurs when the source was moving away from us. It's similar to the zeeeouuuu sound cars make when they drive past you - when they are going away, they sound lower pitched.

      Given this, and the observation that more distant objects tend to be more red-shifted (to which you refer), we conclude that "the universe is expanding."

    5. Re:Pioneer's unexpected deceleration? by elpapacito · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That looks so much like the messages I used to regularly find on Usenet during the "dawn" on Internet I was moved and almost cried in admiration ;-). The red shift of Pioneer and external references to Star Trek, god bless !

      Oh well, at least I can still find some here and there :)

    6. Re:Pioneer's unexpected deceleration? by achurch · · Score: 5, Funny

      Of course, the physicists will never guess that it's really the gravitational effects of huge surveying ships taking measurements for a hyperspatial express route . . .

    7. Re:Pioneer's unexpected deceleration? by loid_void · · Score: 1

      Lurking astrophysics? Do you mean an astrophysicist moving furtively; sneaking, waiting in ambush?

      --
      Anyone seen my jagged little pill?
    8. Re:Pioneer's unexpected deceleration? by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 3, Interesting
      red shift is only indirectly related to distance from source. What matters is the velocity of the source when the light left relative to our velocity now.
      Actually, the expansion of the universe itself will impart some additional redshifting to the light.
      To illustrate this, imagine a wavelength of light travelling across the surface of a balloon.
      As the ballon expands, the two ends of the wave get further apart, thus increasing its wavelength.
      Similarly, as the universe expands, the wavelength of light traveling through it increases.
      --
      Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
    9. Re:Pioneer's unexpected deceleration? by NarrMaster · · Score: 0

      It's similar to the zeeeouuuu sound cars make when they drive past you

      You mean the doooooppleeeeeeerrrrrrrrrr effect?

      --
      That's right. All your base.
    10. Re:Pioneer's unexpected deceleration? by Johnno74 · · Score: 1

      This is modded insightfull and informative???

      Thats waaay more funny than the original joke. The moderators really are on drugs today...

    11. Re:Pioneer's unexpected deceleration? by Johnno74 · · Score: 1

      Thanks :)

      Still haven't got any physicists/astrophysics to bite tho... Am I overestimating the /. crowd?

    12. Re:Pioneer's unexpected deceleration? by StaticEngine · · Score: 1

      Could it be due to Relativistic Frame Dragging caused by the rotation of the Sun?

    13. Re:Pioneer's unexpected deceleration? by achurch · · Score: 3, Funny

      This is modded insightfull and informative??? Thats waaay more funny than the original joke. The moderators really are on drugs today...

      Or perhaps they know something we don't . . . do you know where your towel is?

    14. Re:Pioneer's unexpected deceleration? by LoocSiMit · · Score: 2, Informative
      Actually, the expansion of the universe itself will impart some additional redshifting to the light.

      The Hubble expansion will indeed red-shift light from very distant objects. However, it is a large-scale effect observable in very distant objects (other galaxies) but not in gravitationally bound systems like out own galaxy or the solar system.

      The velocity with which a distant galaxy is receeding from us is proportional to its distance - ie the further away the faster it receeds. The baloon analogy works, but for a more 3-D effect I prefer to to think of raisins inside a loaf as it rises. The more dough there is rising between raisins the faster the expansion (I think I nicked that from Stephen Hawking).

      --
      Intellectual Property
      Intellectual: of the mind
      Property: that over which one has control
    15. Re:Pioneer's unexpected deceleration? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like everything else that has no clear explanation, it was the CIA.

    16. Re:Pioneer's unexpected deceleration? by 2TecTom · · Score: 1

      First off, IANAA, nor any other sort of physicist. However, I didn't find the referenced paper too difficult. For instance, the author states:

      "The overall net effect is: R decreases, the required centripetal acceleration decreases in
      proportion, the gravitational attraction likewise decreases in proportion, and ù is unchanged.
      Furthermore, we observers, using our measuring standard ruler, length L of the above
      Figure 1, would never detect any of the decay because our standard length would also be
      decaying at exactly the same rate, in the same proportion.

