Slashdot Mirror


NASA Set To Launch Probe To Mercury

antispam_ben writes "CNN is reporting the upcoming Messenger mission to Mercury is set to launch August 2. The spacecraft uses a combination of technologies (insulation, Peltier devices, careful design and orbit, always keeping the shield side toward the Sun) to keep its electronics at room temperature."

216 comments

  1. It's better than... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I'd rather have them probe Mercury than Uranus.

    1. Re:It's better than... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      FRY: This is a great, as long as you don't make me smell Uranus. Heh heh.
      LEELA: I don't get it.
      PROFESSOR FARNSWORTH: I'm sorry, Fry, but astronomers renamed Uranus in 2620 to end that stupid joke once and for all.
      FRY: Oh. What's it called now?
      PROFESSOR FARNSWORTH: Urectum.

    2. Re:It's better than... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey...talk about your own body and leave mine out of it.

      Surely you mean, erm, uranus...

      Damn...

    3. Re:It's better than... by essreenim · · Score: 1

      In this land of extremes, the surface temperature changes a radical 1,100 degrees from day to night, from 800 degrees to minus-300 degrees... Scientists want to know how the planet turned out the way it did, and whether the perpetually dark carters at the poles hold ice.
      Ice, hmm.. No - at least not on the surface -might want to dig below to find the Mercurians and their Roman spas.
      It will go down with a pair of U.S. flags
      Whole new meaning to burning the flag!!

    4. Re:It's better than... by Ribald · · Score: 1

      This actually reminds me of an orbital mechanics class I was in, years ago. The professor had just worked through an example on the board (a Hohmann Transfer to Mars, IIRC), and one of the other students asked if he could please work another one.

      Deadpan, serious: "Okay, sure. This time, lets say we're sending this probe to...Uranus."

      I'm thinking, Christ, I'm in a 400-level engineering course here--I can't laugh at something like that! I was doing okay as the prof. started in on the problem, when someone across the room burst out with a chuckle. At that point, myself (and most of the rest of the class) let go.

      The prof. never seemed to figure out what he'd said--and I witnessed one of the two situations I can think of (the other being a proctologist's office) where you can actually say that line and be serious.

      --Ribald

  2. Cool... by JosKarith · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...well, compared to the melting point of Tin anyway...

    --
    'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
    1. Re:Cool... by haystor · · Score: 5, Funny

      Because it's so hot near the sun, NASA plans to go to Mercury at night.

      --
      t
    2. Re:Cool... by JosKarith · · Score: 1

      You say it as funny, but I bet that the flight plans include hiding the other side of planets/moons for as long as possible to take advantage of all that lovely shade.
      Hell - if fuel wasn't a consideration I bet they'd love to run straight up Mercury's shadow and just park in it.

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
    3. Re:Cool... by SEWilco · · Score: 1
      ...well, compared to the melting point of Tin anyway...

      I don't think making Tin angry is particularly interesting, but I think it's just rude to announce a Mercury probe. The Metal Men, like other superheroes, deserve their privacy.

    4. Re:Cool... by amliebsch · · Score: 1
      well, compared to the melting point of Tin anyway...

      Well, how very interesting, because I'm now made entirely of tin.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    5. Re:Cool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice rip off of Ali G, moron.

    6. Re:Cool... by haystor · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but that joke has been going around since the 60's. It goes something like Poland (or any other country) trying to land on the sun. When it is pointed out the sun is too hot to land on, they respond that they're going at night.

      I am unoriginal with my comment? Yes, but then so is Ali G, apparently. Unless they were responsible for this joke 30 something years ago.

      --
      t
    7. Re:Cool... by SkiifGeek · · Score: 1

      Okay, so I understand the budget crisis under Bush, but does that mean that they have to start thinking like him, too? Or did he order it to be a night mission?

  3. Room Temperature by mzkhadir · · Score: 1

    I would hope they would make it come down to that temperature, I don't know of any kind of insulation that would actually do that.

    1. Re:Room Temperature by Threni · · Score: 1

      Isn't there enough energy from the sun to power pretty amazing cooling systems? It wouldn't matter how efficient the energy conversion was - it's just there for the taking.

      www.fishkeeping.co.uk

    2. Re:Room Temperature by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I would hope they would make it come down to that temperature, I don't know of any kind of insulation that would actually do that.

      It shouldn't be all that hard since in space thermal control based almost solely on radiant energy. Even though the side facing the sun will get very hot, the side facing away from the sun is exposed to empty space with a temperature near absolute zero. If you simply reflect most of the sunlight away on the hot side, slow down what gets absorbed with a little insulation, and arrange to radiate what does get through the insulation (along with any internally generated heat) on the cold side, you should be able to maintain a reasonable temperature.

      From what I've read, one of the hardest parts about controlling temperature on this probe is to handle the times when it passes in front of Mercury. Then, the near-zero chill on the "cold" side is temporarily replaced with the radiant heat from the > 400 C surface of the planet. At these times the probe has to be closed up like an ice chest to maintain its internal temperature at reasonable levels until it gets away from the planet.

    3. Re:Room Temperature by bs_testability · · Score: 2, Insightful

      sure, and is the solar panels aren't generating quite enough power wire a flashlight to them as well and direct its beam back onto the panel!

    4. Re:Room Temperature by Rei · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Thank you for saving me the time. Some people just don't get that, on a spacecraft, you're dealing with a near closed system here apart from solar input. No matter how much insulation you have, if you're not A) reflecting the solar radiation away, or B) radiating the heat away from your craft, you're going to burn up.

      Thinking that you can simply insulate a probe enough to handle solar radiation is like thinking that you could swim in a volcano for weeks if only you could find a good enough type of insulation. The insulation for the probe is to help reduce the effects of heating/cooling cycles, not to keep the probe's temperature down.

      --
      SILENCE BLATHERING TOADIES! We are your new masters.
  4. Messenger huh? by Deflagro · · Score: 4, Funny

    Better hope Microsoft isn't watching, they may sue for copyright violation.

    Nasa: But it isn't MS Messenger!!
    Gates: I don't care, gimme mo' money beeyatch!@#

    --
    Der Tod ist der einzige Weg hier raus!
  5. hmm by Docrates · · Score: 4, Funny

    Nasa's Messenger? I wonder if Trillian will cover it...

    --

    There are two kinds of people in the world: Those with good memory.
    1. Re:hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NASA is an acronym - and as such you can't lowercase it.

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

      Mighty Morphin Grammar Rangers, power up!

      *Dodges brick*

  6. room temp? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is room temperature an actual degree? I always thought it was just the temp of the envirnment that the time. If that's the case, room temp for the spacecraft is pretty hot no?

    1. Re:room temp? by julesh · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are various definitions of room temperature. The one most often used is 20 degrees C (Err... about 75 degrees F, I think).

    2. Re:room temp? by foistboinder · · Score: 4, Funny

      It doesn't matter what temperature a room is, it's always room temperature.
      -- Steven Wright

    3. Re:room temp? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      72F is usually considered to be room temperature. Which is about 22C.

    4. Re:room temp? by Skye16 · · Score: 1

      Funny, around here, 68F is considered room temperature...

    5. Re:room temp? by RWerp · · Score: 1

      In that case spacecraft has no room temperature since there is not 'environment temperature' to be measured around.

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    6. Re:room temp? by Skye16 · · Score: 1

      Err, yeah, definitely didn't mean to hit submit there.

      Anyway, I wonder if anyone has ever taken the time to poll people and find out what "Room Temperature" is actually considered to be and mapped out the answers, like the Dialect Survey Map. I'd guess people in Miami have a much different definition of room temperature than people in, say, Bangor.

    7. Re:room temp? by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

      Room temp from a science perspective usually means you have kept it between 65 F and 75 F. That is the most often reported range of comfort for most human beings. Thus the it is the temperature range of most rooms.

      There is a definition here that coincides with my memory.

      http://composite.about.com/library/glossary/a/bl de f-a157.htm

      An adhesive that sets in the temperature range 20 to 30C.

      --
      âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
    8. Re:room temp? by MarsDefenseMinister · · Score: 1

      That's a leftover from the 70's and the energy crisis. I still have memories of my childhood, freezing my ass off in a chilly house.

      --
      No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
    9. Re:room temp? by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 1

      There are various definitions of room temperature. The one most often used is 20 degrees C (Err... about 75 degrees F, I think).

      75F room temperature? That's what my GF seems to think, while my idea of room temperature is more 68F. So yeah, I'd say that there are plenty of definitions for "room" temperature.

      --
      -- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
    10. Re:room temp? by M1FCJ · · Score: 1
      There is STP, standard temperature and pressure which is 0 degrees C and 1 atm.

