Capturing Genesis

cbull writes "USA Today has an article about practice for the attempts to capture the Genesis capsule. Helicopter stunt pilots will have 5 chances to capture the 400-lb. capsule. Military pilots were unavailable, due to the 6-year commitment required."

Comments

Not again!

[Dirtside]

Some kind of Genesis device? KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!

Re:Not again!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean: "Some.... kind... of... Genesis.... device?"

Re:Not again!

[Kent Recal]

KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!

Re:Not again!

[ScottGant]

"So you're all astronauts on some sort of... star trek?"

Re:Not again!

[TheLittleJetson]

this one's better:

http://jumptokahnclusions.ytmnd.com/

400lbs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Spock put on some weight.

Re:400lbs?

[holderofthering]

what language will he speak this time? atlantic?

Hmm... sounds tricky

[petra13]

The stunt pilots say their biggest challenge will be flying at 40 mph nearly a mile over the Utah desert without any visual reference points to judge distance or speed as they close in with hook and cable on the capsule, which will be descending 400 feet a minute at a forward speed of 20 mph.

So will the capsule get bonus points if it takes out one of the helicopters without the pilots seeing it first?

Re:Hmm... sounds tricky

[MikeMacK]

Because of that, the pilots rate the difficulty of the maneuver at an 8 or 9 on a scale to 10.

So, what the hell rates a 10?

Re:Hmm... sounds tricky

[Proud like a god]

Doing it blindfolded? ;-)

Re:Hmm... sounds tricky

[sigxcpu]

trying to do it while being shot at.

Re:Hmm... sounds tricky

[erick99]

I don't know about bonus points but I wouldn't want the pressure of trying to catch this thing while half the world watches:

The civilian pilots have replicated the retrieval without fumbles in dozens of practice runs, but are terrified of flubbing it live on NASA television with a worldwide feed.

Hell, I'll be watching! How often do you get to see a helicopter try to catch space puke?

Cheers,

Erick

Re:Hmm... sounds tricky

[Anonymous Coward]

> So, what the hell rates a 10?

As pilot Tom Paris experienced: a 10 out of 10 maneuver would be flying in some sort of quantum state where you capture memories by pure chance of instantly visiting all over the place.

I know Voyager wasn't the best ST series but at least you could have watched it once to prove your nerdyness. Tom also taught hopeless nerds how to get a girlfriend, simply put up with a aggressive woman who beats YOU around.

Re:Hmm... sounds tricky

[xSauronx]

flying into the death start and blowing it up...in a helicopter

as obviously its rather easy to do in even a dated starship...

Re:Hmm... sounds tricky

[Deadstick]

So, what the hell rates a 10?

Landing on an aircraft carrier at night.

rj

Re:Hmm... sounds tricky

[Kevin108]

To make it a 10 they do the manuever with no tail rotor.

Re:Hmm... sounds tricky

[mnemonic_]

On a pitching deck, in stormy weather and high crosswinds...

Re:Hmm... sounds tricky

[AndroidCat]

So, what the hell rates a 10?

Doing it without a helicopter?

Re:Hmm... sounds tricky

[falken0905]

With a US president in the jump seat and all the press in the world covering it live.

Re:Hmm... sounds tricky

[fireman sam]

"instantly visiting all over the place"

I was under the impression that this is what happened to the pilot if they failed in their attempt to do a 10 out of 10 maneuver.

SPLAT

Re:Hmm... sounds tricky

[mollyhackit]

That would be pulling a Mission Impossible Chunnel flight. Breaking the laws of physics really cranks up the difficulty.

Re:Hmm... sounds tricky

[grantdh]

So, what the hell rates a 10?

Landing on an aircraft carrier at night.

Ahh yes, thus the famous saying:

"The three best things in life are a good landing, a good orgasm, and a good bowel movement. The night carrier landing is one of the few opportunities in life where you get to experience all three at the same time."

Damn I'd love to try that!

I've got the training!

[twenty-exty-six]

Where do I sign up. I've spent months working on an intense helicopter simulator, fine-tuning my skills to perfection.

Re:I've got the training!

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I initially read that as "helicopter urinator."

Cause that's... that's dangerous, man. Take it from someone who's been there.

Re:I've got the training!

[christophla]

If their attempt is anywhere near as difficult as that damn flash game, i wish them luck!

Re:I've got the training!

[jabberwock]

It's 12:10 a.m. on Monday, and I really, really, really hate you. Posting an addictive game to /. ... there's a very special place in hell withyour login already entered.

When will they learn?

[Anonymous Coward]

Protomatter is unstable! It was a mistake to use it.

Re:When will they learn?

[ScrewMaster]

Yes, but it solved certain difficulties.

Re:When will they learn?

[mnemonic_]

Protomatter 4 lyfe.

Bigger Parachute

[dretay]

Is anyone else wondering why the container has to be caught in midair? Why can't the capsule have larger parachutes or a balloon structure attached to it?

Re:Bigger Parachute

[exi1ed0ne]

"If the Genesis capsule hits the ground hard, scientists say they'd have to spend months sorting through broken jewelry-studded disks holding tiny solar wind particles."

Reading is fundamental

Re:Bigger Parachute

[vandoravp]

Another article in some other paper (sorry no link) said that they did not want to risk any kind of touch down since it was carrying actual samples. Any significant shock could damage the sample container which would lead to either a loss of particles or contamination-not good either way. They're just playing it safe and doing away with that kind of landing all together. Besides, it's damn cool.

Re:Bigger Parachute

[betelgeuse-4]

"If the capsule were to descend all the way to the ground, [the wafers used to trap the particles] might fracture or break away from their mountings; hence, the midair retrieval by helicopter ..."

