Stardust to Return January 15

Wow! by xx01dk · 2005-12-22 16:50 · Score: 1

I totally forgot about this one. Hope it doesn't pancake.

--
There is simply too much glass..

I know this is silly... by Sinryc · 2005-12-22 16:51 · Score: 1, Insightful

But if there was SOMEWAY for something to be alive in the dust, couldn't it put people in danger? Like, a new life thats sorta like a virus, or bacteria but can live in space. Couldn't bringing all this stuff back to Earth be a tad bit dangerous?

--
Yay, I have a sig.

Re:I know this is silly... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-22 16:52 · Score: 3, Funny

The only way this could be a tad bit dangerous is if you happen to be a member of the Kansas educational board.
Re:I know this is silly... by grasshoppa · 2005-12-22 16:55 · Score: 4, Funny

The radiation from this capsule will transform anything near it..to..oh god, they're already here! SPACE ROBOTS!

"GO STAND BY SOME STAIRS"

--
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Re:I know this is silly... by Sinryc · 2005-12-22 17:12 · Score: 1

Oh, okay. Thanks for the input.

--
Yay, I have a sig.
Re:I know this is silly... by heli0 · 2005-12-22 17:17 · Score: 5, Informative

Probably not any more dangerous than the multiple tons of extraterrestrial debris that rains down on us every day.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?numb er=470

A study done in 1996 (looking at the number of meteorites found in deserts over time) calculated that for objects in the 10 gram to 1 kilogram size range, 2900-7300 kilograms per year hit Earth.

They also estimate between 36 and 166 meteorites larger than 10 grams fall to Earth per million square kilometers per year. Over the whole surface area of Earth, that translates to 18,000 to 84,000 meteorites bigger than 10 grams per year.

--
Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
Re:I know this is silly... by Guppy06 · 2005-12-22 17:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

Stuff rains down on us from space all the time, including comets (at least where "all the time" is in geological terms). If there was something that could be alive on a comet that could harm us, something like it would have come down and killed us all by now.
Re:I know this is silly... by Paradise+Pete · 2005-12-22 17:44 · Score: 3, Informative

I'm being serious.
Well, I believe his point was that it certainly can't be a virus. There's no way it could be compatible with any hosts, unless of course one subscribes to the Intelligent Design notion, in which case even though it has not evolved in this environment it could be compatible.
Re:I know this is silly... by Nyeerrmm · 2005-12-22 18:03 · Score: 5, Informative

NASA/JPL requirements for an earth entry vehicle thats returning any kind of sample are very strict. They require that there be less than a 10^-6 chance of a particle larger than 2 nanometers entering the earth atmosphere.

Those NASA administrators read Crichton too.
Re:I know this is silly... by shawb · 2005-12-22 18:06 · Score: 1, Funny

They just want to protect your from the TERRIBLE SECRET OF SPACE!!!!

--
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
Re:I know this is silly... by Temporal · 2005-12-22 19:01 · Score: 4, Informative

You're absolutely right. Your suggestion is silly.

A life form which evolved to survive on the surface of a comet has zero chance of being successful inside the human body. In order for a life form to evolve to be effective in an environment, it must have exposure to that environment. The viruses which already plague us here on Earth have spent billions of years evolving specifically to attack the other life forms already present on Earth.

Of course, this argument is strongly rooted in evolution. As some other posters have pointed out, if you believe in intelligent design, you might disagree. But then, real-life observations and evidence are overwhelmingly consistent with evolution, not intelligent design, so I think we're safe.
Re:I know this is silly... by Plaid+Phantom · 2005-12-22 19:02 · Score: 1

But there's the possibility that life in meteorites was just burned away traveling through the atmosphere at high speeds. I would assume that Stardust would have been designed to keep things from getting TOO hot, so those lifeforms that were previously burned away might possibly have more of a chance to make it to the surface unharmed.