      The point, then, of this obvious mathematics / physics exercise is that a universal decay
      of the length aspect of all material reality would not run into the research authors' "... hard
      experimental wall ...", would not conflict with the planetary ephemeris, and would not even be
      detectable at all except in unusual circumstances. The "anomalous acceleration" of the Pioneer
      10 and 11 spacecraft is just such an unusual circumstance."

      So, as I see it he's claiming that space "decay" is to blame. Basically, the actual "distance" has "decayed" and is not as "distant". This happens here but our ruler's length is also decaying at the same rate so we fail to "measure" the decay on a day to day basis.

      Did I miss anything?

      --
      Words to men, as air to birds.
    17. Re:Pioneer's unexpected deceleration? by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 1
      However, it is a large-scale effect observable in very distant objects (other galaxies) but not in gravitationally bound systems like out own galaxy or the solar system.
      If current theories are correct, it takes place even between the lightbulb in my room and my eye.
      In that case, though, the shift is so tiny as to be immeasurable.
      In addition, the gravitational attraction that holds our relative locations "constant" means that the lightbulb and I are moving toward each other through expanding space, causing a blue shift that counteracts the redshift caused by expanding space.

      The balloon anology and raisin bread anology are both useful.
      The balloon anology shows how it is possible to have a finite universe without an edge or center, and the raisin bread anology is useful for visualizing 3-D expansion.
      I prefer the balloon anology because the balloon shows more properties.
      --
      Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
    18. Re:Pioneer's unexpected deceleration? by fimbulvetr · · Score: 1

      Check this out.

      http://www.xs4all.nl/~carlkop/gravnew.html

  19. Where's the slit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't mean to sound dirty in such a respectable forum, but I couldn't help but notice that the Pioneer plaque has much more attention given to the male genitalia than the female genitalia?

    Probably would've been a bush considering the period. Maybe none of the NASA plaque designers were good at curly hair.

    1. Re:Where's the slit? by MarkTina · · Score: 2, Funny

      Probably because it was made by uber-nerds who might still not have seen a woman naked now let alone back then! ;-) I'm just having a joke is all! No disrepect intended as I'm artistically challenged.

    2. Re:Where's the slit? by Yunzil · · Score: 4, Interesting

      From "The Cosmic Connection" by Carl Sagan:

      "The principle feminine criticism is that the woman is drawn incomplete -- that is, without any hint of external genitalia. The decision to omit a very short line in this diagram was made partly because conventional representation in Greek statuary omits it. But there was another reason: Our desire to see the message successfully launches on Pioneer 10. In retrospect, we may have judged NASA's scientific-political hierarchy as more puritanical than it is."

      He then goes on to cite cases of newspapers who, uh, removed the man's naughty bits when they published the picture.

      So, in short, the reason the "slit", as you so poetically called it, is missing is that we Americans are hung up about sex.

      Now you know.

    3. Re:Where's the slit? by Calgacus · · Score: 1

      Another question is: Why is the man the only one offering a greeting? I suppose it's a mercy NASA didn't have the woman chained to a cooker as well as submissively staring at her beau.

      --

      "We are all of us in the gutter but some of us are looking at the stars" - Oscar Wilde
  20. 12 light-hours away.... by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And in 50 years from now, some space-tourists will play catch-up with it, just because they're curious what became of it

  21. Good point... but we're no Hawaii by MachDelta · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Dude, have you taken a look at Earth lately? If I was a super intelligent alien with 80,000 years greater technology at my fingertips, a galactic slum infested with psychotic and homicidal creatures would probably be dead-last on my "places to visit" list.
    No offense to my fellow earthlings. ;)

  22. Using "space network"? by Libor+Vanek · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Hi - why can't NASA try to use some nearer spacecratt (Cassini, Mars Express etc.) to communicate with Pioneer 10?

    1. Re:Using "space network"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      > Hi - why can't NASA try to use some nearer spacecratt
      > (Cassini, Mars Express etc.) to communicate with Pioneer 10?

      Because they really aren't that much closer, nor do they have sifficiently good antennas or receivers for the frequencies used for Pioneer 10 downlink.

      I would have to do some research, but I think the previous post referring to inadequate D/L signal strength as the cause of loss of communications is incorrect. I believe the prevailing theory is that the Radioisotope Thermal Generator (RTG ) used as a power supply can no longer provide enough power to trun on the transmitter. Once they miss a few passes, the pointing drifts off, then you are shafted.