Re:Bigger Parachute

[wired_parrot]

I understand their need to reduce shock, but I would think a properly designed system with parachutes and balloons to absorb the impact, proven technology that's been used in the mars lander missions, would work just as well with less risk.

Catching the capsule mid-air with a hollywood helicopter stunt-pilot definitely does not sound like playing it safe to me. It sounds to me more like NASA is trying to attract the publicity by going with a risky recovery scheme at the expense of the science involved.

Re:Bigger Parachute

[Anonymous Coward]

Such a landing system would probably cost or weigh too much. True, the Mars lander missions have been successful, but Mars' gravity is much lower than earths. Besides, all Mars landers have bounced around pretty much, and they want to avoid that.

AC

Re:Bigger Parachute

[Sexy Bern]

I read the FA and I wondered why they hadn't come up with some kind of net instead?

Re:Bigger Parachute

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, reading is FUNdamental!

(Posted AC because I don't want to get modded down by anti-pundamentalists.)

Re:Bigger Parachute

[dspacemonkey]

Catching it as it falls from orbit is a tried and tested technique too.

It was used to catch film from spy satellites back in the days when they still used wet film. Theres a description of the first satellites to use it (Corona) here, and the google cache for good measure.

So catching payloads in mid air has a longer history and more successful reoveries than a couple of mars landers. They did use military pilots though ;o)

Re:Bigger Parachute

[magarity]

a properly designed system with parachutes and balloons to absorb the impact, proven technology that's been used in the mars lander missions

Mars has less gravity than Earth so the parachutes and balloons would need to be much larger. And much larger coming down is much larger to lift up in the first place. This is a cheap (relatively) $200 million mission. Increasing the size to include touchdown equipment would boost the budget by a large factor. If they pull this off, it will be the new poster child for NASA's cheaper-faster programs.

Re:Bigger Parachute

[vandoravp]

The capsule uses a parafoil (wing shaped chute) so that it will move forward more than down. Unfortunately this leads to it being hard to know where it will come down exactly. Or, if you mean net like one to catch a butterfly while it is in midair, the capsule is a lot smaller than the chute is. My guess is that it would be easier to line a hook up with the chute than position a net so that it captures the capsule. Anyways, the pilot said it was one of the most well thought out maneuver he's ever done and has captured it in every practice run on the first try.

Bad joke thread

[tepples]

Please don't overdo your bad jokes about the following topics:

• Genesis, the first book of the Old Testament
• Genesis, a progressive rock band
• Sega Genesis, a 16-bit game console called "Mega Drive" in some markets

Re:Bad joke thread

[rjstanford]

Please don't overdo your bad jokes about the following topics

But the massive overuse of sad Star Trek lines is perfectly acceptable to you? Odd choice there...

Re:Bad joke thread

[rpj1288]

KHAAAAANNNN!!!! I guess you forgot that one, eh?

Re:Bad joke thread

[Anonymous Coward]

re: Bad joke thread (Score:4, Funny)

Please don't overdo your bad jokes about the following topics:

"Perhaps it would help if I knew what Genesis is. Beyond the obvious Biblical reference, of course."

"RTFA, Spock."

Re:Bad joke thread

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably somebody who wasted his time playing Sonic the Hedgehog instead of wasting his time watching videotapes of inane space opera.

Re:Bad joke thread

[Anonymous Coward]

Given this early comment, wouldn't Khan jokes just be -1, Redundant?

Did they account for weight differential?

[syntap]

If it's the boy Spock in there, they might get an extra pass at it.

Re:Did they account for weight differential?

[Anonymous Coward]

Both capsules would fall at the same rate, regardless of weight.

Re:Did they account for weight differential?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they were in a vacuum.

Re:Did they account for weight differential?

[syntap]

Only if Earth loses its entire atmosphere at the exact moment the capsule comes down.

Seems like a hard way of doing things...

[NeoSkandranon]

So was a parachute out of budget?

Re:Seems like a hard way of doing things...

[gru3hunt3r]

I wondered the same thing.
If you read the article it seems letting it land by parachute takes the chance that the samples inside the unit will get damaged.

Re:Seems like a hard way of doing things...

[Anonymous Coward]

Other articles have mentioned that it has a parachute that will deploy after it gets through the outer atmosphere. The issue is that the parachute can only slow it down so much, and the contents are still too delicate to hit the ground after a parachute slowed descent.

Re:Seems like a hard way of doing things...

[YrWrstNtmr]

Possibly a case of a larger chute, while allowing a slower fall, subjects it to greater variation in landing areas due to whatever winds are happening as it comes down.

A larger chute also mean less payload.

Everything is a tradeoff.

Re:Seems like a hard way of doing things...

[Anonymous Coward]

They have a parachute. The problem is that the payload is so fragile that hitting the ground too hard would break it. Even with a gigantic parachute, the capsule would still hit the ground too hard.

This is explained pretty clearly in both of the linked pages... RTFA next time?

Re:Seems like a hard way of doing things...

[iammaxus]

Also, there is a limit to just how slow a parachute (at least any current design) can go. At very slow speeds, the parachute can be come less stable with parts of it collapsing.

Re:Seems like a hard way of doing things...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, why not have TWO chutes?

Starfleet's feelings on the matter here:

[Ars-Fartsica]

Strong disagreement

Re:Starfleet's feelings on the matter here:

[Anonymous Coward]

+4 Insightful? This is why I love Slashdot.

Re:Starfleet's feelings on the matter here:

[sploo22]

I think somebody's been going on an insane modding spree.