--
All comments are properties and trademarks of the voices in my head. Not like I'm gonna claim them.
Re:I know this is silly... by KylePflug · 2005-12-22 19:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

You'll pardon my ignorance, but isn't a space probe a wee bit bigger than 2 nanometers?
Re:I know this is silly... by alc6379 · 2005-12-22 19:52 · Score: 3, Funny

But there's the possibility that life in meteorites was just burned away traveling through the atmosphere at high speeds. I would assume that Stardust would have been designed to keep things from getting TOO hot, so those lifeforms that were previously burned away might possibly have more of a chance to make it to the surface unharmed.
That's true-- and come to think of it, I'm not going to be anywhere near those lifeforms once they're taken off of the probe. Once they find out our atmosphere has been burning up their relatives, they're going to be PISSED.

--
I don't moderate anymore. Karma penalty for 90% fair mods? Can I mod that unfair?
Re:I know this is silly... by alien-alien · 2005-12-22 19:56 · Score: 1

I'll bet very few of those killograms parachuted in at a nice safe speed though :->
Re:I know this is silly... by jsveiga · 2005-12-22 21:59 · Score: 1

IANARS (I am not a rocket scientist), but I suppose that debris entering the atmosphere will only burn if they have enough size/initial speed.

Space dust falling on Earth should get in unharmed (if being bombarded by the Sun's UV and all sorts of radiation before getting under the atmosphere blanket can be called unharmed).
Re:I know this is silly... by ChuckleBug · 2005-12-22 22:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

You're absolutely right. Your suggestion is silly.

Perhaps, but I think this is a normal, reasonable kind of fear, and we shouldn't try to make people feel stupid for asking questions. This is the biggest problem science faces in getting the public on our side. We need to be less quick in attacking people for not knowing things, and instead show a little empathy and help them learn. There's no sin in not knowing things--the only crime is refusing to accept facts when they are demonstrated.

I want the public to better understand science. The first step in doing that, I believe, is recognizing people's concerns as understandable, if not scientifically sound. As annoying as the pridefully ignorant are, most people aren't really like that. They just have honest questions, and those questions should be answered without supercilious condescension.
Re:I know this is silly... by rlauzon · 2005-12-22 22:16 · Score: 1

They already made a movie about this back in 1971. The Andromedia Strain http://imdb.com/title/tt0066769/
Re:I know this is silly... by bm_luethke · 2005-12-22 23:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

"A life form which evolved to survive on the surface of a comet has zero chance of being successful inside the human body. In order for a life form to evolve to be effective in an environment, it must have exposure to that environment. The viruses which already plague us here on Earth have spent billions of years evolving specifically to attack the other life forms already present on Earth."

This is pretty much totally correct regardless of your religious or scientific leanings. "random chance" is just as likely to produce an organism that will do well in both environments as "Intelligent guidance" is.

"Of course, this argument is strongly rooted in evolution. As some other posters have pointed out, if you believe in intelligent design, you might disagree. But then, real-life observations and evidence are overwhelmingly consistent with evolution, not intelligent design, so I think we're safe."

Eh, you are supposed to be a non-biased observer taking facts into account and you say this? You don't know anything about intelligent design beyond reading those that hate/strongly dislike it.

I'm no fan of intelligent design, I see no reason for it (science and religion are asking two very different questions - nothing in "evolution" as we know it precludes an intelligent God and this is a useless mix that only serves to muddy scientific study), but what you say is complete and total ignorance or a complete falsehood (either of which I would rather not be attached too).

Intelligent design focuses on that a supreme all knowing intelligence guides creation whereas evolution is random chance. There isn't much difference between the two otherwise and both are pretty weak in the old "evidence" department on that portion of the theory.

There are people that corrupt both into All-Knowing Absolute Correct Ideas (intelligent design people who say it invalidates evolution, evolutionist who say it invalidates a god), but both are basing thier idea not on evidence (there is none either way, though from a pure scientific point Occam's razor rules and the "random chance" side wins - though that is FAR from proof) but on faith. At best the only testable and verifiable (what is needed for it to be science) is that things change based on environmental pressure due to genetics and recombination - that does not mention anything about *why* this occurs. There is no way to test random chance vs all powerful controller, thus it is not science to declare one anything other than a hypothesis (one can not make it to theory without testing).

