Posted by
CmdrTaco
on from the thats-just-bizarre dept.
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."
Re:6 year commitment?
by
Libor+Vanek
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Probably they needed to test it before they launched it to be sure they'll be able to catch it;-)
Re:Seems like a hard way of doing things...
by
YrWrstNtmr
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
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:6 year commitment?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
This is going to make an awesome movie eventually (ala "the right stuff" perhaps?).
Why a helicopter?
by
sockonafish
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
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?
by
YrWrstNtmr
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
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 do they need to put this?
by
glitch23
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
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.
-- this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
Re:Again you fail to understand science
by
TheLink
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
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.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably they needed to test it before they launched it to be sure they'll be able to catch it ;-)
A larger chute also mean less payload.
Everything is a tradeoff.
This is going to make an awesome movie eventually (ala "the right stuff" perhaps?).
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)
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.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
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.