      Here's a description:

      http://www.fact-index.com/s/st/standard_temperatur e_and_pressure.html

      And a nice STP-related gas volume calculator

      :http://www.1728.com/stp.htm

      Room temperature is usually taken as 21 degrees C but a comfortable room temperature depends on the people. I'm comfortable around 19-20 degrees and 23-24 feels far too hot. Most of the people feel cold when I'm comfortable.

    11. Re:room temp? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no, that's avoiding giving an answer. Surely a room must melt at some point after which there is no room and thus no room temperature either, yes? Also it can go below zero only that much, yes? So what we get is an admittedly large scale of temperatures (depending on environments ie. room wall material) to give a definition to "room temperature".

  7. But are they... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uning metric or imperial measurments or some strange mix?

    1. Re:But are they... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it gets too hot, maybe they'll have to use Kelvins

    2. Re:But are they... by SEWilco · · Score: 2, Funny

      As with any planetary probe, they are using the scientific standard of the metric system. Of course, as Mercury is smaller than Earth the meter also is smaller. As usual, Earth meters are used until Earth escape velocity is reached. Solar meters are used until the craft decelerates at Mercury. The Mercury meters will then be used for the remainder of the mission.

    3. Re:But are they... by AC-x · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well as long as they don't use feet and inches they should be safe

    4. Re:But are they... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just say "no".
      --Nancy Reagan

  8. Can't we have just one place? by Paulrothrock · · Score: 0, Troll
    The spacecraft team wanted to leave a flag on Mercury to show, for all time, that Americans were there.

    Yes. Because space belongs to America.

    I know it's a pretty big accomplishment, but can't we have one spot in the solar system without our flag on it? Maybe? I mean, it's not like we could colonize Mercury. Could we maybe fly the thing into the sun?

    --
    I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    1. Re:Can't we have just one place? by JosKarith · · Score: 1

      "but can't we have one spot in the solar system without our flag on it"
      What, other than Russia, China, Africa, and the other 90% of the planet that isn't on the North American sub-continent...?

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
    2. Re:Can't we have just one place? by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      No.

    3. Re:Can't we have just one place? by sopuli · · Score: 2, Funny

      The funny thing is that they are going to 'plant' the flag by crashing messenger into Mercury. And here I was thinking that flag-burning was a criminal offence in the USA.

    4. Re:Can't we have just one place? by confused+one · · Score: 1
      but can't we have one spot in the solar system without our flag on it?

      No.

    5. Re:Can't we have just one place? by JPelorat · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's just a marker that we went there, not that we own it. Sheesh, settle down.

      --
      Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
    6. Re:Can't we have just one place? by confused+one · · Score: 1

      Comment 2: Actually, you can colonize Mercury. It wouldn't be easy... but it is conceivable (in a twisted sort of way) to put a colony on the dark side. Oh, btw, the colony would have to move opposite the planets rotation to stay there or else risk extreme sunburn...

    7. Re:Can't we have just one place? by Atzanteol · · Score: 0, Troll

      We did the work, spent the money, etc. You want we should put a friggin french flag there or something?

      You may not have pride in your country, but some of us still have pride enough in ours.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    8. Re:Can't we have just one place? by Prior+Restraint · · Score: 1

      We did the work, spent the money, etc. You want we should put a friggin french flag there or something?

      False dichotomy. One could opt not to put any flag there.

      You may not have pride in your country, but some of us still have pride enough in ours.

      Isn't pride one of the seven deadly sins?

    9. Re:Can't we have just one place? by amliebsch · · Score: 1

      And here I was thinking that flag-burning was a criminal offence in the USA. It definitely is, if you consider laws to be stricken as unconstitutional to be valid.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    10. Re:Can't we have just one place? by daniil · · Score: 1
      The spacecraft team wanted to leave a flag on Mercury to show, for all time, that Americans were there.

      I'd say they are assuming a bit too much. First of all, they are assuming that someday, someone will drop by and find that flag. Secondly, i personally wouldn't be so optimistic as to think that America and its star spangled banner will everywhere and always be remembered. Supposing that a future mission would actually find that flag on Mercury, the odds are that it would only serve to show that someone has already been there.

      --
      Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
    11. Re:Can't we have just one place? by SEWilco · · Score: 1
      This flag=ownership thing could get dangerous. If Gates put the MS flag on the planets, we're screwed!

      We're already on the only planet which he has put his flag on. You going to stay here and hope nothing bad happens?

    12. Re:Can't we have just one place? by antispam_ben · · Score: 1

      False dichotomy. One could opt not to put any flag there.

      I'm hopeful that (more) future spacecraft will have bold company logos on them instead of national flags. THAT would get rid of this silly flag debate. :)

      Isn't pride one of the seven deadly sins?

      Yes, but not everyone has Christian beliefs or has a negative view of pride in one's accomplishments.

      --
      Tag lost or not installed.
    13. Re:Can't we have just one place? by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      There was a story I read once of an astronaut marooned on the Moon. No shortage of oxygen, and water recycling in the suit is efficient, but... the sun...

      A month later the rescue ship arrives at the crash site and sees footprints heading off into the night. And coming over the horizon 180 degrees away from there is a very dusty and extremely tired astronaut :-)

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    14. Re:Can't we have just one place? by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      And here I was thinking that flag-burning was a criminal offence in the USA.

      It definitely is, if you consider laws to be stricken as unconstitutional to be valid. How long was the discussion here on the Pledge of Allegiance? A lot of people seem to consider laws valid, constitutional or no, where flags and things are concerned.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    15. Re:Can't we have just one place? by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Ahhh. One of those "never take pride in your work" folk. Sorry chum, not everyone thinks non-excessive pride is bad. In fact, some even think that excessive humility is bad. And, probably fake, thereby making it excessive self-pride.

    16. Re:Can't we have just one place? by Prior+Restraint · · Score: 1

      I'm hopeful that (more) future spacecraft will have bold company logos on them instead of national flags. THAT would get rid of this silly flag debate. :)

      Oh, I'm sure it'll happen.

      When space travel ramps up, it'll be the corporations that name everything: the IBM Stellar Sphere, the Microsoft Galaxy, Planet Starbucks...

      --The Narrator, Fight Club

      See? Proof by Bartlett's. :-)

      [N]ot everyone has Christian beliefs or has a negative view of pride in one's accomplishments.

      True. I was hedging my bets, though. American jingoists, in my personal (and thus necessarily limited) experience, tend to be the same sort who assert that America is a Christian nation.

    17. Re:Can't we have just one place? by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      False dichotomy. One could opt not to put any flag there.

      We *could*, but why should we? You don't like our flag there? Go take it down and put yours up. Or a UN flag if you're so 'community aware'...

      Isn't pride one of the seven deadly sins?
      Is it? Okay. Um. So what was the point again?

      We have pride in our accomplishments. I'm sorry if you're jealous of our feats, but too bad.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    18. Re:Can't we have just one place? by Prior+Restraint · · Score: 1

      We have pride in our accomplishments. I'm sorry if you're jealous of our feats, but too bad.

      Okay, first of all, I don't remember reading anything in the article about Atzanteol's contribution to the Messenger program, so calling it one of "our" feats is stretching it a bit.

      Second, I'm from Ohio. Insofar as anyone not connected to NASA can take credit for this, I can, too. I just don't see any reason to scatter litter all over the cosmos. "Give a hoot; don't pollute." Remember that one?

      I'd prefer NASA's shrinking budget get spent on things like... oh, let's say... science.

    19. Re:Can't we have just one place? by Prior+Restraint · · Score: 1

      Sorry chum, not everyone thinks non-excessive pride is bad.

      And neither do I.

      Historically speaking, the seven deadly sins weren't supposed to be things you should never do. They were actually considered positive things. What made them deadly is that it seems to be human nature to over-indulge in them, and that can lead to serious problems. The deadly sins were acts that (initially) monks needed to be mindful of within themselves. "All things in moderation," as it were.

      The point, which you seem to have missed, is that I consider this excessive. Now, reasonable men may differ on this, and if you disagree, fine. But don't assume that just because I'm less of a braggart than most, that I take no pride in what I do. Announcing that someone less prideful than you must have no pride at all is yet another false dichotomy.

    20. Re:Can't we have just one place? by Jhan · · Score: 1

      I saw a very nicea idea for a Mercury colony in a story once. What you do is to lay a railroad track around the equator. On the track is, well, a city. The city is pushed around the track by thermal expansion of the rails, so it doesn't even need power.

      --

      I choose to remain celibate, like my father and his father before him.

    21. Re:Can't we have just one place? by confused+one · · Score: 1

      from Red/Green/Blue Mars. Not sure if it was described in Green Mars or Blue Mars... Power and light came from solar collectors in orbit , overhead. Read them too.