Re:Starfleet's feelings on the matter here:

[mnemonic_]

I know I did. That's why I haven't received modpoints in about 1.5 years.

In Utah?

[Anonymous Coward]

JPL is going to be at the University of Utah and if you buy a ticket, you can watch a live feed of the catch at Kingsbury Hall.

But why are we letting the Mormons, the very people trying to destroy Linux (sco), host such an event?

Re:In Utah?

[anakin876]

ah hell, just because SCO is in Utah doesn't mean ou have to blame all the Mormons for it. Not everyone in Utah is Mormon, and not everyone here owns stock in SCO

However

[Anonymous Coward]

Please make sure you make a lot of Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan Generis planet jokes.

The real question is even stranger....

[Anonymous Coward]

Will this end up contaminating the entire Utah desert so that it'll have to be nuked to destroy our new ****** overlords ?. Assuming one of those pilots gets a headache and drops it ... of course

6 year commitment?

[keiferb]

Why did the pilots have to commit for 6 years? Does it seriously take that long to learn how to catch a falling space probe with a hook dangling from a chopper?

Amateurs.

Re:6 year commitment?

[Libor Vanek]

Probably they needed to test it before they launched it to be sure they'll be able to catch it ;-)

Re:6 year commitment?

[keiferb]

Sure... but seriously, why not two one year commitments: one for the testing before launch, and one to re-acquaint the pilots with the procedure before re-entry?

I mean, come on... catching a probe that's re-entering the earth's atmosphere with a hook and rope dangling from a chopper is like riding a bike.. once you learn, you never really forget.

Re:6 year commitment?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is going to make an awesome movie eventually (ala "the right stuff" perhaps?).

Re:6 year commitment?

[jon787]

Actually I sent these people some email after hearing a claim of this being a first (which isn't true, project Corona did mid-air recovery of returning space capsules) and they have a few people who did this during project Corona.

Closest Thing to a Corona Homepage

Re:6 year commitment?

[YrWrstNtmr]

A military pilot might be committed elsewhere on that particular day. Somewhere that couldn't have been predicted 6 years ago.

Say, Afghanistan.

Re:6 year commitment?

[Eunuchswear]

A military pilot might be committed elsewhere on that particular day. Somewhere that couldn't have been predicted 6 years ago.

Say, Afghanistan.

Yup that's true. Any dumbass could have predicted that military pilots would be needed in Iraq, but Afghanistan, why, even GWB couldn't guess that.

Even when Bill told him.

Re:6 year commitment?

[YrWrstNtmr]

1. So why didn't Bill C. do something about it? After all...he knew, right?

2. Tell us, o sage. Where will military helicopter pilots be active on September 8, 2010? Haiti? Sudan? Yemen? Saudi Arabia? Chechnya?
Where will a particular pilot be in 2010?

Re:6 year commitment?

[Eunuchswear]

So why didn't Bill C. do something about it? After all...he knew, right

Well, he tried.

And you laughed at him:

Wag the dog... ha ha ha ....

Of course he was also a pusillanimous weenie.

But so is George:

Iraq doesn't have nukes? Attack!

North Korea probaly has nukes? Bring back our boys from South Korea.

Iraq may be trying to get nukes? Pout.

Re:6 year commitment?

[Deadstick]

Yep, they used to snatch the parachutes with a T-shaped bar trailing from a C-119...if you can do it with a 60,000-pound, 200 mph airplane, you can certainly do it with a helicopter.

rj

Re:6 year commitment?

[julesh]

I don't suspect the military could commit to something that far in advance. What would happen if a war broke out a few days before it was due to return?

Re:6 year commitment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't they also used to retrieve film ejected from spy satellites during the Cold War in a similar manner? Or did I just read one too many bad spy stories when I was a kid?

I seem to recall this was a central theme in "Ice Station Zebra" (the book, not the film) by Allistair MacLean. :-/

Re:6 year commitment?

[hazem]

If the military can commit people to things like the Air Force Band, sending people to the olympics, and things like the Golden Knights, then they can commit a crew or two to this project. If one or two helecopter crews are going to make the difference in winning a war then we have an even bigger problem.

Would it be so hard to get one more helecopter and train one more crew over what we already have?

Re:6 year commitment?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what project corona was.

Re:6 year commitment?

[YrWrstNtmr]

None of those you listed are 6 year committments. And all are subject to "the needs of the military".

Is this a function that only a military pilot can do? No. Besides...many, many high end civilian pilots (rotary and fixed wing) came from the military.

Re:6 year commitment?

[KjetilK]

I don't know this, but my guess is that since this thing reenters the atmosphere from something really remote, it will crash in much faster than something falling in from low earth orbit. That could make a big difference. But I'm just guessing.

Re:6 year commitment?

[KjetilK]

...but then, since it does deploy a parachute, I guess not. But it is OK to hype things to get people excited about something that is pretty cool, namely the return of solar wind particles.

Just curious...

[KoolDude]

...am I the only one who saw the post and said, "Sh*t, looks like I have to RTFA to make any sense of it." ?

[goes off to RTFA, grudgingly]

Re:Just curious...

[interiot]

I just thought that Slashdot editors had started letting Shakespeare monkeys post stories. If I hadn't RTFA, I would have had no idea it was a real story.

Re:Just curious...

[mooglez]

Yes, a real slashdotter would have remembered the last article about this and had no need to RTFA.

A semi slashdotter would have searched for that previous article and read the comments on that, thus cirmumventing the necessity to RTFA :)

What to shout?

[dj245]

I'm a little baffled over what to yell out when the catch is made.
"He's out!"
"Goal!"
"Touchdown!"
"Tiddlywinks!" and
"KHAAAAN!"
are all pretty good options IMO

Re:What to shout?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hah, butterfingers!" seems more appropriate especially if the pilots forget that all the measure ments are in SI units.

