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."
"So you're all astronauts on some sort of... star trek?"
--
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
Hmm... sounds tricky
by
petra13
·
· Score: 5, Funny
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
by
MikeMacK
·
· Score: 5, Funny
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
by
sigxcpu
·
· Score: 4, Funny
trying to do it while being shot at.
-- As of Postgres v6.2, time travel is no longer supported.
Re:Hmm... sounds tricky
by
erick99
·
· Score: 5, Funny
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
-- http://www.busyweather.com/
Re:Hmm... sounds tricky
by
xSauronx
·
· Score: 2, Funny
flying into the death start and blowing it up...in a helicopter
as obviously its rather easy to do in even a dated starship...
-- By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
Re:Hmm... sounds tricky
by
Deadstick
·
· Score: 3, Informative
So, what the hell rates a 10?
Landing on an aircraft carrier at night.
rj
I've got the training!
by
twenty-exty-six
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Where do I sign up. I've spent months working on an intense helicopter simulator, fine-tuning my skills to perfection.
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
by
rjstanford
·
· Score: 4, Funny
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...
-- You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
Re:Bigger Parachute
by
exi1ed0ne
·
· Score: 4, Informative
"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
-- Pessimists.net - as if life wasn't depressing enough.
Re:Bigger Parachute
by
vandoravp
·
· Score: 5, Informative
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
by
betelgeuse-4
·
· Score: 4, Informative
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?
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:6 year commitment?
by
keiferb
·
· Score: 3, Funny
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?
by
jon787
·
· Score: 5, Informative
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.
-- X(7): A program for managing terminal windows. See also screen(1).
Re:6 year commitment?
by
Deadstick
·
· Score: 2, Informative
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?
by
YrWrstNtmr
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
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.
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
-- Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
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:Bigger Parachute
by
wired_parrot
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
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.
Why do they need to put this?
by
FooAtWFU
·
· Score: 3, Funny
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.
-- The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Re:Why do they need to put this?
by
VanillaCoke420
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
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?
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
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?
MARS in the Early 70s
by
iCharles
·
· Score: 3, Informative
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.
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
-- But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
I'd like to point out that...
by
mav[LAG]
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
...this story has been mentioned before. It is my single accepted submission on/. and thus occupies a special place in my memory:)
-- ---
Hot Shot City is particularly good.
Re:Bigger Parachute
by
dspacemonkey
·
· Score: 4, Informative
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)
Overheard during the "catch"...
by
NarrMaster
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Pilot: "I got it! I got it!"
(chop chop chop chop chop) ..... "Don't got it...."
-- That's right. All your base.
The problem is
by
Sycraft-fu
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
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).
Again you fail to understand science
by
Sycraft-fu
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
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
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
Some kind of Genesis device? KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
So will the capsule get bonus points if it takes out one of the helicopters without the pilots seeing it first?
Where do I sign up. I've spent months working on an intense helicopter simulator, fine-tuning my skills to perfection.
Free Image Hosting
Please don't overdo your bad jokes about the following topics:
"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
Pessimists.net - as if life wasn't depressing enough.
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.
"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 ..."
Decode these
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.
[goes off to RTFA, grudgingly]
getSexySig();
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
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
A larger chute also mean less payload.
Everything is a tradeoff.
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.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
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)
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.
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
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
...this story has been mentioned before. It is my single accepted submission on /. and thus occupies a special place in my memory :)
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
Catching it as it falls from orbit is a tried and tested technique too.
;o)
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
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.
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
Pilot: "I got it! I got it!"
..... "Don't got it...."
(chop chop chop chop chop)
That's right. All your base.
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).
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.