    22. Re:Can't we have just one place? by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1

      then why a flag? Why not a plaque that shows where the craft came from? That would probably last longer, and be relevant farther into the future.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    23. Re:Can't we have just one place? by daniil · · Score: 1

      Because the flag is *not* actually meant so much for future generations (from other planets?) to see, but for people living on this planet right now. The message is: "America was here." "America is a great country" -- for not any old country can build and launch a probe to Mercury.

      --
      Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
    24. Re:Can't we have just one place? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
      It's even easier than that. Mercury's axis of rotation is perpendicular to its orbit, so you could build your tracks very near one of the poles so that the sun is just barely obscured by the polar region itself.

      For example, if Mercury's axis were exactly perpendicular, and you wanted to keep stay at least one mile below the horizon, and you round Mercury's radius to 1500 miles, then your track would only have to be about 55 miles away from a pole for a total length of about 345 miles. That's substantially shorter than the 9500 mile equatorial track you'd otherwise have to build, and since the angle of incidence would be much shallower your track wouldn't get nearly as hot during the day.

      Also, since Mercury's day is about 59 Earth days long, a base on a near-polar track would only have to travel about .25 miles per hour. Contrast that with the more spritely 6.7 miles per hour of equatorial speed you'd need to maintain. If the base-moving motor were to break down, a near-polar astronaut could easily manage that pace on foot during an emergency evacuation.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    25. Re:Can't we have just one place? by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      We paid for the thing, we can take pride in it. I don't play for the Red Sox, but I can take pride in the 'home team' winning. Sorry that you feel no connection to our country. You should try, it's really quite nice here.

      And I doubt a flag really cost that much, nor is it that much 'litter' on an entire *planet*.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    26. Re:Can't we have just one place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > We paid for the thing, we can take pride in it. I don't play for the Red Sox, but I can take pride in the 'home team' winning.

      Rampant idiocy.

    27. Re:Can't we have just one place? by heydonms · · Score: 1

      contrary to american belief, the USA doesn't extend to Mercury (or even to most of Earth)

  9. Aerogel is superior, but expensive. by Sovern · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Since aerogels have much higher thermal insulation values than practically any other medium except hard vacuum they are especially excellent insulation candidates in poor to moderate vacuum ranges.

    --
    And it rendered on, until the end of its days.
  10. as long as its room temperature in there, why not toss a few people/monkeys/whatever in with it?

    1. Re:hey by Rei · · Score: 1

      Sure, if you can get them into suspended animation, want to double the weight of the craft, want to have them die of exposure to solar radiation and GCR while in suspended animation, and never want their bodies back again.

      --
      SILENCE BLATHERING TOADIES! We are your new masters.
    2. Re:hey by Bill+Hayden · · Score: 2, Informative

      as long as its room temperature in there, why not toss a few people/monkeys/whatever in with it?

      That would be because it's going to take several years to arrive.

      --
      Protect your browser with the Force Safe Search add-on
    3. Re:hey by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      Room temperature and room pressure are two different things.

  11. peltzer device?! by twiggy · · Score: 2

    Whoa, Peltzer devices? Awesome. I'm not sure how it's going to help us in space, but who am I to say that putting a smokeless ashtray, a juicer and a weird swiss army thing with a toothbrush that shoots out toothpaste onto a space probe is wrong?

    --
    http://www.babysmasher.com
    http://www.openingbands.com
    1. Re:peltzer device?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, those sound really advanced. What is a Peltzer device? Is it something that strips the fur off a mink really quick?
      I hear that for cooling, people use Peltier devices. Not sure how that helps the mink, though.

    2. Re:peltzer device?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, I see you have the +1 battle axe of 80s movie references. Congratulations.

    3. Re:peltzer device?! by carnivore302 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, it's a Peltier device. Peltier devices, also known as thermoelectric (TE) modules, are small solid-state devices that function as heat pumps. A "typical" unit is a few millimeters thick by a few millimeters to a few centimeters square. It is a sandwich formed by two ceramic plates with an array of small Bismuth Telluride cubes ("couples") in between. When a DC current is applied heat is moved from one side of the device to the other - where it must be removed with a heatsink. The "cold" side is commonly used to cool an electronic device such as a microprocessor or a photodetector. If the current is reversed the device makes an excellent heater.


      Click on the Mystery Futures Link!

      --
      Please login to access my lawn
    4. Re:peltzer device?! by twiggy · · Score: 1

      Yea thanks for the explanation.. but you missed the point... it was a reference to the movie Gremlins...

      oh nevermind.. :-p only one person got it.. thanks, person who got it, for replying... hah..

      --
      http://www.babysmasher.com
      http://www.openingbands.com
  12. Since when... by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 1

    Does "always keeping the shield side toward the Sun" count as technology?

    Sorry if I'm skeptical about this stuff... not in the moon hoax sense, but in the building a base on the moon and sending people to Mars sense.

    1. Re:Since when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  13. Careful design by Malc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is this a novelty or something? Why does it even need to be mentioned?

    1. Re:Careful design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is to NASA, or at least thats what 14 dead astronaughts would say about the shuttle!

    2. Re:Careful design by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Well they were just normal-careful before with the Mars probes. But after losing about 60% of them they decided to be double-secret careful with the Mercury probe.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  14. Actually NASA is borrowing cooling technology... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...developed by nVidia for the NV30 launch, but scaled back because they only need to protect Messenger from a class G star as opposed to a modern graphics card.

  15. Go Messenger! by hpulley · · Score: 5, Informative

    While most other planets have been well studied, Mercury has not even had half its surface mapped! Messenger has non-visual light detectors including a laser altimiter which will let it map the whole planet, counteracting its slow rate of rotation. I hope the launch goes well and look forward to the data return. Kudos to NASA for doing some good science on what is considered a less sexy target than some others which seem to hog all the research money.

    --
    $#!^ happens, but why does it always have to happen to me???
    1. Re:Go Messenger! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  16. Yeah, but what about the other side? by FortKnox · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...to keep its electronics at room temperature.

    But what about the other side? Lets ask Roosevelt E Roosevelt:

    Well, thank you, Roosevelt. What's the weather like out there?
    "It's hot. Damn hot! Real hot! Hottest things is my shorts. I could cook things in it. A little crotch pot cooking."
    Well, can you tell me what it feels like?
    "Fool, it's hot! I told you again! Were you born on the sun? It's damn hot! I saw... It's so damn hot, I saw little guys, their orange robes burst into flames. It's that hot! Do you know what I'm talking about?"
    What do you think it's going to be like tonight?
    "It's gonna be hot and wet! That's nice if you're with a lady, but it ain't no good if you're in the jungle."


    Ahh, what a great movie.

    --
    Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
  17. Another mission to Mercury to be in 2012 by zzabur · · Score: 4, Informative

    For more information, see ESA BepiColombo page.

    --
    Auferre trucidare rapere falsis nominibus imperium, atque ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    1. Re:Another mission to Mercury to be in 2012 by Like2Byte · · Score: 1

      I hope it's sooner than that! The Earth will be destroyed before then - something about a galactic super highway.

  18. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  19. Reply from Messenger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    M'Ger: It's getting hot in here, so take off all your clothes.

    P.S. Please send more info on carbon-based units infesting Earth.

  20. Proof of a Male-dominated design? by grunt107 · · Score: 4, Funny

    "...the spacecraft must swing once past Earth, twice past Venus and thrice past Mercury before slowing down enough to slip into orbit around Mercury"

    Her>That's the 2nd time I've seen Mercury! Stop and ask!
    Him>I will not ask for directions! I know where we are now
    Her>I have to pee! And you promised we'd get some Venutian shopping done!

    *NOTE* - It is rather interesting that the craft must maneuver like this to get a stable orbit and not get crushed.

    1. Re:Proof of a Male-dominated design? by RWerp · · Score: 1

      It is rather interesting that the craft must maneuver like this to get a stable orbit and not get crushed.

      They do it to save on fuel: the select carefully a trajectory which makes most use of the planet's gravitational field to propel the spacecraft into desired direction.

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    2. Re:Proof of a Male-dominated design? by confused+one · · Score: 1

      I know you're being funny; but, it's actually a rather elegant solution, when you can't afford to carry enough fuel to use a rocket motor burn, to reduce your velocity.

    3. Re:Proof of a Male-dominated design? by liquidsin · · Score: 3, Funny

      If it was a male-dominated design, I'd like to think it would "slip into" venus, *not* mercury. The fact that it's beating around the bush so much before it finally gets to where it's going speaks more for a design by the fairer sex.

      --
      do not read this line twice.
    4. Re:Proof of a Male-dominated design? by strictnein · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      I think they just do it to show off

    5. Re:Proof of a Male-dominated design? by M1FCJ · · Score: 1
      In the good old days they could to these in one single go and the missions tended to take a couple of months to get there instead of 6-7 years as it took with Casinni and will take with Messenger. They sent smaller payloads with more powerful rockets. When one failed, they sent an other one. Now we will have to wait until 2011 to see if Messenger fails or not.

