Contradiction?
by
Daedalus_
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Is it me, or does the Fox article contradict itself?
First it crashed....
MOSCOW -- The world's first solar sail spacecraft (search) crashed back to Earth when its booster rocket failed less than two minutes after Tuesday's takeoff, Russian space officials said Wednesday.
...but now it's in orbit and sending signals?
U.S. scientists had said earlier that they possibly had detected signals from Cosmos 1 but cautioned that it could take hours or days to figure out exactly where the $4 million spacecraft was.
The signals were picked up late Tuesday after an all-day search for the spacecraft, which had suddenly stopped communicating after its launch, they said.
"It's good news because we are in orbit -- very likely in orbit," Bruce Murray, a co-founder of The Planetary Society (search), which organized the mission, said before the Russian space agency's announcement.
??
Re:Good news, everyone!
by
jellomizer
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Dont confuse news and comintary. When a News station gets an actuall news braudcast wrong they take a lot of heat, like CBS. What Fox News does is that don't offer much news they offer a bit of news and a lot of political comintary. Being Comintary it can be wrong, uninsightful, and just downright dumb. without the station taking heat for it.
-- If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
'comintary'? 'actuall'? 'braudcast'? 'What Fox News does is that don't offer much news they offer a bit of news and a lot of political comintary.'?
Dear GOD, your posts make my eyes bleed! Stop posting NOW!
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up
by
GlassUser
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
And those people are raised by parents who think the schools should be the parents, so the schools are so busy teaching Johnny how to Share His Feelings that they never get around to teaching him where his Cartoon Network signal comes from. Don't blame NASA, blame parents.
You're at least partly dead wrong. I'm formerly home schooled, and I'd crap my pants to get into NASA (I live five minutes from JSC, so I'm ready when they are). I will home school my own children, and I'll make good and sure they know how important NASA and associated programs are to us. I'm not alone, I know many home schooled kids who take astronomy classes from an aerospace engineer and astronomer.
You might be more on target if you aimed that at the california village-grown fools.
Ann Druyan, Carl Sagan's widow, the owner of Cosmos Studios and the funder of the project, informed me in a conversation several months ago that should this attempt fail, the Planetary Society would be lacking in funds for another attempt, and that Cosmos Studios is financially unable to fund another attempt, either. So someone else would have to foot the bill for another go at solar sails.
re: Insurance for failure?
by
Mr.+Cancelled
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I had the same thought as the original poster when it was first announced that the Soviets would be launching this... They have a lot of "oops's" over there.
Dunno if it's the vodka, or the Chechnyan terrorists, or the depressing prospects, but the Soviets seem to have a lot of large scale failures when it comes to these kinds of things.
So does NASA, or whoever, get an insurance policy when they sign up Russians to launch something like this? Something that will guarantee some form of reimbursement when/if a launch failed?
And if not, what prevents the Russions from just pocketing the monies they have been given, launching some dud rocket up a few hundred feet before dropping it into the ocean, and then saying "Sorry, but your launch failed, and you have nothing to show for it. Thanks for the money, BTW - We hope to do business again with you soon"?
Not that the infamous Russion integrity and low-crime nature would ever allow for something like this to happen, but still my curiosity was peaked when I heard this launch failed.
Re:Three strikes and you're *out*...
by
Rei
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
It depends. How thin you can make the solar sail is of critical importance. For example, a 12 micron solar sail will be superior to chemical rockets, mass-wise, for missions of longer than 2 months, and superior to ion drives for missions longer than two years. A one micron solar sail, however, will become superior to chemical rockets in just over five days, and ion drives in two months. I have some issues with their calculations (they assume constant solar flux, for example), but it still drives home how, if you can get a very thin sail, your accelerations can be incredible. Also, at least in theory, they'll be cheap to produce and difficult to have just fail on you. Not that I don't like the concept of M2P2;)
For comparison, Cosmos 1's sail is 5 microns (although it's not designed to be permanent). I was thinking the other night about a possibility (who knows if it is realistic). You could produce your sail in three layers:
1) A heavy, strong, flexible backing a dozen or so microns thick that will erode with sun exposure
2) A thin, durable, structurally weak layer less than a micron thick
3) An atomic-scale coating of aluminum
Of course, at regular intervals, you'd have to lay down a thick durable layer to keep the structure from tearing. The reasoning behind my idea is that you can create, stow, and deploy the sail in a heavy, durable fashion; however, once it has been in space for a few days/weeks, it becomes incredibly lightweight from solar exposure (but doesn't tear because it is no longer experiencing any significant forces beyond the uniform solar radiation pressure). You would unfurl with the heavy backing to the sun, and only switch to the aluminized side once the craft has lost mass.