If you think evolution precludes a bacteria growing on a comet that is also dangerous to us (but Intelligent design does not) then you are VERY mistaken, nothing in evolution precludes this. It's why NASA (and other space agencies) has such strict guidlines for bringing foreign material into our atmosphere in a protected storage space (vs a large hunk of rock - the heat is considered to kill anything, and if it doesn't I guess it deserves a little human to eat and there is nothing we can do about it anyway).

That two sides of the debate never seem to grasp this is disheartening about the level of education we recieve about scientific theories, it also shows how difficult it is to seperate "belief" from testable and verifiable science.

--
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
Re:I know this is silly... by Halfbaked+Plan · 2005-12-23 01:42 · Score: 1

I just hope someone has had the sense to 'dust' off the old script from the movie 'The Andromeda Strain.' Just in case.

--
resigned
Re:I know this is silly... by Guppy06 · 2005-12-23 02:06 · Score: 1

" But there's the possibility that life in meteorites was just burned away traveling through the atmosphere at high speeds."

If enough of a meteorite made it thorugh to his the surface (especially those that cuase impact craters), why wouldn't something inside of it also survive?
Re:I know this is silly... by freeweed · 2005-12-23 03:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

The problem comes when you try to actually address those fears. The general public doesn't really want our answers, scientifically sound or not.

The vast majority of people still seem to think airplanes fall out of the sky on a regular basis, and that a car is far safer to be in. They think that terrorism is an actual, credible threat to their lives. They think that stoned babysitters actually do put babies into the oven. They think that mysterious men are out there offering "free perfume samples" which are actually vials of ether.

Hell, most of them still believe in omnipotent being(s) and willfully ignore evidence to the contrary. People simply do not like to learn that what they believed for most (if not all) of their lives is in fact incorrect, and they will fight tooth and nail to avoid learning that.

That, and there's a very large motivation for many people to be able to say "Pfft! Scientists! What do they know, anyway!". The default assumption that scientists are in fact idiots, and have entirely ignored the most obvious of dangers, IS something to be scoffed at, I'm sorry.

--
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Re:I know this is silly... by kurzweilfreak · 2005-12-23 03:53 · Score: 1

Do please explain some of your studies and experiences that lead you to believe a particular god of a particular religious sect created everything.
Do also post up a transcription of your chat with Darwin.

--
kurzweil_freak
5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
Re:I know this is silly... by rosewood · 2005-12-23 04:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

1) Site your source or as far as I am concerned, that is a bullshit number pulled out of your ass.
2) Anyone who makes policy based off of Sci-Fi can go smoke a fag.

--
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
Re:I know this is silly... by Nyeerrmm · 2005-12-23 05:34 · Score: 1

Sorry, probably should have done that. I worked on a project for school with Jet Propulsion Labs in Pasadena, and one of the documents (unfortunately I don't have them with me right now so I can't give you a title) has very strict guidelines on planetary contamination procedures both for other planets (don't want to contaminate the Mars biosphere, if there is one, before we can study it), and even stricter for our own biosphere. As for making policy off of sci-fi, it was a joke thats almost true. Its true that it probably wasnt as a direct result of the novel, but certainly science/engineering and science fiction are interdependent on one another, and one of science fictions most important purposes, besides basic entertainment, is either warning or inspiration, depending on the case.
Re:I know this is silly... by Nyeerrmm · 2005-12-23 05:47 · Score: 1

Sorry, didn't state that properly, too late at night. The entry vehicle is usually stored so that nothing on the exterior is exposed. The actual requirement is that no uncontrolled particle (i.e. something that falls off the entry vehicle) that large is able to enter the biosphere.
Re:I know this is silly... by Temporal · 2005-12-23 06:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

Intelligent Design would be far more likely to produce bacteria/viruses harmful to us originating from a comet. An intelligent designer can design such things however they like, and could thus think "I'm going do design a life form which could live on a comet but which could also be dangerous to humans!".

You don't know anything about intelligent design beyond reading those that hate/strongly dislike it.