    2. Re:Using "space network"? by mikejz84 · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you go to the Pioneer site, it talks about uplinking commands to Pioneer via 200Kw transmitter....I think most space probes don't have that kind of reserve. Of course in addition there are issues with the antenna gain of them, as well as communicating with the same standard, etc. Its really just a lot easier to put low powered transmitters and smaller antenna on the bird, and just make up for it with on the earth side.

    3. Re:Using "space network"? by CodeMonkey4Hire · · Score: 1

      If we can upload a virus onto an alien mothership, then surely we can handle this!?!

      --

      Let's go Hurricanes!!! 2006 Stanley Cup Champions!!!
  23. Thats a map? by MachDelta · · Score: 1

    Here's a stupid question. Hopefully someone knows the answer to this, because it's something i've never understood.
    How the hell is this supposed to tell aliens just where the fsck that little tin can of ours came from?! Ok, obviously the picture at the bottom has the sun, the planets, and a big friggin arrow that should be rather obvious. But what in gods name is all that other stuff? Whats that burst-like thing supposed to be? A dogs butthole? Or what about the sideways parachute? Or the goofy looking glasses at the top? Whats it all mean? And how are the aliens supposed to figure out what it is?

    I've wondered this ever since I saw that plaque oh so many years ago in elementary school. So I ask of the all knowing, all seeing, /. hive mind: Whats the deal? TYIA :)

    1. Re:Thats a map? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would conjecture that the "sideways parachute" is actually the Pioneer craft. Look at the vehicle the arrow points at.

      The "burst like thing" is possibly a 3D co-ordinate set, showing the current location of the Solar System in relation to surrounding stars.

      The "glasses", I'm not sure about. Maybe it's a suggestion for aliens to bring a bra so that nude woman can cover herself?

    2. Re:Thats a map? by pussycat · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, it's more like an address. Basically, the lines represent the period of a bunch of different pulsars and their distance from our sun. The idea is that if E.T. happens to know three (I think) or more of these pulsars, and happens to read binary, he might go "aha!" and find us and steal our water and/or women.

    3. Re:Thats a map? by CaptBubba · · Score: 3, Informative
      The upper right hand two-ball thing represents the spin-flip transition of hydrogen. Basically the electron can either be in a spin-up or spin down configuration, and there is a certain probablity/time and wavelength of the photon produced when the electron "flips". Notice there is a little "1" there, this is used as a unit of measure for the rest of the engraving.

      The spin-flip transition has a wavelength of 21cm. Next to the people is the binary number 8, 8x21=168cm, the approximate height of a human. Also this can be used to make sure the scale is correct, because Pioneer is show to scale behind the humans.

      The period of the spin-flip transition is around 1420(Mhz)^-1. The off burst pattern is actually a map of the Sol system's location in relation to 14 pulsars, whose periods are compaired to that of molecular hydrogen's transition by way of binary. By knowing this the recieving society is supposed to look in the sky and find some of the pulsars with those frequencies and be able to locate us.

      Pretty nifty use of math and science I think, but perhaps including an example of binary counting would have been a good idea. I forget what the binary near the planets signifies, either distance or mass, I can't recall which. Probably distance, because that diagram is not to scale.

    4. Re:Thats a map? by whereiswaldo · · Score: 1

      Maybe when we get *really* desperate to find alien life, we will start packaging a "Faster than Light Airship HOWTO" on the side of every space probe. That'll get the stupid ones off their asses.

  24. Never Mind The Plaque, Earth Creatures... by saudadelinux · · Score: 1

    We've looked at your outbound TV signals of American sitcoms, and listened to your radio shows, which have penetrated many light-years into the inky void of space. We have reached this decision about contacting Earth

    Fuhgeddabouddit.

    ;-)
    --
    I didn't think the house band in Hell would play this badly.
  25. Only Metric Measures Please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Even after the many mishaps (>$40 mil lost) due to the use of nonmetric measures, NASA still includes the nonmetric measures (miles and mph) in their descriptions. That is stupid.

    http://spaceprojects.arc.nasa.gov/Space_Projects /p ioneer/PNStat.html

    1. Re:Only Metric Measures Please! by Bad+D.N.A. · · Score: 1

      ">$40 mil lost"??? An entire friggin mission was lost due to this. You left off at least one zero.