      All these advances in technology surely must mean that we can pack more in less mass and send bigger mass around the solar system without these lengthy transfers...

    6. Re:Proof of a Male-dominated design? by The+Queen · · Score: 1

      Hey now, I take offense to that! On behalf of sexually-forward females everywhere, I request you take back that remark.

      I don't beat around the bush - unless it's my own. ;-P

      --

      The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
    7. Re:Proof of a Male-dominated design? by cjameshuff · · Score: 1

      They do...but we also have computers that let us do even better by doing a transfer like this. One really big reason to do it this way is that we can do an extended mission rather than a short flyby. Mars and Venus have atmospheres that can be used for aerobraking, and aren't that far from Earth in orbital velocity. Mercury doesn't have an atmosphere, you have to carry enough fuel to do the entire job of insertion into orbit, which for a direct insertion into orbit around Mercury or any of the planets past Mars, is quite a bit of fuel...fuel which takes up mass that could otherwise be devoted to instruments.

  21. No, it's a dumbing down. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The use of "room temperature" in a technical discussion would only be considered by people with room temperature IQs.

  22. Very interesting. by robslimo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I know thermal issues have always been central to spacecraft design, but this sounds like a nicely engineered approach to temperature control.

    I'm reminded of the faulty heater on one of the Mars Rovers. Could such problems be avoided or at least mitigated by use of more passive thermal management (insulation, heat pipes, heat sinking/sourcing)?

    I'm also reminded of the Russian probes to Venus which had uderstandably short lives due to both heat and pressure (possibly corrosive gases as well).

    I'm firmly in the camp that promotes more unmanned probes, maximizing the power of money spent on advancing spacecraft technology and knowledge from expanded exploration rather than blowing it all on the dubious value of letting a person stand on Mars.

    1. Re:Very interesting. by confused+one · · Score: 3, Informative
      The Mars rover heater is a faulty switch, causing the heater to be always on. It's so damn cold on Mars you need heaters on all the joints to keep the lubrication from freezing solid. passive thermal management wouldn't work because it assumes you've got a heat source to draw from. The most passive approach you could apply to the Mars rover would be (would have been) to use radio-thermal heaters at each of the joints.

      Wouldn't work well on Venus either. You need a sink into which to pump the heat. Given the 800F surface temperature, you'd have to do an awful lot of work to pump to an acceptable temperature in the electronics bays. I'm not saying it's impossible, just hard.

      the Mercury mission will work because they're putting a big insulative blanket between the electronics and the sun, to provide shade; and, they're pumping the heat from the electronics bays to the cold side (facing away from the Sun) of the craft where it's -200F

    2. Re:Very interesting. by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

      I'm also reminded of the Russian probes to Venus which had uderstandably short lives due to both heat and pressure (possibly corrosive gases as well).

      Wasnt the main longevity problem due to the batteries and no way to recharge them on the planet?

    3. Re:Very interesting. by robslimo · · Score: 1

      Point taken regarding Venus, but on Mars, there is a heat source in the daytime sun (well, maybe not so much with the declining sunlight in the present season). I was seeing parallels with passive solar heating methods used in efficient homes. "Bank" heat during the daylight hours and allow it dissipate into the needed areas overnight.

      Overall, I guess I see this Mercury mission approach as a nice melding of materials science and mechanical engineering with "rocket science."

    4. Re:Very interesting. by sootman · · Score: 1

      Besides being very hot on venus, it literally rains sulfuric acid.

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    5. Re:Very interesting. by JJ · · Score: 1

      No. It was the atmospheric pressure that crushed these probes like beer cans. The sulphuric acid clouds didn't help either. The electronics was supposedly fairly standard (Soviet) stuff.

      --
      So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
    6. Re:Very interesting. by Cujo · · Score: 1

      Most spacecraft thermal designs are to some extent passive, including MESSENGER. They are using some heat pipes - where it makes sense to use them to minimize heater power. Some of the heaters use software control, but most use series-redundant thermostats - they won't come on inadvertantly unless 2 thermostats fail - a very unlikely occurrence for space-qualified thermostats. If a heater fails, it has a backup.

      --

      Helium balloons want to be free.

  23. Insulation by Hawkeye477 · · Score: 1

    Can someone please tell me where I can buy this special insulation ... my damn electric bill is high as shit!

    --
    My Web Site - www.ocean-liners.com
  24. Explanation by Timesprout · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Even though Mercury is 50 million miles from Earth at closest approach, Messenger will travel 5 billion miles to get there. It's technologically infeasible to fly straight to Mercury, a trip of a few months, and so the spacecraft must swing once past Earth, twice past Venus and thrice past Mercury before slowing down enough to slip into orbit around Mercury.

    Can someone explain why such a convoluted and time consuming route is required?

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
    1. Re:Explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would take way too much fuel to fly straight there. To manage the flight with minimal fuel they're taking advantage of the gravity wells of Earth, Venus, and Mercury.

    2. Re:Explanation by AC-x · · Score: 1

      Because it uses less fuel.

      The more "slingshots" the better, hence the long route.

    3. Re:Explanation by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 4, Informative
      You can launch a giant ship with a giant fuel tank that cost 800 billion dollars, or you can launch a small, reasonably priced craft and use the gravitation of the planets to do your work for you.

      NASA can explain it better: http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/the_mission/mission_de sign.html

      --
      --- Ban humanity.
    4. Re:Explanation by JosKarith · · Score: 1

      It's a shame that the idea of having a set of magnetic accelerator rings in orbit to provide the initial shove is still in the realms of sci-fi.

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
    5. Re:Explanation by edremy · · Score: 4, Funny
      You can't carry enough fuel on the probe to match the orbital velocity and still launch on a small rocket. Mercury's orbital speed is about 47.9 km/sec, Earth's is 29.8 km/sec- you've got to get about 20km/sec (~40,000 mph) from somewhere, and chemical rockets aren't feasible.

      However, you can steal energy from planets using gravity assists. JPL is amazingly good at doing these.

      <tinfoilhat> We do need to worry that JPL is slowly robbing orbital energy from the planets they use. I've been worried about our profligate use of this irreplaceable resource for a long time. Worse, JPL seems to be totally blase about using Earth as one of their prime engines- enough gravity assists and the earth will fall into the sun!

      Join the League to Conserve the Angular Momemtum of Planets today!

      --
      "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
    6. Re:Explanation by adoarns · · Score: 1

      Space travel between planets is usually accomplished by means of an orbital transfer. Visualize: here on Earth, if you want to go somewhere, you point your head in its direction and you go. Fortunately, most everything on Earth is relatively immobile. In space, everything's moving.

      So to get to another planet, you start with a probe orbiting earth, and then you do a burn that basically swings out the orbit so far that it intersects with another planet, where it can get a gravity assist or a gravity brake (depending on what you want) and swing out to another planet. Etc., etc. Then you get to Mars.

      --
      Tenemus pyrobolos atqui jacimus cognitiones.
    7. Re:Explanation by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 3, Informative
      It's not the shove. It's the slowing down part. The gravity assists decelerate the probe until the onboard propellant has a hope of establishing a stable orbit around Mercury. It's a way of tapping the vast potential energy represented by a planetary sized mass.

      Remember, the probe is moving further into the Solar System, so it needs to *decelerate* from Earth-normal angular momentum.

      --
      --- Ban humanity.
    8. Re:Explanation by merlin_jim · · Score: 4, Informative

      Can someone explain why such a convoluted and time consuming route is required?

      It's all about delta-v... how much can you change your velocity?

      Earth orbits the sun at a specific velocity.

      Mercury orbits the sun at a much smaller velocity.

      But in order to fly straight there, you have to counteract all of the orbital velocity you have at earth, then either free fall or thrust to the new location, and then build up the orbital velocity of Mercury to make orbit. That's a lot of delta v, and a lot of working fluid to put into your thrusters. In fact, even if we felt like paying that fuel bill, we don't really have the technology to build a probe large enough to carry all that fuel, or to get that fuel out of Earth's gravity well in the first place.

      So instead what we do is figure out a low-delta v way to launch it, bringing it into the inner solar system and slowing it down on the way. The key to this is slingshot maneuvers - using the gravity wells peppered throughout the solar system to change the direction of velocity without having to spend delta-v on it.

      That and the craft makes use of a little-known feature of relativity; the more energy in your fuel, the heavier it is; if you burn the fuel you have deep in a gravity well, it is quite a bit more effective than it would be in space. This is related to the law that predicts you cannot travel at the speed of light; as you go faster, your intertial mass rises, in such a way that it would take an infinite amount of thrust to reach the speed of light.

      Sure your craft has more inertial mass, too, but you'll be slowing down as you exit the gravity well, leaving your fuel behind you, and that's where the mathematical magic happens.