I have read arguments for it as presented by the Discovery Institute and others. Invariably, their supposed examples of biological systems which are too complex and "irreducible" are really not. They use obscure cases which the average person knows nothing about (microbiology and such) so that the average person is unable to understand the details of their argument. Real biologists routinely counter their examples by demonstrating how these systems might be evolved.

Evolution is extremely testable and has been tested in many different ways. This article presents 29+ extremely strong tests which evolution passes. I find prediction 1.3 to be particularly amazing.

IMO, Intelligent Design is also testable. If we were intelligently designed, we would expect not to see aspects of our design which are utterly bad or easily fixed. In reality, our bodies are full of horrible design. For instance, our pelvises are slanted forward, and the base of our spines must slant back to compensate. This leads to all manner of back pain as we get older. This design flaw makes a lot of sense in evolutionary terms -- we evolved from knuckle-dragging apes -- but no self-respecting engineer would come up with such a design.

Speaking of our spine: it is composed of a whole bunch of vertebrae, which would be great if we were walking around on four legs and didn't need to support our full weight on it vertically. The flexibility would be perfect for galloping like a horse. But, again, it mostly causes problems for us.

Oh, and we have too many teeth to fit in our mouth. What's up with that?

These are just a few small examples. Honestly, I would give God more credit than to think that he designed such poorly-engineered creatures as us.
Re:I know this is silly... by ChuckleBug · 2005-12-23 06:51 · Score: 1

The problem comes when you try to actually address those fears. The general public doesn't really want our answers, scientifically sound or not.

Come on - I agree scientific illiteracy is a huge problem, but I don't think this broad a statement is justifiable. I've found most lay people are truly interested and at least partly open to learning. Fundamentalist idiots aren't the majority. There are too many of them, though. (I know you didn't say fundamentalist.)

People simply do not like to learn that what they believed for most (if not all) of their lives is in fact incorrect, and they will fight tooth and nail to avoid learning that.

Yes, but there are also people like me, who was once just like that myself. Patient and reasonable people changed my mind. It's not true that people like this are unreachable. We scientists and science teachers need to take some responsibility for the attitude and ignorance. I'm not trying to be a pollyanna - I get as exasperated and pissy about this as anyone, but I try very hard to see ignorance as an opportunity to help, not just to complain and give up, or worse, denigrate others so I can feel superior.

That, and there's a very large motivation for many people to be able to say "Pfft! Scientists! What do they know, anyway!". The default assumption that scientists are in fact idiots, and have entirely ignored the most obvious of dangers, IS something to be scoffed at, I'm sorry.

Look, I'm right up there scoffing away a lot of the time. Just look at my posts about creationism, for which I have nothing but contempt. But the original question that got the snarky answer was an honest question. OP didn't say scientists are idiots, etc. - He just asked a question.

Yes, sometimes a good scoffing is called for. Some things are so idiotic, the only sensible response is a good mocking. One of my favorite sayings is H.L. Mencken's observation: "Sometimes a belly laugh is worth a thousand syllogisms." But we should also not become so jaded that we interpret every query or misconception as that obnoxious, pridefully ignorant hostility to science. We can help make a dent in scientific ignorance if we try a little empathy and try not to make people feel stupid for asking questions. Ignorance is not crime. Willful ignorance is.
Re:I know this is silly... by TigerNut · 2005-12-23 09:50 · Score: 1

It sez in the TFA that NASA will "carefully land (their helicopters) upwind of the capsule", presumably so they don't get contaminated by anything that might be on or leaking from the capsule. Of course, in the process they will blow salty crap all over the capsule and hopelessly contaminate it. They should land crosswind from it, so they don't contaminate it, and they also won't catch anything that might be leaking from the capsule...

--
Less is more.
Re:I know this is silly... by bm_luethke · 2005-12-23 10:33 · Score: 1

"Intelligent Design would be far more likely to produce bacteria/viruses harmful to us originating from a comet. An intelligent designer can design such things however they like, and could thus think "I'm going do design a life form which could live on a comet but which could also be dangerous to humans!".

Why? You presuppose that the intelligence wants this to happen, I submit it to be less likely as the likelyhood of an intelligent being wanting to destroy sentient creatures it has made is very unlikely. Random chance doesn't care.