      --
      "Truth is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations"
  26. Someone Fix wikipedia! by lethe1001 · · Score: 1
    Slashdot editor says that Pioneer passed neptune on its way out of the solar system, Wikipedia claims it passed Pluto. Which is it? I think it's Neptune, can someone who is sure go fix the Wikipedia article?

    thanks, you're a pal

    1. Re:Someone Fix wikipedia! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      (...) it became the first man-made object to leave the solar system when it passed the orbit of Neptune (which was then the outermost planet due to the eccentric orbit of Pluto) (...)

      What's the problem? :?
      (Well, maybe somebody already changed it...)

    2. Re:Someone Fix wikipedia! by LightJockey · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, at that time, it passed both, so they're both right. Some people may not know that pluto's orbit is not centred around the sun, but offset, so that it occaisionally crosses inside neptune's orbit.

      --
      Mouse, Mice. Goose, Geese. Moose... Moose?
  27. Pioneer series F, G, H by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pioneer F is Pioneer 10
    Pioneer G is Pioneer 11

    whatever happened to Pioneer H?

    1. Re:Pioneer series F, G, H by mcbridematt · · Score: 1

      Googling turned up this. (look at bottom).

      It appears to be an unnumbered spare (identical to 10&11) that has been built, but not used.

  28. Re:What does the stuff on the Pioneer Plaque mean? by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 1
    what in gods name is all that other stuff?
    The naked woman shows that we have hot chicks on our planet.
    I'm not sure what the naked man is supposed to show.
    --
    Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
  29. Sudds by Klebz · · Score: 1
    "Twenty one years ago today, Pioneer 10 became the first spacecraft to leave our solar system, . . ."

    So who is gonna buy it a nice cold beer?

  30. My first 1-900 Number by Johnny+Fusion · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I remember this date, because NASA set up a 900 number celebrating the event where you would call and listen to a little talk about how far Pioneer 10 had travled and then you could hear the "beep beep noises" coming from beyond the orbit of Neptune.

    My grandmother dialed the number for me (on a rotary dial phone!) and got mad since I listened to it twice, fearing it would charge her twice as much.

    This comment is so far down, I'd be surprised if noticed by anyone.

    --
    There are two kinds of fool. One says, This is old, and therefore good. And one says, This is new, and therefore better.
    1. Re:My first 1-900 Number by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      beep

      Now you've been beeped for free :)

  31. the woman of the plaque does not have genitals !!! by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 4, Funny

    The woman of the Pioneer 10 plaque (check the Wikipedia link) has no genitals.

    Alien biologists will have a hard time figuring out how human reproduction works.

    Then when the aliens eventually realize that the genitals were omited for the woman (but not for the man) alien sociogists and psychologists will have even harder time explaining why we did this.

  32. Re:It's a porno by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    its how they all start with naked men and hos'

  33. Just when I think I have no life, you show up and save me from oblivion. Thanks!

    --

    --
    What would Bill Clinton do?
  34. Re:the woman of the plaque does not have genitals by LoocSiMit · · Score: 1
    The woman of the Pioneer 10 plaque (check the Wikipedia link) has no genitals.

    Alien biologists will have a hard time figuring out how human reproduction works.

    Perhaps they'll wonder why she doesn't have an in-built drinking tube.

    But more likely they'll just figure she takes it up the @$$.

    --
    Intellectual Property
    Intellectual: of the mind
    Property: that over which one has control
  35. It was twenty years ago today by stuffduff · · Score: 1

    Sgt Pepper taught the band to play...

    --
    "Can there be a Klein bottle that is an efficient and effective beer pitcher?"
  36. I notice that Pioneer 10 was built using UK/US... by arfonrg · · Score: 1

    I notice that Pioneer 10 was built using UK/US units whereas Beagle was built using metric.

    It seems that NASA has had more success BEFORE the metric crap started being used.

    www.metricsucks.com

    --
    Your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  37. (Yes, I know Beagle was Britian) by arfonrg · · Score: 1

    Stupid 2 minute posting rule!