Re:What to shout?

[solarrhino]

This sounds more like a fishing thing than a ball game to me. So what do fishermen say when they catch something - "Hey, pass me another beer"? Or maybe the other guy should critize: "Pretty small - throw that one back!"

Re:What to shout?

[Anonymous Coward]

HOWZAT!?

Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

I said "I must go make some Star Trek jokes."

Why do they need to put this?

[FooAtWFU]

Why do they need to put this? Are people really that stupi... oh, wait a minute. =b

Since this mission is named Genesis and will tell us about the beginning of the solar system, will it try to prove or disprove the Bible?

The Genesis mission will collect samples of the solar wind, material flowing outward from the Sun, and return these samples to Earth. Scientists will be able to compare the compositions of these samples with known compositions of the planets and help in the effort to understand how our solar system and its planets formed. It is not NASA's role to address theological questions or interpretations, and Genesis' investigation will be studied as a scientific question, not a theological one.

Re:Why do they need to put this?

[VanillaCoke420]

It's amazing, isn't it? Science is science, and whether or not religion agrees with its findings have absolute zero relevance.

Re:Why do they need to put this?

[glitch23]

Those who believe the Bible is right don't need it to be proven to them and those who don't believe never will believe.

Re:Why do they need to put this?

[z3d]

I would say that truth is truth, regardless of whether or not science, or anything else for that matter agree with it.

Like Anomaly said, you cant prove love, hate, duty, but they exist. I cant even prove that your mind (not brain) exists (I cant see it, touch it or otherwise), so how do I know that you have a mind?

So truth is truth, regardless of whether or not science or religion agrees.

However, if there is truth, there can be only one truth. That is after all the nature of truth. One fact may support multiple possibilities, but only one possibility is true.

Respectfully yours,

Z3d

Re:Why do they need to put this?

[juhaz]

I would say that truth is truth, regardless of whether or not science, or anything else for that matter agree with it.

Of course it is. But if nobody knows the truth, it's all but irrelevant if it is the truth or not. And believing something is true does not make it so, any more than believing something is not true.

I cant even prove that your mind (not brain) exists (I cant see it, touch it or otherwise), so how do I know that you have a mind?

You don't. For all you know, I may not have a mind. For all we know, YOU may not have a mind either, free will may be just an illusion.

Re:Why do they need to put this?

[GeekZilla]

those who don't believe never will believe.

Then stop sending those missionaries to knock on my door!

Seriously now, if your comment were true, then every church/religion in the world would never need to go out and entice young people into joining.

Back in 1986, we had a religious "rock-band" perform at my school whose purpose (they admitted) was to bring the word of god to the students and to encourage students to seek god by attending a church of their choice.

Oh yeah, one more thing: Washington was wrong.

Geenesis?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Genesis allowed is not.
Is planet forbidden!

Why a helicopter?

[sockonafish]

I know I've seen plenty of footage of big prop planes capturing spy satellites before they knew how to beam images back to Earth. Why spring for helicopters? (FYI, helicopters are generally more expensive than fixed-wing aircraft)

Re:Why a helicopter?

[YrWrstNtmr]

The difference in cost between a couple hours flight for a C-130 or a helicopter isn't even a blip on NASA's budget. And I'm not sure operating a C-130 is actually cheaper per hour than a helicopter.

This is literally a once in a lifetime chance. Why risk it trying to shave a couple of dollars?

Re:Why a helicopter?

[Anonymous Coward]

An airplane would have to fly at a considerable speed compared to the probe, which would make it both harder to manouver precisely and it would risk damaging the probe.

I don't think the cost of the helicopters is an issue, given the cost of actually planning, building, launching and operate the probe..

AC

Heard aboard one of the recovery choppers

[StarKruzr]

"GIIIIIIVE MEEEEEE GENESIIIIIIIIIS!" Oh, for God's sake. Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Yes, that was the idea, you son of a targ.

Re:Heard aboard one of the recovery choppers

[AndroidCat]

I'd give you Genesis but the RIAA might object.

Re:Heard aboard one of the recovery choppers

[Rethcir]

Don't worry, the RIAA has an invisible touch YEAH!

Re:Heard aboard one of the recovery choppers

[joper90]

Is Colt Seavers flying one too?

MARS in the Early 70s

[iCharles]

The six-year commitment explanation made me feel a lot better. All the coverage made a big deal about a "stunt pilot" doing this maneuver.

This sounds only a little more difficult that the recovery of drones ("UAVs" in today's parlance) during the early 70s. In this, drones would be captured in mid-air by a CH-3.

(My dad flew the CH-3 part of this set-up)

Not saying that there aren't new aspects, merely that the capability was present 30 years ago.

karma burn

[robpoe]

But won't it be hot??

relevance

[anomaly]

I agree completely that science is science. The light is either on or off, it really doesn't matter how you feel about it. Truth is that way.

However, frequently a straw man is drawn between science and matters of faith, where science is portrayed as unbiased - merely truth, and matters of faith are at best irrelevant, and at worst completely counter to reason itself.

People of faith bring a bias to a discussion. People of no faith bring a bias to a discussion, too. Because scientists are people, they bring a bias to their work. Specifically, scientists who deny God's existence have a bias that impacts their work, and not always in a positive way.

It's true that science and theology are separate disciplines, but to suggest that neither is relevant to the other is a bit naieve.

Respectfully,
Anomaly

Re:relevance

[Knos]

Where does your favorite deity appear (or rather where should it appear) in physical equations? And how? (And if you answer, in the cosmological constants, then where's the bias?)