"I have read arguments for it as presented by the Discovery Institute and others. Invariably, their supposed examples of biological systems which are too complex and "irreducible" are really not. They use obscure cases which the average person knows nothing about (microbiology and such) so that the average person is unable to understand the details of their argument. Real biologists routinely counter their examples by demonstrating how these systems might be evolved."

There are "real" biologist who disagree wether you like it or not. Random chance can take care of anything - infinite monkeys givin infinite time banging on infinite typewriters will eventuall create the complete works of shakespear. That is totally possible, it still doesn't invalidate that Shakespear used "intelligent design" instead of random chance to write.

"Evolution is extremely testable and has been tested in many different ways. This article presents 29+ extremely strong tests which evolution passes. I find prediction 1.3 to be particularly amazing."

Agreed - evolution is highly testable and anyone who says it doesn't happen is an idiot that refuses to see the world around them. It doesn't take years of study to see this. However, that point is immaterial as Intelligenent design focuses on why it happened, not how.

"IMO, Intelligent Design is also testable. If we were intelligently designed, we would expect not to see aspects of our design which are utterly bad or easily fixed. In reality, our bodies are full of horrible design. For instance, our pelvises are slanted forward, and the base of our spines must slant back to compensate. This leads to all manner of back pain as we get older. This design flaw makes a lot of sense in evolutionary terms -- we evolved from knuckle-dragging apes -- but no self-respecting engineer would come up with such a design."

Until you create a living ecosystem I'll take your "this would be sooo much better" with something of a grain of salt. How do you know?

"Speaking of our spine: it is composed of a whole bunch of vertebrae, which would be great if we were walking around on four legs and didn't need to support our full weight on it vertically. The flexibility would be perfect for galloping like a horse. But, again, it mostly causes problems for us."

Ahh, we are back to arguing something that Intelligent Design people agree with. The argument is in *why* it happens, not that it does or how.

"Oh, and we have too many teeth to fit in our mouth. What's up with that?"

Mine seem to fit my mouth pretty well, so does my parents. Now, why they don't grow and replace like many herbivores instead of rotting away is a better question.

"These are just a few small examples. Honestly, I would give God more credit than to think that he designed such poorly-engineered creatures as us."

Neither of us are a creator (and I'm specifically not being Christian-centric). Intelligent Design doesn't mean that the creator has the same goals you would, nor that your ideas would necessarily be better. You complain that the Intelligent Design people say some things can't happen and are wrong (and I agree), but you give examples that can easly and simply also be rational choice yet say they can not be. Pot, meet kettle.

--
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
Re:I know this is silly... by Temporal · 2005-12-23 12:41 · Score: 1

Why? You presuppose that the intelligence wants this to happen, I submit it to be less likely as the likelyhood of an intelligent being wanting to destroy sentient creatures it has made is very unlikely.

Then why did God create viruses on Earth?

There are "real" biologist who disagree wether you like it or not.

They are a very small minority. It is hard to understand how these people could be effective, given that evolution serves as a bedrock principle for much of biology.

Random chance can take care of anything - infinite monkeys givin infinite time banging on infinite typewriters will eventuall create the complete works of shakespear. That is totally possible, it still doesn't invalidate that Shakespear used "intelligent design" instead of random chance to write.

What does this have to do with anything? Evolution is not random chance. Mutations are random, but natural selection chooses the most beneficial mutation for the given environment. This is in no way analogous to the monkeys-and-typewriters cliche.

However, that point is immaterial as Intelligenent design focuses on why it happened, not how.

The theory of Intelligent Design, with a capital I and D, as championed by the Discovery Institute, explicitly contradicts natural selection. The whole point of the theory is to contend that some biological systems could not possibly have come about via natural selection. It very much intends to explain "how" life came about: it explaints that life was designed by an intelligent creator. It does not attempt to explain why this creator did this.