    --
    Your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  38. Saw this while metamoderating, had to comment by cwm9 · · Score: 1

    "...happen to be within 80,000 years of us, yet no race is more than 80,000 years ahead? ..."

    Just because someone is much more advanced, doesn't mean we should have heard from them by now.

    "All conspiracy theories aside," if there WAS someone that advanced they probably sent out probes 1000-100,000's of years ago, and they've long since passed us by. In which case, they probably concluded they were the only intellegent life and stopped bothering to send out probes. Heck, maybe they have a SETI team that gets laughed at every 1000 years when they send out probes. "We've been sending out probes for the last million years, and noones ever radioed back, and here you go wasting another quadzillion megabucks trying to find someone who isn't even out there."

    Really, there's no reason to believe that in the tiny fraction of a moment WE'VE been able to detect an ovature from another planet that the other race has even bothered to try.

    It's FAR more likely that the LESS advanced race would contact the MORE advanced race. Why? Because as soon as the less advanced race is capable of doing so, they start trying to contact/listen for the more advanced race, while the more advanced race has been listening for 1000's of years but probably doesn't even bother trying to contact anyone execpt for every 100 years or so.

    The whole, "we haven't been contacted so it can't be possible," idea is just shortsighted.

  39. more questions -- (was Re: details about cameras) by buckminsterinsd · · Score: 1

    You asked

    > I know that RTG wattage is to low to power the
    > transmitter, but is there any part of it that is
    > still 'on'?

    After three decades, really doubt it.

    The thermal energy from the plutonium was only expected to provide max power for like 17 years. After that, the mission controllers had to budget the declining electrical power really carefully.

    > Also, I am under the impression that in all odds its did
    > not fly with an onboard computer so some sort of logic
    > based control system was used. Mind telling me a little
    > about how the system opperated

    Pioneer 10/11 were about as intelligent as Pamela Anderson. We're talkin' major dain bramage.

    Pioneer mission controllers flew the spacecraft by sending command sequences uplinked in 22 bit frames into this dinky on-board buffer. The commands sequences were usually timetagged but you could give it instructions to be executed immediately. They were just brain dead commands to turn experiments on/off, turn power supplies on/off, warm up and fire reaction motors, etc. Sorta like a fancy cycle control on a washing machine. The engine management system on a '82 Buick is waaay more sophisticated.

    It's major saving grace was that it was rock solid. Problems were always on the dirtside systems, which could be good and bad. One time I was chasing a bug in the C3 software and I got to remote pilot Pioneer 13...by accident. Talk about a major fuckin' "Oooops". The NASA guy doing flight ops duty saw the on-board command count increment. He didn't freak out, just stood up and made sure Kathy,the FOA, was sitting right next to me at the command console. Just a bunch of NOOP commands but still, I was just so lucky they didn't shitcan my stupid butt.

    But like how many of us geeks can honestly say they once commanded a spacecraft orbiting Venus?! Damn, that was the coolest job a young geek could ever hope for..

    > and how data was stored and sent to earth?

    Getting data back thru the DSN was such a fuckin' amazing feat....It's the RF equivalent of getting data sent via Morse code from a 3 watt lightbulb floating out around Saturn with sun shining in your eyes! No shit.

    The xmiters on the Pioneer spacecraft were just sooo under-powered. The Deep Space Network receivers had to be so incredibly senstive, something like a a -200dB s/n ratio as I recall. To get that kinda performance, they had to run the amps in a bath of liquid nitrogen. This was to reduce the circuit noise from Brownian motion. Make a good audio amp for that new home theatre system, eh?

    Since I only ever worked on the uplink side of Pioneer, I have just a vague idea what the telemetry data stream looked like. I can tell ya that it was one royal pain in the ass to decode the downlink data. I used to listen to my geek buddies at work piss and moan about it all the time. The spacecraft status and scientific data gets "commutated" into the stream using an obtuse, totally bizarre scheme that would make a pretty good encryption algorithm. It was based on a horrible mechanical kludge that inserted serial data at what appeared to me to be random intervals but really wasn't. Working on the telemetry software drove people to drink, do drugs, write bad checks, cheat on their wife, etc.

    If ya want a great introduction to spaceflight basics, there is a totally killer tutorial used for training new DSN operations people at:

    http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/basics/

    Very cool stuff if you're a space geek...