I have a question...

[bairy]

What if they all miss?

Sounds pretty tricky

[HenryKoren]

I would think that the air pressure of the heilocopter going above the parachute would quickly cause the chute to fold up and send the probe crashing to the ground.

Re:Sounds pretty tricky

[Anonymous Coward]

it will push it down onto the hook, perfect ^^ they do mention 20mph forward velocity, it's not like the 'copter will be hovering over it before hand.

I'd like to point out that...

[mav[LAG]]

...this story has been mentioned before. It is my single accepted submission on /. and thus occupies a special place in my memory :)

What about the Andromeda Strain?

[enosys]

What about the Andromeda Strain?

Silicone

[morcheeba]

Ah, USA today, how I love you for your technical prowness...

Together, the charged atoms captured on the capsule's disks of gold, sapphire, diamond and silicone are no bigger than a few grains of salt

Atomic element or polymer, it's probably close enough. But Spaceflightnow say's it's the element Silicon. And they've got a cool picture of the spacecraft.

Re:Silicone

[DirePickle]

Best to spellcheck your own post before bitching about someone else's typo, yes? ;)

Re:Silicone

[Anonymous Coward]

yep, you got me. I spotted it about 15 seconds after hitting "submit", of course.

Overheard during the "catch"...

[NarrMaster]

Pilot: "I got it! I got it!"
(chop chop chop chop chop)
..... "Don't got it...."

unfortunately

[mnemonic_]

Millions, possibly billions will perish...

The fate of the world rests upon that renegade capsule...

We've Been There, Done That

[reallocate]

The first U.S. spy satellites, the Corona series, sent its exposed film back via capsules that were gathered by crews in, I believe, C-130's. This was almost 40 years ago.

Dunno if the Soviets needed to try that, since they had all that empty space to bring a payload down safely and away from prying eyes.

The problem is

[Sycraft-fu]

That many religious people seem to feel as though their faith should be given special weight, as though because it's written in the Bible or some other book claimed to be of divine origin, science should accept it as fact. They want scientists to find evidence that supports their views, and ignore evidence that doesn't. Well, that's not how it works. Science (when properly done) finds evidence and draws theories to explain it, regardless of if they like what it shows.

The other problem is that the claims of faith are generally unfalsifiable, which is REQUIRED to be a valid scientific theory. So anything that looks like it might support their claim, they point to and shout, anything that looks like it might detract from it, they claim doesn't apply. Since their claim isn't an empiricially valid, falsifiable claim, it doesn't really matter either way.

Remember: We do not prove things true in sciemce, with each test we show them to be not false under a certian set of circumstances. So the more something is tested and the more varied the conditions, the more sure we can be that it is the truth.

So when you take an empiricist viewpoint, which is what is needed to do good science, leaving god out of it is appropriate. There is NO valid empirical evidence to support the existance of god. That god exists ins't even a testable theory. Thus it needs to be treated like ESP or anything else that is claimed but not testable. That doesn't mean that god doesn't exist and we just can't test for it, but science is, and must be, only concerned with the testable.

So having faith is fine, but don't pretend the arguments should be given scientific creedence until you can come up with a falsifiable test. If you want scientists to deal with matters of god, design a test that is empirically valid and falsifiable. Then they'll be interested and test it (as well as probably winning you major recognition as a philsopher, whichever way it turns out).

simulation

[thekitch]

There's a NASA television channel here, and they were showing 3d simulations along with some actual practice footage of the helicopter retrieval a few weeks back [at 3:00 in the morning].

Re:simulation

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a NASA television channel carried by all major cable and sattelite providers.

You can also get a webcast from:
www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html

fine with the crosswinds...

[MarcoAtWork]

but does an aircraft carrier even pitch that much? I'd assume that given its size and the stabilizers it surely has it wouldn't move very much...

Re:fine with the crosswinds...

[klmth]

Yes. They do pitch so much in fact, that carriers prefer to reel helicopters in by attaching a cable to them and then pulling the choppers in with the cable, while the chopper keeps the cable tout by hovering upwards.

Re:fine with the crosswinds...

[fireman sam]

A good demonstration of pitch can be seen at the following address:

WARNING!!! Very graphic images are contained in this site.

http://poetry.rotten.com/chopper/

Some may, but I think you're being a bit unfair

[anomaly]

You submit that people of faith want the scientists to cook the books by collecting evidence in harmony with religious belief and discarding that which appears to conflict with it.

While many would describe me as quite religious, I know a great number of intelligent people, some of them scientists, who would totally reject that idea. The evidence is the evidence. Nothing more, nothing less.

Realistically, science provides us with a framework to measure, describe, and manipulate the material that comprises the cosmos. It can do nothing more and nothing less.

To suggest that all of humanity is built from the basic building blocks of elements and chemicals causes us to neglect much of the human experience.

Many of the life experiences we have are not scientifically falsifiable. This does not make them less true. For example, trust, honor, and duty are true to the human experience, but science is completely inadequate to describe them.

My issue, which I think is in concert with your comments is that scientists bring their bias to the table when they develop theories. It's a red herring to suggest that the scientist has no bias "only the truth" and that a person of faith is inherently biased.

Specifically, let's take the issue of a creator. If the scientist comes to the table with a philosophical viewpoint that there is absolutely nothing supernatural, he will not consider theories that involve the supernatural. If the truth is that there is a creator, the atheist scientist will not even approach areas of inquiry where something supernatural may have occured.

If the facts support something supernatural, even the atheist should consider that as a possibility.