If you want to argue that the creator may have had some higher reason for using poor designs, then ID returns to the realm of the untestable, which in turn makes it worthless.
Re:I know this is silly... by cthulhu11 · 2005-12-23 16:37 · Score: 1

Not if you eat sterno.
Re:I know this is silly... by surfingmarmot · 2005-12-24 05:18 · Score: 1

Come Michael, your book film, now tv-series (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0424600/) is old news--saw it, saw the movie, won't watch the new series--been there, done that.--that was then, this is now. Write something new instead of flogging your old work.
Re:I know this is silly... by bm_luethke · 2005-12-26 12:45 · Score: 1

"Then why did God create viruses on Earth?"

I don't know, I don't know why other intelligent people do somethings - doesn't make them not exist. I can't fathom the mind of a rapist or murderer in my wildest imagination, yet they are still out there.

"They are a very small minority. It is hard to understand how these people could be effective, given that evolution serves as a bedrock principle for much of biology."

Well, by your tests so far this would mean they do not exist because you wouldn't make the same choice, or that they have no intelligence. Though most of the Biologist I knew in college and at the lab didn't have an opinion on this matter one way or the other - most, like me, thought the argument was silly as it couldn't be proven either way.

"What does this have to do with anything? Evolution is not random chance. Mutations are random, but natural selection chooses the most beneficial mutation for the given environment. This is in no way analogous to the monkeys-and-typewriters cliche."

Yes it is. You were saying that because some biologist proved that random chance could account for a trait coming about that meant that intelligent design was incorrect. My point was that random chance can account for anything but that still doesn't preclude intelligence behind the decisions. I used an example that is obvious that an intelligence did it and showed that random chance (and, like evolution, picking the stuff that works) could account for the works being written also. The main difference being that we have enough information to know that a person wrote the story, not a bunch of random presses of a keyboard. Thus they are not mutually exclusive and neither disproves the other. Heck, with computational biology we find that we (being intelligent beings) can use evolution to produce a specific goal (even things like improved air craft engines) - exactly the "Intelligent Design" that the scientist you do not udnerstand think of. Personally I would consider that proof that it is possible, though it still has nothing to do with probable.

"The theory of Intelligent Design, with a capital I and D, as championed by the Discovery Institute, explicitly contradicts natural selection. The whole point of the theory is to contend that some biological systems could not possibly have come about via natural selection. It very much intends to explain "how" life came about: it explaints that life was designed by an intelligent creator. It does not attempt to explain why this creator did this."

The Discovery Institute doesn't speak for everyone, should I go find some nutty biologist that says idiotic things to prove that evolution is wrong? Of course not - it's an attempt to stack the argument in your favor by picking nuts to quote, not the normal thinking people. You know this very well and do it intentionally. Why not argue with the ones that are sane, the scientist, instead of setting up straw men to knock down?

Nor do I think you understand the "why" being answered. It's not saying why the creator did anything. Evolution says that random combinations of genetic material will produce a variety of features, those that work are kept, those that do not are thrown away which over time creates diversity in life. Intelligent design says that genetic codes are combined producing variety and the ones the creator wanted to keep stay, those that are not are thrown away moving towards an unltimate design willed by the creator.

They disagree on why the changes happen - that is Evolution isn't moving towards creating humans, civilizations, domesticated animals, predators and prey, anything. Whatever happens just happened through random chance. From Evolutions point of view we could be a barren wasteland and it wouldn't matter.

From an Intelligent Design point of view a creator somewhere had something in mind and made the universe to be what they wanted. They wanted humans, a diverse earth, everything we see. Through certain means the creator did this (namely evolution).

--
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
Re:I know this is silly... by Temporal · 2005-12-26 20:42 · Score: 1

"Then why did God create viruses on Earth?"

I don't know, I don't know why other intelligent people do somethings - doesn't make them not exist. I can't fathom the mind of a rapist or murderer in my wildest imagination, yet they are still out there.

The question was rhetorical. You had said that you thought that "random chance" would be more likely than intelligent design to put dangerous (to humans) viruses on a comet. Now you say you have no idea what a creator might do. Maybe the creator would put dangerous viruses on a comet. Since "random chance" almost certainly wouldn't, that seems to make it more likely.

