StyroCupMan writes "NASA has announced that it will launch a satellite to map our solar system's boundary. It will also study the particles and radiation that pose a health and safety hazard to humans. Time to invest in that shiny new spacesuit."
Historically speaking...
by
anactofgod
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
This "surveying" of boundaries by my government has traditionally been the first step in the staking of claims and the erection of fences and walls. When does the landgrab start? I want to plan my flag on a choice piece of real-estate. *g*
So, I have a question. Why is it that when scientists talk about exploring the edges of the solar system, they insist in sending probes "out past Pluto"? On the one hand, I understand why we do so - our solar system does lie (primarily) in a plane, so it's natural to think that way.
But I argue it'd be easier to explore phenomina at the edges of our solar system by going in the third dimension - orthogonal to the plane of the solar system. After all, the Sun isn't just radiating in a 2-d plane. Or am I wrong in my assumption about how solar winds radiate?
Any scientifically sound reason why this is a bad idea?
Or are we doomed to continue think as Khan did/does/will? *grynn*
--
---anactofgod---
"Equal opportunity swindling - *that* is the true test of a sustainable democracy."
Re:Historically speaking...
by
CrimsonAvenger
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Earth's escape velocity is actually 11.1 km/s. Not sure where that 9 km/s comes from.
Read carefully. That was deltaV required to go from LEO (Low Earth Orbit) to Solar escape speed.
It assumes a starting speed of ~8Km/s (Actually, the orbit I assumed had ~7650m/s orbital speed), and a single burn in the direction of both the orbit around the Earth and the Earth's orbit around the Sun. It further assumed Solar escape speed was 42.1Km/s, which is true for a couple points along Earth's orbit, but I'm not sure exactly where, so I won't tell you the dates required for the burn.
If you add 9Km/s to your speed under those conditions, then you will find yourself moving along smartly in the plane of the ecliptic at just over 5250m/s relative to the Sun at some point in the indefinite future, when you are some arbitrarily large distance from the Sun (on the order of two light-months out, give or take a couple light-weeks)
--
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Understanding our environment
by
helioquake
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
A fascinating mission.
Every scientific study indicates that the Big Bang had generated light atomic elements (Hydrogen and Helium, etc). But other heavier elements -- the founding block of life and everything we live in -- have been synthesized by stars. We have a pretty good model in nucleosynthesis, really. But little we know HOW these heavier elements are re-distributed throughout interstellar space. This mission will touch upon that topic by exploring the condition where the Sun's wind interacts with the primodial (?) material that surrounds the Solar system.
Cool, indeed. And the principle institute is located in San Antonio, TX. Even if they go over budget, it's gonna be easy to impress the congress or the White House to allocate more money...well, I'm quasi-kidding about that!
How much will this cost?
by
VoxVeritas
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I think this is a good idea. I just wish that they would save Hubble. They way they are dealing with Hubble is like junking your car just because it needs a new battery.
Hmmm... my girlfriend tried that logic too...
You don't exactly, but it's the only sensible way
by
Julian+Morrison
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Escape velocity is for a ballistic trajectory. Ballistic, meaning unpowered after the launch. That is, if you chuck a rock at sea level upwards at that speed, it will slow and slow but never quite stop.
What you're talking about is escaping by just continually going upward, like climbing a ladder. Which you could, if there were a big enough ladder - but of course there isn't. So rather than standing on a solid, you have to continuously accelerate against gravity to even stay put. Possible - it's what a Harrier jump jet does when hovering at take-off - but expensive in fuel, meaning you can't do it long enough to get anywhere useful before the fuel runs out. It makes more sense to burn all your fuel as early as possible, accelerate as fast as possible, and coast most of the way ballistically. That way you get rid of the fuel fast (it's heavy and expensive to lug) and you don't waste effort just staying put.
Re:Why?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
How in the world is this useless? Everytime there are plans on exploration in space, or someone announce a new discovery in the lab, someone says "so what? what's the point?" I suppose it's futile to explain the point of science, to someone who refuses to see a point at all.
Re:Better maps of the solar system needed
by
hcdejong
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
A radar isn't a low-power device, especially at the range you'll need (calculating the volume you'll have to scan is left as an excercise to the reader). Simple navigation/weather radars (range: 200 km) require hundreds of W. An omnidirectional antenna doesn't give you information on the direction of the signals (which you need), and relying on 'reflected transmissions'? How would you differentiate between reflections and sources?
Slashdot Mirror
This "surveying" of boundaries by my government has traditionally been the first step in the staking of claims and the erection of fences and walls. When does the landgrab start? I want to plan my flag on a choice piece of real-estate. *g*
So, I have a question. Why is it that when scientists talk about exploring the edges of the solar system, they insist in sending probes "out past Pluto"? On the one hand, I understand why we do so - our solar system does lie (primarily) in a plane, so it's natural to think that way.
But I argue it'd be easier to explore phenomina at the edges of our solar system by going in the third dimension - orthogonal to the plane of the solar system. After all, the Sun isn't just radiating in a 2-d plane. Or am I wrong in my assumption about how solar winds radiate?
Any scientifically sound reason why this is a bad idea?
Or are we doomed to continue think as Khan did/does/will? *grynn*
---anactofgod---
"Equal opportunity swindling - *that* is the true test of a sustainable democracy."
A fascinating mission.
Every scientific study indicates that the Big Bang had generated light atomic elements (Hydrogen and Helium, etc). But other heavier elements -- the founding block of life and everything we live in -- have been synthesized by stars. We have a pretty good model in nucleosynthesis, really. But little we know HOW these heavier elements are re-distributed throughout interstellar space. This mission will touch upon that topic by exploring the condition where the Sun's wind interacts with the primodial (?) material that surrounds the Solar system.
Cool, indeed. And the principle institute is located in San Antonio, TX. Even if they go over budget, it's gonna be easy to impress the congress or the White House to allocate more money...well, I'm quasi-kidding about that!
I think this is a good idea. I just wish that they would save Hubble. They way they are dealing with Hubble is like junking your car just because it needs a new battery.
Hmmm... my girlfriend tried that logic too...
Escape velocity is for a ballistic trajectory. Ballistic, meaning unpowered after the launch. That is, if you chuck a rock at sea level upwards at that speed, it will slow and slow but never quite stop.
What you're talking about is escaping by just continually going upward, like climbing a ladder. Which you could, if there were a big enough ladder - but of course there isn't. So rather than standing on a solid, you have to continuously accelerate against gravity to even stay put. Possible - it's what a Harrier jump jet does when hovering at take-off - but expensive in fuel, meaning you can't do it long enough to get anywhere useful before the fuel runs out. It makes more sense to burn all your fuel as early as possible, accelerate as fast as possible, and coast most of the way ballistically. That way you get rid of the fuel fast (it's heavy and expensive to lug) and you don't waste effort just staying put.
How in the world is this useless? Everytime there are plans on exploration in space, or someone announce a new discovery in the lab, someone says "so what? what's the point?" I suppose it's futile to explain the point of science, to someone who refuses to see a point at all.
A radar isn't a low-power device, especially at the range you'll need (calculating the volume you'll have to scan is left as an excercise to the reader). Simple navigation/weather radars (range: 200 km) require hundreds of W.
An omnidirectional antenna doesn't give you information on the direction of the signals (which you need), and relying on 'reflected transmissions'? How would you differentiate between reflections and sources?