In terms of scientific research, let's throw some more gasoline on the fire of this discussion. Medical science has shown that stem cells from adults have incredible promise. We are starting to see actual medical benefits from that research, and real people are being helped from stem cell research. The media, and some scientists, are framing the discussion in terms of embryonic stem cells onlt, and neglect the benefits of other research.

Do you really believe that the furor over embryonic stem cell research is driven by a search for the truth? Don't you think that there are some other factors that drive the interest in embryonic stem cell research?

Respectfully,
Anomaly

Re:Some may, but I think you're being a bit unfair

[TuringTest]

To suggest that all of humanity is built from the basic building blocks of elements and chemicals causes us to neglect much of the human experience.

Actually doing that is not a scientific requirement at all. Economics, for example, doesn't require that kind of analysis; it keeps "human actions" as an indivisible object of study, and build a (somewhat) successful theory in top of it.

Reductionism is not the only way to proceed on science. As Sycraft-fu points out, the only required thing is testability - the possibility to build experiments that can disprove your current theory.

I would add that strict logic reasoning is a must, and analytic separation of a fact in its composing parts is a natural way to progress. But science doesn't implies that everything must be decomposed that way, and that humans "are built from the basic building blocks and chemicals". Science is also able to adopt "holistic" (systemic) procedures. See Complex systems and systems theory for some examples.

An easier way

[joNDoty]

Why not use a net of some sort? I'd rather net something than try to thread it with a needle. Falling 400 feet per minute is 4.5mph. I guess they thought the mph stat sounded too boring. So it's moving 20mph horizontal and 4.5mph vertical and that's an 8.5 difficulty. Assuming 10 out of 10 difficulty represents the hardest possible, no helicopter pilot can catch a capsule going faster than 23.5mph vertical and 5.3mph horizontal. I guess it'll be cool to watch. Anybody know if it'll be on TV?

We've seen this before

[Zancarius]

We've seen this before and it goes without saying that bringing unidentified samples of space-stuff back to Earth is, of course, 100% safe. Good thing it's Utah and not Piedmont, Ariz., right?

Maybe Genesis is a perfect name? ;-)

how do they prepare for this?

[rubberbando]

I wonder if they have some sort of helicopter simulator that they practice this manuvuer on or do they shoot something into the air and try it with a real helicopter?

looters?

[dpeltzm1]

hmm silicon saphire and gold!!
be ready when they miss
Profit!!!

no seriously this could be the mother lode of a scandal if they miss and the thing just disappears

Again you fail to understand science

[Sycraft-fu]

See Karl Popper's "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" for complete information. The thing is, science is ONLY concerned with the testable, and to be scientifically testable a theory must be falsifiable. This is how science is done. If it's not testable, it's not science. Doesn't mean you aren't free to believe it but don't pretend like science should give it any weight. You hold a belief with no scientific proof, that's faith and that's fine, but don't then turn around and ask scientists to consdier your faith in science.

Of course scientists have bias, everything has bias. Even physics has bias as there are things that you cannot observe without changing the result. That does not, however, make religion any more scientific or any more worthy of scientific consdieration.

Look, whatever facts you think you have that support a cerator, none of them come even close to passing scientific muster. I've heard basically all of them, and they just don't hold up. You may choose to believe they are evidence of a creator, and that's fine, but they are SCIENTIFIC evidence and thus aren't of any intrest to scientists.

I'll cover a couple of the popular ones:

The cause of the universe. The believer says that everything must have a cause, including the universe. This cause is god. Sorry, but now you've got the same problem, now god is the prime cause, what caused god? It is a much simpler explination (and thus the working theory) that the universe IS the prime cause.

Healing by prayer. The believer points to cases where a person with an uncurable disease got better after they, or others, prayed for it. Problem is, the ignores counter evidence, the many cases where people prayed and the person still died. This was restated as a falsifible theory and tested, and falsified. They said that if prayer healing worked, then there would be a statistical difference in those that survived. So they had a group go and pray for some cases in a hospital, not others. There was no stastical difference.

So it goes for all the claims I've ever heard. A believe may see them as evidence and that's fine but they are NOT scientific evidence. Science has a very specific standard, strong inference (laid out in Popper's book) that must be met. Religion doens't get a free pass at that and get to be called science with less evidence.

Also you mistake the difference between not believing in something and saying it can't exist. I don't believe in god because there is insufficient evidence to do so. I do nto claim god can't exist, just that until I see some scientific proof, I'm not going to believe in it. Same for ESP, astral trips, and so on. There is not the evidence to convince me it is true so I don't believe it.

Really, you need to get some of the philsophy of science and Popper's book is the best place to start. You have a very common misconception of what science is. It's a process of knowing things about the world and testing things, the only reliable one we've found. It is not infalliable or complete but it is highly reliable and has advanced knolwedge more than anything else save writing. It isn't just some random process, it's a logical, robust process of testing things to find out the truth.

Re:Again you fail to understand science

[TheLink]

You didn't read/understand his post did you?

He was talking more about scientists. And you're talking more about science.

Not all scientists do good science.

As for the supernatural: there was at least one double blind study which showed that prayer affected IVF success rates - the IVF was done in a hospital in Korea, the prayers were done by people in the US who only had the photos of those prayed for- the people in the hospital didn't know who was being prayed for - not even sure if most knew a study was being done. Whether it proves there is a God is another thing - coz it could just prove that some people can effect supernatural powers if they do certain things. But it was an interesting result to me - coz it seemed quite properly done (better than most other scientific studies I've seen on various things).

When I presented the results to a public forum, there were comments like - if there is a God, why not a 100% success rate, instead of just double the success rate? There was potentially something interesting going on, but people were more interested in rationalizing their prejudices/biases.