      --
      I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
    9. Re:Explanation by SEWilco · · Score: 1

      The beginning is going to be hard. The complicated route means that the launch window each day is 13 seconds. Hope for good weather.

    10. Re:Explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A few too many SciFi books, my friend. These spacecraft never exceed about 25,000 miles per hour, which means that relativistic effects are totally and completely negligible. I mean totally. A previous post had the correct explanation.

    11. Re:Explanation by merlin_jim · · Score: 1

      few too many SciFi books, my friend. These spacecraft never exceed about 25,000 miles per hour, which means that relativistic effects are totally and completely negligible. I mean totally

      One of the problems on my physics final was to calculate the difference in delta v measured as a scalar possible in a space craft burning a specific amount of fuel continuously from a tank of such and such capacity, with and without gravity assist. The professor congratulated me in private for being the only student to correctly answer that question.

      The effect was small but noticeable. With lift costs at $10,000 a pound every drop of fuel saved on the mission plan is money in the taxpayers pocket.

      --
      I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
    12. Re:Explanation by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      "Repeat after me, we are all individuals."

      Individuals, some of which do not read much in the way of science.

    13. Re:Explanation by grunt107 · · Score: 1

      Does this work if I run around fat people?

    14. Re:Explanation by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
      Earth's is 29.8 km/sec

      You mean that we're flying through this "space" stuff at Mach 87.5? That's crazy-talk, man! If you're so smart, where's the sonic boom? And what about the poor turtles?

      You kids and your "physics". Bah. When I was your age, we'd glide through the ether, and we liked it that way!

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    15. Re:Explanation by Idarubicin · · Score: 1
      Mercury's orbital speed is about 47.9 km/sec, Earth's is 29.8 km/sec- you've got to get about 20km/sec (~40,000 mph) from somewhere, and chemical rockets aren't feasible.

      Oops--you have to watch for gravitational potential energy. Since you're dropping much closer to the sun, you convert a whole bunch of potential energy into kinetic energy. Back of the envelope says about 1.3 GJ per kilogram, but I could have goofed.

      If I didn't mess up the numbers, then a probe that departs earth travelling 30 km/s picks up an extra ...actually, very nearly another 30 km/s. You actually have to dump some (okay, a lot of) energy.

      Cheers.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    16. Re:Explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't launch a giant ship with a giant fuel tank. It's not possible to get into Mercury orbit with the current propulsion systems. Gravity assist is the only way.

    17. Re:Explanation by Nivag353 · · Score: 1

      Hmm...

      Mercury is closer to the Sun than the Earth, therefore it is in a faster orbit!

      However, since Mercury is lower in the Sun's gravitational well, a rocket decending from Earth's orbit to Mercury's, will convert the difference in potential energy into kinetic energy. As kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the speed of the rocket, increasing the kinetic energy means it will go faster - too much faster. Hence the need to slow it down.

      The parent post is very accurate, apart from the relative speed of Mercury, and the fact that the theory of relativity is not relevant to the discussion.


      -Nivag

    18. Re:Explanation by badman99 · · Score: 0

      Duh, why don't they just use their warp drive....

    19. Re:Explanation by LardBrattish · · Score: 1

      Whatever floats your boat baby.

      --
      What are you listening to? (http://megamanic.blogetery.com/)
    20. Re:Explanation by trixillion · · Score: 1

      Indeed, The problem isn't so much where to get the extra kinetic energy, it is how to dissapate the excess gravitational potential energy.

      IIRC, the the gravitational energy delta is twice as large as the kinetic energy delta.

  25. They totally modded out that bird... by JBMcB · · Score: 2, Funny

    Entec case fans, Swiftech water cooling with dual radiators, Thermaltake fanless PSU, PC Power bay coolers, the works! Lian-Li designed the case to the BTX standard, and the radiation-hardened 486 is overclocked to 100MHz! All they need now is the NASA case badge...

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    1. Re:They totally modded out that bird... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Oh, and don't forget about the quarter-inch layer of Arctic Silver smeared over the whole thing "+0 h31p 1+ c0ndukt0r h3a+".

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    2. Re:They totally modded out that bird... by mrfatmann · · Score: 1

      ...and boots off a floppy disk.

  26. Good Candidate for outsourcing by stecoop · · Score: 1

    [SNIP] Bachtell used X-Acto blades to cut the 3M Nextel fabric and then used an industrial sewing machine to stitch the off-white pieces together into an 8-by-9-foot quilt, using Teflon-coated fiberglass thread. It was a nasty job; the itchy, ceramic-fiber cloth sheds and is bad to inhale.

    You see all these people working on these satellites wearing protective clothing, not to protect the people but to protect the equipment. If we have learned anything thing, it's to protect your lungs and eyes. Imagine breathing that fiberglass and some form of ceramic fibers. I guess it's not popular to wear a $30 respirator when dealing with these exotic substances. For you though; if you feel like wearing one then do it - your not a bigger man breathing fiberglass than not.

    1. Re:Good Candidate for outsourcing by antispam_ben · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You see all these people working on these satellites wearing protective clothing, not to protect the people but to protect the equipment.

      Often it's to protect both the people and the equipment from each other. You may recall the "bad day" a year or rwo ago when a 200 million dollar sattelite under construction fell over (because someone took the platform mounting bolts to use in another project without documenting the removal, and later when they tilted the platform...). Some of the pictures I saw showed yellow tape around it to keep people out, as there was fear that some of the sealed gases would leak from damaged tanks.

      --
      Tag lost or not installed.
  27. Re:Well, that's just dandy! by jav1231 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There will always be homeless and by and large we take of most of our mentally ill. I'd rather spend it on space exploration than pumping some pork into politician's buddies pockets...but then again, we'll have that for awhile too. We all benefit from space exploration. New technologies are discovered, invented, born, what have you.

  28. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  29. With Mercury being the messenger of the gods... by FerretFrottage · · Score: 1

    you'd think that it would be easier for him to come to us. Nevertheless, it's nice to see that we are taking the first step in establishing contact.

    --
    "Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
    1. Re:With Mercury being the messenger of the gods... by SEWilco · · Score: 1

      ...he moves so fast that the mission will take seven years to catch up with him.

  30. NASA's big surprise by moosesocks · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Nasa's in for a big surprise when the spacecraft gets there and they decide to fire up messenger.exe

    But don't worry... the spacecraft hasn't crashed. It's simply hidden in the taskbar!

    --
    -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
  31. Re:Actually NASA is borrowing cooling technology.. by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

    we better thank our lucky star that the Sun is not about to be overclocked...

  32. NASA brings you Messenger... by archetypeone · · Score: 2, Funny

    Proudly sponsored by MSN!

  33. I'm still waiting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...for a probe of URANUS.

    1. Re:I'm still waiting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      been there, done that and it was quite pleasurable as well. i suggest it to anyone.

    2. Re:I'm still waiting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already did...
      Didn't you see the headlines?

      "NASA Finds clouds of noxious gas around...Uranus!"
      "NASA Find Klingons around...Uranus"

      I'm glad I didn't have their job!

  34. Too much technology by keoghp · · Score: 2, Funny

    All that technology - what a waste. The cost too!

    If they had sent it at night...

    --
    For problems, seek only the simplest solution, complexity brings with it more problems.
  35. I'll take that bet by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Quoth the poster:
    I bet that the flight plans include hiding the other side of planets/moons for as long as possible to take advantage of all that lovely shade.
    Space is mighty big. Shadows are few and far between. When you have a spacecraft that has to take 11 suns beating on its face for months at a time during cruise, why would a mission designer compromise his science by trying to pass behind bodies just for the shade? (For gravity-assist maneuvers, yes. Shade, no.)
    ... if fuel wasn't a consideration I bet they'd love to run straight up Mercury's shadow and just park in it.
    If you parked in Mercury's shadow you wouldn't be able to do any analysis that requires good light (like spectroscopy to determine mineral composition) nor would you be able to watch any day-side phenomena like observing the rate of warming and thus the thermal conductivity of the surface.
    1. Re:I'll take that bet by static0verdrive · · Score: 1

      nor would you be able to watch any day-side phenomena like observing the rate of warming and thus the thermal conductivity of the surface

      Yes, but as I understand it, Mercury's revolutionary orbit is in sync with it's axis rotations, meaning the sunny side is always the sunny side, so there wouldn't be any warming, it's as hot as $#@& and as hot as it will ever be already!

      --
      ========
      77 77 77 2e 6d 65 6c 76 69 6e 73 2e 63 6f 6d
    2. Re:I'll take that bet by static0verdrive · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, before you blast me, I may have been thinking about our moon, which also does that - and now I can't remember if Mercury acts the same way...