-- The War of 1812... the good 'ol days when the federal government actually tried to save New Orleans.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up
by
ScentCone
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
You might be more on target if you aimed that at the california village-grown fools.
Um... hence my reference to "those people that..."
You're way in the minority, and I'm glad you're out there. But the vast majority of public school kids are basically uninformed, and worse, lack any critical thinking skills whatsoever. Enough of them vote (uncritically), or bitch at their legislators based on shallow, emotional, short-attention-span-driven reactions to things that we get ridiculous spending priorities. Our high tech/space programs do more to expand our tech economy, help with looming security issues, and keep us ahead of our competition in so many ways... if only the average kid was taught to think in terms of causal relationships and rational economics. Oh well.
I'm glad to hear about astronomy being taught by an engineer in the home-school environment. Unfortunately, too many of the home-schooling families I'm aware of do so because they don't think normal schools put enough Jesus into astronomy, etc., so it's in some ways worse than the public schools. That certainly varies.
-- Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up
by
BewireNomali
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
i agree with the lunar base. quite frankly i don't see what the problem is. It's not new tech to get us to the moon. we can even retrofit some of that vintage shit with new computers and call it a day (oversimplification). Is it a cultural hindrance? Are we not ready as a species to start inhabiting other celestial bodies?
There are biological constraints. Living on the moon for a while means that one will not be able to come back to earth. This is the first time that humans have encountered that constraint. maybe that's what it is?
I'm totally with the lunar base. In fact, they should start with target practice. Send living modules, food, water, and air modules... design them to withstand impact and pockmark the surface of the moon with them. GPS those suckers and design satellites to pick up the signals. Then start landing in the first of several teams. The first team will have four backup modules that have already been launched in case of catastrophic failure. It'll be redundant many times over. Wimax the moon and beam them cable and pr0n so they won't be bored after a long day of lunar mining. The technology ALREADY exists. The only thing is that there is no short or middle term money to be made, which is fine. That's what governments are for.
Re: solar sail. Anyone know if a proof-of-concept has ever flown? What are the practical applications other than for deep space probes?
-- un burrito me trampeó.
Re:lowest bidder syndrome
by
geomon
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I guess you get what you pay for.
True, but at the rates you have cited you can lose 10 payloads and still be cheaper than the nearest competitor.
That is the rationale. I can't say that it is *better* in this particular case, but it is one way to manage costs. If your payload can be replicated fairly inexpensively, then it is the best way to manage your costs.
-- "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
Solid-fuel rocket not likely to "shut down"
by
GPS+Pilot
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
the Volna first stage unexpectedly shut down 83 seconds after lift-off
Isn't the Volna a solid-fueled rocket? If so, it's not nearly as likely to "unexpectedly shut down" as a liquid-fueled rocket. Indeed, the main reservation NASA had about adding solid-fuel boosters to Shuttle was that they can't be shut down, or even throttled-back.
-- That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Slashdot Mirror
First it crashed.......but now it's in orbit and sending signals???
Dont confuse news and comintary. When a News station gets an actuall news braudcast wrong they take a lot of heat, like CBS. What Fox News does is that don't offer much news they offer a bit of news and a lot of political comintary. Being Comintary it can be wrong, uninsightful, and just downright dumb. without the station taking heat for it.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
'comintary'?
'actuall'?
'braudcast'?
'What Fox News does is that don't offer much news they offer a bit of news and a lot of political comintary.'?
Dear GOD, your posts make my eyes bleed!
Stop posting NOW!
And those people are raised by parents who think the schools should be the parents, so the schools are so busy teaching Johnny how to Share His Feelings that they never get around to teaching him where his Cartoon Network signal comes from. Don't blame NASA, blame parents.
You're at least partly dead wrong. I'm formerly home schooled, and I'd crap my pants to get into NASA (I live five minutes from JSC, so I'm ready when they are). I will home school my own children, and I'll make good and sure they know how important NASA and associated programs are to us. I'm not alone, I know many home schooled kids who take astronomy classes from an aerospace engineer and astronomer.
You might be more on target if you aimed that at the california village-grown fools.
funny munging
Ann Druyan, Carl Sagan's widow, the owner of Cosmos Studios and the funder of the project, informed me in a conversation several months ago that should this attempt fail, the Planetary Society would be lacking in funds for another attempt, and that Cosmos Studios is financially unable to fund another attempt, either. So someone else would have to foot the bill for another go at solar sails.
I had the same thought as the original poster when it was first announced that the Soviets would be launching this... They have a lot of "oops's" over there.
Dunno if it's the vodka, or the Chechnyan terrorists, or the depressing prospects, but the Soviets seem to have a lot of large scale failures when it comes to these kinds of things.