I've also seen other studies showed that prayer didn't have much influence - but I noticed that at least a few (of which I could get details on) used prayer from more than one religious group.

_If_ indeed you are dealing with a supernatural being with its own agenda and objectives, it may make it significantly harder to do predictable tests. If there were more than one supernatural beings with their own agenda, one may need to more tests and take great care and thought in formulating the type of tests to be done in order to even get a useful scientific result.

Just coz I send email to particular address and something happens doesn't mean that a person exists or doesn't exist. It takes a few more tests.

But most scientists wouldn't do such tests coz if they do most unis won't touch them after that - much less give them funding. And that's the bias referred to.

It's just like the "cold fusion" thing. It seems to me that whether or not there is actual fusion, there is an interesting phenomena involved.

But many scientists (and people) have shut their minds coz P & F screwed up. Many scientists did the equivalent of throwing a tantrum. "The CF field screwed up so they deserve it, we're not talking to them till someone makes a CF _product_". Whereas HF hasn't even done anything that interesting (wrt the rest of us).

This may be a valid response since scientists have finite lifespans and resources in which to conduct their science.

But that's the difference between scientists and science.

Re:Again you fail to understand science

[Knos]

Gently illustrates your point...
Exposed: conman's role in prayer-power IVF 'miracle'

One of the authors of a university report on infertility has admitted a multi-million-dollar fraud, reports Paul Harris in New York

Sunday May 30, 2004 - The Observer

It was a miracle that created headlines around the world. Doctors at one of the world's top medical schools claimed to have scientifically proved the power of prayer.

Many Americans took the Columbia University research - announced in October 2001 after the terror attacks on New York and Washington - as a sign from God. It seemed to prove that praying helped infertile women to conceive.

But The Observer can reveal a story of fraud and cover-up behind the research. One of the study's authors is a conman obsessed with the paranormal who has admitted to a multi-million-dollar scam. Daniel Wirth, now under house arrest in California awaiting sentencing, has used a series of false identities for several decades, including that of a dead child.

Wirth is at the centre of a network of bizarre scientific research, often working with co-researcher Joseph Horvath. Horvath has pleaded guilty to fraud, has used a series of false names and is accused of burning down his house for insurance money.
(...)
FBI papers filed during the case also show that Wirth has used a series of false identities over the years. In the mid-1980s, Wirth used the name of John Wayne Truelove to obtain a passport and rent apartments in California. The real Truelove was a New York child who had died as an infant in 1959.

He also used the name of Rudy Wirth, who died in 1998, to establish an address in New York and claim social security benefits. It is not clear whether Wirth and Rudy Wirth were related.

It has emerged that Wirth has no medical qualifications. He graduated with a law degree and then took a master's in parapsychology at John F. Kennedy University in California, where he met Horvath.
(...)
Columbia University would not comment on the Wirth case. However, shortly after the prayer and fertility study was published, the Department of Health began an investigation into the university's research. It found numerous ethical problems. Lobo, a respected scientist who was named initially as the lead author of the research, had only provided 'editorial review and assistance with publication' on the study.

Re:Again you fail to understand science

[Sycraft-fu]

Again, problems in understanding science. I am NOT talking about if scientists are properly doing science, I'm talking about how science is properly done. You deal with the testable, the measurable, and that's it. That there may be more to the universe is fine, you don't deal with that, htat's for philsophers (that's actually one of the purposes of philsophy, to postulate an explination that scientists can test). A theory isn't a scientific theory unless it's a testable, falsifiable one.

As noted by another poster, the IFV success was a fraud, and there are people doing jail time over it. This is again, why it's important to check up on things and whyy science requires repeatability. Just because someone claims it, even someone famous, doesn't make it the truth. That's why science requires that a theory be tested by different people in different situations to check the possibility of experimental error, or experimenter bias.

However, even had one test succeded, that doesn't mean anything has been proven. A test doesn't prove a theory true, it provides evidence in one case that it's not false. If subsequent tests show it is false, then the theory has been falsified and needs to be revised.

This is what happened in the cold fusion case. They had a valid, falsifiable scientific theory. Other labs (quite a few of them) tested it and did indeed falsify it. The results were NOT repeatable. Ok, so the scientists went back to work to figure out why they had succeded and other had failed, and now they think they have. So now they have a NEW theory, that is similar to their old one, but involves the concentration of detiurium atoms, something previously thought to be irrelivant. That new theory will now be tested, and we'll see what happens.

The problem is that believers in anything, be it god, ESP, cold fusion, etc seem to think that scientists should operate from a position of belief about their view. Like they should go out and test it with less than rigirous tests, and if one looks good, just declare it truth and give up. Nope, not how it works for anything. What a scientist should do is try everything to prove it WRONG (to falsify it). Test every alternate theory that would explain the data, every way that a hidden control may not have been known, every way an error could have been made.

This is true of s scientist testing their own theories as well. If they do good science, they should do everything they can to try to prove it false. If there are other theories that might explain the data that they just can't test, they should state them in their paper along with suggested tests so that other scientists can test them as well. Now unfortunately this isn't often done, they just wait for other scientists to do it, but the idea here is that science as a whole is about testing for false cases, and only be eliminating those do we come to believe a theory is true.

So what you get down to with al super natural theories is that they can't be tested. If it's god it's becaue god has his own will or whatever and thus doesn't act in a predictable manner. If it's ESP it's because it only works at certian, random times (though never in a lab for some reason:)) or whatever. Ok, that's all fine, but then it's not science. If your beliefs aren't reliable enough to be tested, science is not interested in them since what science is (and ALL that science is) is a reliable, robust, method for testing and knowing about the world.