      --
      ========
      77 77 77 2e 6d 65 6c 76 69 6e 73 2e 63 6f 6d
    3. Re:I'll take that bet by M1FCJ · · Score: 2, Informative
      this is a common misconception. Mercury is not in tidal-lock with sun. It rotates slowly and for three Mercury years, it has two Mercury days but it does rotate and sunny side is not always the same side.

      This has interesting side effects like Sun popping out from East, moving towards west, halting, moving backwards down again and then raising for a second time before moving across the sky.

  36. Careful design and orbit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Forgive me if I'm incorrect but even a single orbit around the planet would burn up the satellite. The planet doesn't spin so there would be no way to see the hot side without burning up. The satellite would need to establish some sort of orbit around the planet just so it would stay in place but it seems to me the visit would be VERY short.

    1. Re:Careful design and orbit? by Gilthalas · · Score: 4, Informative

      The planet does indeed spin - Mercury rotates on its axis 1.5 times per solar orbit (see http://www.solarviews.com/eng/mercury.htm). Because of this 3:2 resonance, a Mercury solar day (sunrise to sunrise) is equivalent to 176 Earth days.

      So what this means is that for every Earth year Messenger is orbit, 4 Mercury Years will pass, which consists of 2 Mercury Solar Days (see http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/the_mission/mission_de sign.html.

      This gives the spacecraft many passes over the light and dark side of the planet, so much that they can spend one (Mercury) day doing global mapping and the second (Mercury) day doing targeted science investigations.

      In terms of heat - the highly elliptical, near polar orbit is designed so that the heat shield always faces the sun, giving the instruments a nice room temperature setting on the other side of the shield. There is the possibility of heat from the surface, but the instruments are designed to take that into account.

      --

      Gilthalas
      Software Engineer, Space Dept, JHU/APL
      Support Space Science!
  37. Anyone else reminded of Brin's Sundiver by merlin_jim · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I like their cooling solution much better; high temperature superconductors and peltiers to move the heat to a central location, where the kinetic energy is used to power a communications laser.

    Too bad our current superconducting technology is scaling more slowly the higher temperature it gets. What we're currently calling "high temperature" means room temp. We'll make it there eventually. But without a whole new technology (nanotech anyone?) we'll never make superconductors that remain super conducting at temperatures much higher than that.

    But what about a laser powered by heat? Can it happen without having to reach the ionization temperature of the lasing medium? Anyone have any insight?

    --
    I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
    1. Re:Anyone else reminded of Brin's Sundiver by Ignignot · · Score: 2, Informative

      But what about a laser powered by heat? Can it happen without having to reach the ionization temperature of the lasing medium? Anyone have any insight?

      Now I am not a laser scientist (IANALS) but I am an electrical engineer. Almost all lasers are powered by heat, in a roundabout way. Power generators usually use a heat differential to produce a circular motion which is turned into electricity. Electricity goes to your laser and makes it go. So yes, a laser can be powered by heat. I don't think it can be done directly, and attaching a steam power plant to a satellite would be a little bizzare.

      I assume that your goal here isn't to produce electricity because solar panels do a good job without all this fuss. Instead I assume the laser is to keep the spacecraft cool. Now stay with me while I describe heat transfer. There are two ways that an object can stay cool - either by bleeding heat into surrounding medium (none or very very little in space) or radiate it away. The radiation emitted is directly related to what is absorbed. For example, white absorbs little and emits little. Black absorbs a lot and radiates a lot. So to keep your spacecraft cool you could just paint the side towards the sun white (or mirror) and paint the side away from the sun black. Or you can do what NASA did and put a heat shield in front of the spacecraft with very little connection between the two. Sure it'll get hot, but the small connection means that there won't be much heat transfer between the heat sensitive electronics and the very hot shield. Its all about effeciency.

      --
      I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
    2. Re:Anyone else reminded of Brin's Sundiver by bhima · · Score: 1

      They could use a Sterling, but I guess moving parts in space are not such a good idea...

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    3. Re:Anyone else reminded of Brin's Sundiver by merlin_jim · · Score: 1

      There are two ways that an object can stay cool - either by bleeding heat into surrounding medium (none or very very little in space) or radiate it away

      That's what the heat powered laser is for. If you have some high efficiency way to turn that heat energy into light, you can then transmit it away at high speed.

      I briefly considered the steam plant idea (actually I was thinking about the solid state version of same)... but there are too many inefficiencies in that process, you would be putting out only a small fraction of the heat you are bringing in.

      The key is to make the laser some factor hotter than the ship... for instance, if the laser is 50% efficient, then it would have to be twice as hot as the mean temperature of the ship in order for its radiance to carry away enough heat to cool the ship.

      Actually it's quite a bit more complicated than that; in reality, you have to bleed out every watt that's coming in, somewhere.

      --
      I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
    4. Re:Anyone else reminded of Brin's Sundiver by Ignignot · · Score: 1

      If you have some high efficiency way to turn that heat energy into light, you can then transmit it away at high speed.Which is exactly what I was suggesting with the high tech answer of "paint one side black and the other white"

      When you do that the white side absorbs only a little of incoming heat, and then it is transferred by contact to the black side, which transmits the heat away pretty well. Yes, you don't have any "lasers" and you can't send any information or zap aliens this way, but all it requires is a can of Benjamin Moore and a roller.

      --
      I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
    5. Re:Anyone else reminded of Brin's Sundiver by merlin_jim · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When you do that the white side absorbs only a little of incoming heat, and then it is transferred by contact to the black side, which transmits the heat away pretty well.

      Hmmm... maybe phase-change solid-state heatpipes would help this even more; integrate them directly with the material of the ship...

      As a matter of fact that may be a good technique for any space ship, to guarantee that no part of the ship gets too hot or too cold.

      --
      I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
    6. Re:Anyone else reminded of Brin's Sundiver by Ignignot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I am not sure heatpipes would work because they use different densities of the heat transfer medium (like water or air) to cycle it. While the mediums will still have different densities, they won't move at all because there would be no gravity. I guess you could spin the spacecraft, and that would produce a similar effect. However I think that the movement of the medium would eventually screw up the spin of the spacecraft until it became an uncontrolled tumble - bad. You could counteract this with gyros or thrusters I guess. Complicated. :-)

      --
      I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
    7. Re:Anyone else reminded of Brin's Sundiver by sexylicious · · Score: 1

      But what about a laser powered by heat? Can it happen without having to reach the ionization temperature of the lasing medium? Anyone have any insight? You'd not have to worry at all about the ionization temperature.

      When designing a laser, the only thing you need to worry about is what energy levels are stable for the medium you are working with. For example, in a solid state laser, you have a material that has an energy level which can quite easily be populated by adding electrons. The level is somewhat unstable (you gotta always have the capability of spontaneous emission), and so you have to continuously pump the lasing material.

      In a CO2 laser, you continuously pump the CO2 to vibrate. The molecule will only vibrate at certain frequencies. Your CO2 molecule will relax after it emits a photon, if the vibrational mode is at the correct energy level. You get enough CO2 molecules pumped and you'll get lasing.

      In a chemical laser, you have the same principle. Some chemical reaction produces an excited state of some molecule or atom and that excited state gives off a photon. The pumping mechanism is based on a chemical reaction.

      In all three cases, the lasing medium may be the actual pumped material, or it may be something that is close in energy levels to the excited levels in the pumped material.

      Also, the goal is purely to get many atoms/molecules to be in an excited state (more than in the ground state). It's this condition that is called a population inversion. A population inversion is needed so that you can get to a point where you have a lot of atoms/molecules giving off photons at nearly the same time. Those photons then either hit other atoms/molecules, or they are released with other photons to make the laser beam.

    8. Re:Anyone else reminded of Brin's Sundiver by c4miles · · Score: 1

      The solution to this is to use wicks for the liquid: capillary motion draws liquid in, evaporation causes gas to flow out.

      IIRC one of my university professors designed something like this for one of the early Cray mainframes.

    9. Re:Anyone else reminded of Brin's Sundiver by merlin_jim · · Score: 1

      You'd not have to worry at all about the ionization temperature.

      When designing a laser, the only thing you need to worry about is what energy levels are stable for the medium you are working with.


      I'm familiar with the principles behind the operation of a laser, thank you.

      I've even built a TEA nitrogen and a flowing CO2 laser myself.

      My point about the ionization temperature is that is one definite way to hit population inversion. You hit the right temperature, your lasing medium becomes a plasma and starts emitting photons...

      I was just wondering if there was another way to go about building a laser that operated solely on heat...

      --
      I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
    10. Re:Anyone else reminded of Brin's Sundiver by sexylicious · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm familiar with the principles behind the operation of a laser, thank you.

      I hope this isn't meant to sound pissy on your part. I did not intend to come across as lecturing or condescending. I thought I was coming across as helpful and friendly.

      You could use a thermal cycle as you stated. Though I don't think it would be very efficient. The likely candidate would be a brayton cycle because it would be more easily engineered on a spacecraft than the ideal carnot cycle.