So does NASA, or whoever, get an insurance policy when they sign up Russians to launch something like this? Something that will guarantee some form of reimbursement when/if a launch failed?
And if not, what prevents the Russions from just pocketing the monies they have been given, launching some dud rocket up a few hundred feet before dropping it into the ocean, and then saying "Sorry, but your launch failed, and you have nothing to show for it. Thanks for the money, BTW - We hope to do business again with you soon"?
Not that the infamous Russion integrity and low-crime nature would ever allow for something like this to happen, but still my curiosity was peaked when I heard this launch failed.
It depends. How thin you can make the solar sail is of critical importance. For example, a 12 micron solar sail will be superior to chemical rockets, mass-wise, for missions of longer than 2 months, and superior to ion drives for missions longer than two years. A one micron solar sail, however, will become superior to chemical rockets in just over five days, and ion drives in two months. I have some issues with their calculations (they assume constant solar flux, for example), but it still drives home how, if you can get a very thin sail, your accelerations can be incredible. Also, at least in theory, they'll be cheap to produce and difficult to have just fail on you. Not that I don't like the concept of M2P2 ;)
For comparison, Cosmos 1's sail is 5 microns (although it's not designed to be permanent). I was thinking the other night about a possibility (who knows if it is realistic). You could produce your sail in three layers:
1) A heavy, strong, flexible backing a dozen or so microns thick that will erode with sun exposure
2) A thin, durable, structurally weak layer less than a micron thick
3) An atomic-scale coating of aluminum
Of course, at regular intervals, you'd have to lay down a thick durable layer to keep the structure from tearing. The reasoning behind my idea is that you can create, stow, and deploy the sail in a heavy, durable fashion; however, once it has been in space for a few days/weeks, it becomes incredibly lightweight from solar exposure (but doesn't tear because it is no longer experiencing any significant forces beyond the uniform solar radiation pressure). You would unfurl with the heavy backing to the sun, and only switch to the aluminized side once the craft has lost mass.
The War of 1812... the good 'ol days when the federal government actually tried to save New Orleans.
You might be more on target if you aimed that at the california village-grown fools.
Um... hence my reference to "those people that..."
You're way in the minority, and I'm glad you're out there. But the vast majority of public school kids are basically uninformed, and worse, lack any critical thinking skills whatsoever. Enough of them vote (uncritically), or bitch at their legislators based on shallow, emotional, short-attention-span-driven reactions to things that we get ridiculous spending priorities. Our high tech/space programs do more to expand our tech economy, help with looming security issues, and keep us ahead of our competition in so many ways... if only the average kid was taught to think in terms of causal relationships and rational economics. Oh well.
I'm glad to hear about astronomy being taught by an engineer in the home-school environment. Unfortunately, too many of the home-schooling families I'm aware of do so because they don't think normal schools put enough Jesus into astronomy, etc., so it's in some ways worse than the public schools. That certainly varies.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
i agree with the lunar base. quite frankly i don't see what the problem is. It's not new tech to get us to the moon. we can even retrofit some of that vintage shit with new computers and call it a day (oversimplification). Is it a cultural hindrance? Are we not ready as a species to start inhabiting other celestial bodies?
There are biological constraints. Living on the moon for a while means that one will not be able to come back to earth. This is the first time that humans have encountered that constraint. maybe that's what it is?
I'm totally with the lunar base. In fact, they should start with target practice. Send living modules, food, water, and air modules... design them to withstand impact and pockmark the surface of the moon with them. GPS those suckers and design satellites to pick up the signals. Then start landing in the first of several teams. The first team will have four backup modules that have already been launched in case of catastrophic failure. It'll be redundant many times over. Wimax the moon and beam them cable and pr0n so they won't be bored after a long day of lunar mining. The technology ALREADY exists. The only thing is that there is no short or middle term money to be made, which is fine. That's what governments are for.
Re: solar sail. Anyone know if a proof-of-concept has ever flown? What are the practical applications other than for deep space probes?
un burrito me trampeó.
I guess you get what you pay for.
True, but at the rates you have cited you can lose 10 payloads and still be cheaper than the nearest competitor.
That is the rationale. I can't say that it is *better* in this particular case, but it is one way to manage costs. If your payload can be replicated fairly inexpensively, then it is the best way to manage your costs.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
the Volna first stage unexpectedly shut down 83 seconds after lift-off
Isn't the Volna a solid-fueled rocket? If so, it's not nearly as likely to "unexpectedly shut down" as a liquid-fueled rocket. Indeed, the main reservation NASA had about adding solid-fuel boosters to Shuttle was that they can't be shut down, or even throttled-back.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.