Faith is the belief in the absence of evidence, which is a fine thing to have, and something a scientist can't touch. I can't impeach your faith, I can't say you don't really believe what you believe. However, when you want to start calling it science, when you want that kind of rigirous factual backing, I can and will go after it. It'll be held to the same standards as other theories (testability, falsifiability, repeatability) and if it doesn't meet them, I'm not interested.

This is also why a scientist can believe in god (and many do) but still be a good s

Re:Again you fail to understand science

[TheLink]

Anomaly was pointing out that scientists have a bias.

You ignored that and kept going on about science.

While it's not quite the "wookie defense" you have validated his point about the "straw man".

Re:Again you fail to understand science

[TheLink]

Yeah. Not all scientists do good science ;).

Any conclusion by Columbia University after their investigations? Links would be helpful.

Re:Again you fail to understand science

[Sycraft-fu]

I noted scientists have bias. Scientists kow they have bias and, on more universal terms, that the simpl act of measuring something can change the result, so something can be different when measured than when not measured.

The reason I go on about science is because of the other side of his argument, that scientists need to take god into account to clear up or at least balance the bias (or at least that's what I got out of it). That's not the case. Scientists deliberatly bias away from untestable, so called supernatural events because that's not what science concerns itself with. If it's not testable, it's not science.

My whole argument is to try and explain what science is since many religious people want to turn it into something it's not. If one understands science, the fact that scientists are biased against the supernatural should not only not be a problem, but should seem obvious. To me it's like saying English teachers have a bias against math since they don't teach or deal with it in their class. Well of COURSE not, English is the study of English, not of math.

Same with science, it's the study of the physical, testable, falsifiable universe. If there is more to the universe that's untestable such as god, souls, etc that's fine, but that's not the domain of science. Until such time that it can be made testable, science will ignore it since it's just outside of what science is about.

The other reason I go on about this is because, as is implied in his response, what he REALLY wants is for science to "prove" the existence of god. He wants science to take the faith that god exists as a scientific theory (which it isn't for the reasons I stated) and to try and find proof for it. Well, that can't be done, it's not a scientific theory. If you can write up a valid, testable, falsifiable way to see if god exists, then it would be a great test. However no one can do that since, by definition, god exists outside of the boundires of this universe.

hope it doesn't....

[sjs132]

Have the Omega Strain aboard....

or.. .

[joper90]

you could play giant clay piegeon shooting... with rpgs or summin

Prayer study was garbage

[edremy]

As for the supernatural: there was at least one double blind study which showed that prayer affected IVF success rates - the IVF was done in a hospital in Korea, the prayers were done by people in the US who only had the photos of those prayed for- the people in the hospital didn't know who was being prayed for - not even sure if most knew a study was being done. Whether it proves there is a God is another thing - coz it could just prove that some people can effect supernatural powers if they do certain things. But it was an interesting result to me - coz it seemed quite properly done (better than most other scientific studies I've seen on various things).

It was not even remotely correctly done. One of the authors has left Columbia and can't be contacted, one refuses to comment other than that he only did editorial work, and the main author is a well known con man who's going to jail for fraud in an unrelated case. The journal has withdrawn the paper and Columbia is looking into how it got published.

A couple of links:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040614/04/
http://www.valleyskeptic.com/Prayer_Study_Flawed_a nd_Fraud.html

Re:Prayer study was garbage

[TheLink]

That's new info to me. Thanks.

Has the journal really withdrawn the paper? I haven't been keeping track.

The rest of my post remains valid. Even if the study was correctly done the responses to it would still be the same.

Re:Prayer study was garbage

[edremy]

I've read that the paper has been withdrawn , but I can't find a link to it right now. (The links I gave are a few months old.)

There were other problems as well. For example, no informed consent of the people taking part in the study. Speaking as an ex-infertility patient, I would have been highly offended if I had been one of the ones included in the study without the authors asking.

I think I understand science

[anomaly]

Science is all about the testable. I agree completely. To follow the scientific method, one observes a phenomenon, gathers information about it, develops a theory about the relationships among the events, and then tests that theory.

We're on the same page here, right?

Origins are not testable using this method. This method can be used to gather information and speculate about the origin of the universe, but science cannot conclude what happened in the absence of being able to test the speculation.

Science is good, as far as it goes, but can only test certain things. As you pointed out in your original posting in this thread, science cannot conclude a negative - only that a positive (or evidence of the positive thing) has never been observed.

Naturalism provides an inadequate model for the universe as we experience it. Science has its limits. Reason does, too. Pascal said "The heart has its reasons which reason does not know."

WRT the universe being the ultimate cause, given our understanding of physics, it seems logical to conclude that due to the entropic principle that the universe should have died a heat loss death an eternity ago. Why hasn't the universe equilibrated?

It's because of ulterior motives...

[weedenbc]

Scientific issues like evolution have been hijacked by people who are only looking for ways to disprove religion and God and will use whatever they can to advance their own cause. And it's unfortunate because evolution does not necessarily exclude the existence of God and vice versa.

The worst part is that this sort of attack forces the religous hordes to counterattack in an effort to debunk that which is being used to attack them. In the end you have 2 groups fighting over an issue that they really have no right to and it's a shame because the science and the search for the truth end up getting lost in the FUD.

GOONIES!

[zoloto]

you rock!

You klutz!
I hope it's not a deposit bottle!

I don't want science to 'prove' god

[anomaly]

You're putting words in my mouth. Others may have that perspective, but I do not.

Genesis Torpedo

[Anonymous Coward]

They better catch it, 'cause if that thing hits, all life will be instantly rearranged into fast growing kudzu causing the planet to explode.