      However, I think it would be more feasible to use some kind of conductive mesh that has individual molecules or atoms trapped in the lattice of the mesh. I was thinking a mesh solely for the surface area you would have.

      Another option may be a thin resonating chamber filled with a gas that just happens to resonate at the same energy level as your gas. The gas cools your heat shields and uses the peltier effect to flow in low gravity. Your gas would be a coolant and a lasing medium. I think the only serious issue here is cooling of the gas too much. I don't know that you'd necessarily need an optical shutter either; just have the gas constantly lasing.

  38. As far as technology goes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As far as technology goes I prefer checklists over careful design any day.

  39. Living on Mercury by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 1

    I've read analyses which say that the poles of Mercury have permanently shadowed areas which are close to sunlit zones (for power) and just might contain water ice. So yes, it may be possible for people to live there. (Getting on and off would be difficult due to the density; the kinetic energy energy of orbit is proportional to the density, so you couldn't use a LEM-equivalent lander despite the rough equivalence of the size.)

  40. Ownership of space by philbert26 · · Score: 2, Informative
    It's just a marker that we went there, not that we own it. Sheesh, settle down.

    Correct. According to article II of the Outer Space treaty (signed by the USA): "Outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means."

    1. Re:Ownership of space by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1
      I am perfectly aware that no nation can own space. However, why should we put flags all over it? Why not the UN flag, or some other symbol that this thing is from the third rock out? Why should we be so proud that we're from one corner of a speck instead of another?

      I am not a Pennsylvanian or an American, but a citizen of the world.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    2. Re:Ownership of space by philbert26 · · Score: 1
      I am perfectly aware that no nation can own space. However, why should we put flags all over it? Why not the UN flag, or some other symbol that this thing is from the third rock out? Why should we be so proud that we're from one corner of a speck instead of another?

      Earlier you said "can't we have one spot in the solar system without our flag on it?" I thought that made you American.

      Anyway, your argument scales quite nicely. If we shouldn't be proud that our corner of a speck put a probe on Mercury, then why should we be proud any part of our speck did it? It's just a speck, after all.

      UN flag, bah. You narrow minded Terrans...I am a citizen of the universe!

    3. Re:Ownership of space by JPelorat · · Score: 1

      Ok, time to leash the hyperbole.. in case you hadn't noticed, space is *big*. There's lots of it. We're not putting flags "all over it" by any means.

      Two flag decals on a heat shield on a single bus-sized probe on a PLANET does not justify your hysterics. It signifies the device's origin. It has a historical purpose if nothing else.

      Are you gonna whine this much when the Chinese start getting out there too with their own vehicles and flags and stuff? Or is it just that there's going to be a *US* flag somewhere on an uninhabitable planet that burns your gut?

      --
      Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
    4. Re:Ownership of space by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1

      yes. I will complain when it's the chinese. Not because I'm anti-American, but because I'm anti-nationalist. A pictogram showing the craft and its planet of origin would be sufficient to show where it's from, kinda like what was on the Voyager probes. That would serve the purpose better, because a flag could come from anywhere, and if someone finds it in the far future, the US might not even exist anymore, but Earth will exist for a long, long time.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    5. Re:Ownership of space by JPelorat · · Score: 1

      Again, whatever. It's not a Voyager-style mission, it's there to take pictures and analyze things.

      And when the rest of the planet starts chipping in on the cost of these missions, maybe we'll start getting more Terra-centric. Till then, the US built it, they can put whatever they want on it. A US flag, or a The Cheat sticker.

      Basically, it's pointless to be disturbed about what decals are or are not on the thing. It's not there to serve as a point of contact. It's not even there as a monument that the US sent a probe there. The decals are incidental.

      Why have them? - Why not? Having them or not makes no difference in the long run. So why get upset about it?

      If you want to make a difference, focus on events right here at home, not whether some machine destined for a burnball of a planet has got a US flag painted on it somewhere.

      --
      Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
    6. Re:Ownership of space by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1
      If you want to make a difference, focus on events right here at home, not whether some machine destined for a burnball of a planet has got a US flag painted on it somewhere.

      It's a symptom of what's wrong with the world today: Nationalist rhetoric that perpetuates injustice in the world. Why take pride in being "us" unless we're better than other people? And if we're better, maybe we should invade and help those poor saps become like us. Or else!

      I'm not trying to change the sticker on the probe. I'm just saying why does it have to be a US flag sticker? Why can't it be something global?

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    7. Re:Ownership of space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until some country can get there... And defend it. Don't be naive. :P

    8. Re:Ownership of space by JPelorat · · Score: 1

      Mainly for the same reason that when you see a Toyota vehicle, it's got a Toyota logo on it. Etc.

      The US is the manufacturer, sponsor, and controller of this particular probe. When the UN kicks up an equivalent to NASA and all member nations contribute to its projects, then it can have a global marker. Until then, flags of individual nations will adorn various space projects.

      I just don't see that it's causing the damage you apparently think it is. *shrug*

      --
      Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
  41. NASA Website for Messenger by tpdei · · Score: 4, Informative

    For those that care, here's the link for the NASA site on Messenger. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/main/i ndex.html

  42. Blatant commercialism... by the+darn · · Score: 2, Funny

    I know the future of exploration is in the private sector, but must NASA pander so obviously to its industrial sponsors? At least the craft's design is pretty cool... http://new-cars.com/concept/2003/mercury-messenger -concept-photos.html

    --
    Ceci n'est pas un post.
  43. Re:Actually NASA is borrowing cooling technology.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, you could do it if you wanted.

  44. The really amazing thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...isn't the 5 gigamile trip. It's the launch window. They have a 12 second launch window to either launch it or wait for the next 12 second window-- the next day, at the earliest. Because of the multiple fly-bys, the math gets a little complicated, and error tends to cascade towards failure.

    Talk about performance anxiety!

    Wife: OK Honey, I'm ready. You've got 12 seconds.

    Enough for a high school boy, I imagine, but not us mighty slash dotters, right? ;-)

    1. Re:The really amazing thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That all depends on just how many 12-second windows you've actually, er, um, nailed and how recently. In this case, I'd say that practice makes imperfect...

  45. My friend is the launch engineer for Messenger by Luminary+Crush · · Score: 1

    So, let's hope he doesn't screw this one up! Don't press the red button....whatever it does, don't press it!

    Here's an article with a bit more info than the quoted CNN story:

    http://planetary.org/news/2004/messenger_ready-to- launch_0715.html

  46. What Movie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clue in the Clueless??

    1. Re:What Movie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good Morning Vietnam

  47. Re:Well, that's just dandy! by Sgs-Cruz · · Score: 1
    Where's the GET SOME PRIORITIES troll now that we REALLY need him?
    Obviously in front of your computer, duh...
    --

    Karma: pi (Mostly due to circular reasoning in posts).

  48. At least there's lots of sunlight... by MonkeyCookie · · Score: 1

    ...so this mission doesn't have to worry about providing power like the missions to the outer planets. There should be more solar power than they could possibly want. That's probably why the solar panels are 1/3 solar cells and 2/3 mirrors.

    Of course, they have other problems that don't occur on outer planet missions like making sure your space craft doesn't melt.

  49. From the folks who brought you NEAR by _randy_64 · · Score: 1

    That would be The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, where I used to work. NEAR was the Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous, the spacecraft that landed on an asteroid (a year or two ago?). I know a number of the people from APL involved in the project. There's a pretty detailed article in our local paper (local to JHU/APL) that describes more of the background. And of course their Messenger website is informative too.

    --
    I mod down all the "free iPod"-sig losers.
  50. But isn't "room temp" on Mercury still REALLY hot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean, I've never been to any of their rooms, but I have to imagine that getting something like ELEVEN TIMES the heat that Earth gets would tend to warm things up a bit...

  51. "Superiority" depends on the application by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 1
    Aerogels have one flaw, and that is that they are rigid (and not particularly strong). The job definitely requires the ability to survive launch vibrations, and may also need to conform to the shape of other parts of the spacecraft. For this, a ceramic quilt might well do a better job than aerogel.

    A factor that I can't judge is that many aerogels are made of silica, which has a much lower melting point than ceramics like alumina; it may be that the available aerogels were not sufficiently heat-resistant to do the job.

  52. Re:Well, that's just dandy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, if your suggesting that we send the mentally-ill, drug-addicted, homeless terrorists to Mercury I'll let you know right now I'm AGAINST it! We've GOT to start standing up to you "if they ain't like us we gotta kick 'em out!" types ONCE and FOR ALL!!

  53. Heat limited the lifetime of Venus landers by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 2, Informative
    (Note, previous response is wrong.)

    The Venera landers were able to make it down to the surface, and IIRC one or two of them actually sent back pictures for a while. Their lifespans were very strictly limited by their insulation; as heat soaked in there was no way to pump it out again, and it did not take long before the electronics were too hot to function.

    1. Re:Heat limited the lifetime of Venus landers by canavan · · Score: 2, Informative

      Of those that actually reached the surface, almost all worked until their batteries ran out or the Spacecraft bus which was used as a relay left radio range, whichever happened first. If I'm not mistaken, the early ones were cracked by pressure and not cooked - the immense pressure on the surface wasn't known until Venera 7. There's a very interesting website on the russian missions to Venus. And at least Venera 9, 10 13 and 14 returned pictures from the surface, that's 4.

    2. Re:Heat limited the lifetime of Venus landers by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Of course, one could argue that because the temperature of the surface was so high the craft designers didn't bother with any power source longer-lasting than the batteries in the craft.

      Equipment that can function at 800C in acidic conditions isn't easy to obtain. Also - assuming you could make the equipment last, what would you use for power? Not solar - not enough sunlight. Not batteries - maybe we could make it last 2-10X longer, but not more than a day or two. Even nuclear is difficult unless the pile is VERY hot - a RTG requires a hot pile and a source of cold to power a thermocouple. The problem is that the pile won't be a whole lot hotter than the surface. I'm sure it could work, but now you have even more heat on the craft.

      Face it - venus is not a very survivable habitat. I'm sure we could do more there, but it is a lot more expensive to explore than mars.

  54. That explanation smells funny by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 1
    One of the problems on my physics final was to calculate the difference in delta v measured as a scalar possible in a space craft burning a specific amount of fuel continuously from a tank of such and such capacity, with and without gravity assist. The professor congratulated me in private for being the only student to correctly answer that question.
    Did you need to use GR calculations? Sounds like a non-sequitur to me.

    I'll bet that Newtonian physics was good enough, and GR corrections would have been down by the 5th decimal place or lower. It is barely possible to measure GR effects in the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, let alone in the delta-V from leaving your burned fuel lower in a gravity well.

    1. Re:That explanation smells funny by merlin_jim · · Score: 1

      I recall using them. It was long enough ago that I can't tell you whether I needed them... though it sticks out in my mind as being a surprising answer.

      --
      I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
  55. Mercury rotation is in 3:2 sync with its year by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 1
    Mercury rotates 1.5 times for each orbit around the Sun (note, relative to space and not the Mercury-Sun line), so at each perihelion it shows the opposite face to the light. Thus a Mercury "day" is 2 Mercury "years".

    I don't know if the ellipticity of Mercury's orbit is such that the apparent motion of the Sun can reverse, and I'm not about to go digging for all the numbers when I have paying work to do. Maybe you can either document it or refute it.

    1. Re:Mercury rotation is in 3:2 sync with its year by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

      Wo-hooo, got the ratio wrong :( Thanks for the correction. |-)

  56. Cool, but what do Disc & TLC show instead... by syslog · · Score: 1
    What annoys the crap out of me is that with all this cool science available just begging to be explained to us unwashed masses, what do Discover & TLC show? Home decoration and plastic surgery shows. Aaaargh! I need a real science channel!

    naeem

  57. What room? by xski · · Score: 1

    to keep its electronics at room temperature."

    rtta

    -x

  58. Ratings my boy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Discovery channel hasn't been about science in a good 6 years. TLC has never had any scientific content, only pseudo-science. The reason is simple ... real science is boring and the progress is slow.

    If you want realtime feed of the launch you can log on to the NASA channel @ http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html

  59. Exactly! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's like pissing in the snow. It's a guy thing you know.

  60. I'd mod you up by RoboProg · · Score: 1

    If I had the points today. Interesting idea about the polar route.

    --
    Yow! I'm supposed to have a plan?
  61. Your memory is probably foggy by joggle · · Score: 1
    I have taken a course on orbital mechanics (in addition to a couple years of physics) and was never required to use General Relativity for solving an orbital-mechanics type problem. While it can be considered by advanced software like STK, it would never be for just a back-of-the-envelope calculation. For that level of precision you would first have to consider the perturbing forces of solar radiation, 3rd body forces (which I believe has been proven to be impossible to solve for explicitely--numerical methods must be used), black-body radiation pressure generated by the spacecraft, etc. In other words, you either need infinite time or a (fairly complex) computer program.

    The hard part of the problem you were given was the continous burn since that makes a simple problem that can be solved explicitely into a numerical-methods problem that is pretty involved if you don't have a programmable calculator. I don't recall ever being given that question (it's pretty unrealistic too since, to date, there has only been one spacecraft that has used a continous-burn engine). Unless this was a take-home test (in which event kudos to you for solving such a difficult problem which a general Physics course usually wouldn't go that in depth) or your memory is a bit foggy--or you wasted your effort on such a trivial peturbance of its orbit.

    1. Re:Your memory is probably foggy by merlin_jim · · Score: 1

      Unless this was a take-home test

      It was a take-home test for a learning-by-satellite course, because my high-school didn't offer AP Physics. And this was the obvious "you're not going to pass every question on MY final!" question...

      Yeah continuous burn you'll never see in real life, but it's pretty much required to solve this kind of problem using only techniques learned in Physics 101... the hard part, as I recall, was integrating the time dilation factor over the course of the slingshot.

      And keep in mind it was simplified; we were to consider only the spacecraft and an airless featureless world of mass x. This is one of those "Let's assume the horse is a sphere" kind of problems. No three body gravitations, no solar radiation, no black-body radiation pressure, no relativistic drag from blue-shift.

      Actually now that I'm thinking about it, I never compared the velocities involved to any real life situations. I know the mass was that of Jupiter... and the acceleration was 1G continuous from earth, using water as reaction mass expelled at .01c (consider the water to be subject to the newtonian laws of physics... another horse-to-sphere simplification). That's a long time to be accelerating 9.98 m/s*s...

      Maybe this example doesn't apply to real vessels? I'm beginning to think not... at least until we find a cheap and plentiful reservoir of water outside the earth's gravity well and some miracle engine to push it out very quickly for months...

      --
      I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
    2. Re:Your memory is probably foggy by joggle · · Score: 1

      The reason I mentioned you would have to calculate all those other forces before considering GR is because they have orders-of-magnitude more effect on the satellite's trajectory than GR, so it would be silly and a waste of time to consider GR and not the others. That also sounds like the problem had some unrealistic assumptions about acceleration. First, the acceleration from Jupiter isn't continuous (even using Newtonian physics), it's proportional to the distance between the objects. Second, it's plain silly to ignore the gravitational force from the sun while en route to Jupiter since it will be the main force (like 99.999%) until the satellite is within Jupiter's field of influence (about 10 Jupiter diameter away if I recall correctly). Also, an instantaneous burn is much easier to calculate than a continuous burn because it then doesn't require integration of differential equations (assuming the problem was to have any semblance to reality). There's also the question of what type of trajectory the vehicle was on to reach Jupiter. With a instantaneous burn, you're on the same trajectory all the way there (either an arbitrary hyperbolic or an elliptic). With a continuous burn the trajectory changes constantly as you keep adding energy to the system (not easy to consider on a pen-and-paper test!).

  62. Re:Actually NASA is borrowing cooling technology.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought the casemods were why it glowed.

    I've been trying to reproduce the prominences on my box, but I can only get any given case to do it once.

  63. Why? by Montymouse · · Score: 1

    So who else is missing the big picture? I mean, if we can insulate an alloy against temperatures that extreme, why isn't my RAM running at 4ghz? huh?

    1. Re:Why? by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

      they're insulating a capsule against an external heat source. their ram isn't running at 4GHz either.

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
  64. Movie Reference by SkiifGeek · · Score: 1

    For those lacking taste, the reference is to Good Morning, Vietnam

  65. Re:Cool, but what do Disc & TLC show instead.. by aggiefalcon01 · · Score: 1

    Don't forget Monster Garage, Monster House, Monster Car, Monster Bike, uh ... etc. This infotainment is all about entertaining the plebians, while pretending to inform every once in a while.

    I also lement the direction the Discovery Channel, TLC, etc, have gone.

    --
    Global warming is neither science, nor politics. It is a religion.
  66. Said website... by General+Alcazar · · Score: 1
    Here is the site: http://www.mentallandscape.com/V_DigitalImages.htm

    This guy spent a lot of time optimizing these imgages, and offers a very cool site about the Soviet Venera program in general. Very cool stuff.

  67. aerobraking? by hpulley · · Score: 1

    Aerobraking was used by Mars Global Surveyor (still in orbit but only needed aerobraking initially) but no other spacecraft has used it since. I assume their analysis of the technique has lead them back to using reentry rockets instead. I'm not saying they won't work but if they'd been the cat's meow on MGS then they'd have used them everywhere, like they've now gone with airbags on the Twin Rovers.

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