The Discovery Institute doesn't speak for everyone, should I go find some nutty biologist that says idiotic things to prove that evolution is wrong? Of course not - it's an attempt to stack the argument in your favor by picking nuts to quote, not the normal thinking people. You know this very well and do it intentionally. Why not argue with the ones that are sane, the scientist, instead of setting up straw men to knock down?

The Discovery Institute essentially runs the Intelligent design movement. They more or less started it, and they are the ones constantly championing it in the media and to school boards.

What you seem to be arguing is entirely different. Perhaps you should not call it "Intelligent Design", since most people (like myself) associate that term with the specific theory and movement championed by the Discovery Institute. Contrary to your accusation, I did not choose their version because it was easy to argue. I chose their version because it is the de facto standard definition of the term. (Note in particular that "Intelligent Design" is much more specific than "Creationism".)

Now that you've explained your definition, my argument is entirely different. In fact, I don't even have one. I concede that there is obviously no way to know if God is tilting the odds of mutation in our favor. And, indeed, your version of ID is quite compatible with evolution.
Re:I know this is silly... by bm_luethke · 2005-12-30 22:19 · Score: 1

"he question was rhetorical. You had said that you thought that "random chance" would be more likely than intelligent design to put dangerous (to humans) viruses on a comet."

That wasn't really what I intended. I intended that it may not - it depends on what the creator wants. I don't know so I can't say. To me, it seems a draw. My point was that by your logic it could be either way.

"The Discovery Institute essentially runs the Intelligent design movement. They more or less started it, and they are the ones constantly championing it in the media and to school boards."

Maybe and maybe not, like it or not the wikipedia isn't a great resource on it. The wiki is pretty bad on social things (though great on purely scientific ideas). The scientist you can't fathom more than likely take a stance similar to mine towards intelligent design. I doubt the discovery institute speaks for very many people. My mother, who is as close to a fundamentalist as you know, is even abhored by what they wrote. I highly suspect that they are chosen as the easiest to rebute and make the most visible as a "group think" type of thing - would you rather argue against me or them? And i'm not that good at it (to be fair, the "religious" groups do the same - I'm sure you see it also in thier arguments).

"What you seem to be arguing is entirely different. Perhaps you should not call it "Intelligent Design", since most people (like myself) associate that term with the specific theory and movement championed by the Discovery Institute. Contrary to your accusation, I did not choose their version because it was easy to argue. I chose their version because it is the de facto standard definition of the term. (Note in particular that "Intelligent Design" is much more specific than "Creationism".)"

You may not have conciously - but have you changed any of your thinking? I know of far far more people who think like I do that not (though, from a purely scientific point of view I just don't see it either way - not something science can answer). I am willing to bet that the majority of the "not real biologist" have something very similar to what I believe. What I think is close enough to the general thought that it might as well be average. There are many diferent versions of "intelligent design" - either intentionally or because you know no better you have chosen to argue against the weakest adherent of it. Better to look at what the majority (not just those chosen by the media you watch) adherents of it quote instead of the detractors - it will give a better view of it. Don't do the knee jerk reaction - that should *never* be part of someone who is trying understant, only those that already know the answer.

That being said - I still think that this has no place in a science class. It's not science - it's meta-science and philosophy. It's interesting and worth arguing, but unless it is testable it has no place todays world "works" or "doesn't work". We spent centuries trying to get the church out of science only to go the other extreme - to take God (not necessarily a Christian God either) out of it. The problem is still the same - untestable. We need to learn to seperate those beliefes. Both intentional and unintentional inclusion of that.

I don't buy intelligent design, nor do I buy the opposition. I simply do not know. There is some truth to both sides, I know which I have faith in (what I have argued, though I have argued against my personal belifes from time to time), but that is a far cry from what I believe in from an evidence point of view. Just think for a moment - "can I prove what I belive?" - I don't mind if the answer is "no" and you still hold to it - we all do so. As long as you understand where that begins and ends I admire that attitude.

--
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it

Here's hoping this one doesn't...... by DoraLives · 2005-12-22 16:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

land like the last one.

--
Is it fascism yet?

Re:Here's hoping this one doesn't...... by cyclone96 · 2005-12-22 17:17 · Score: 5, Informative

No kidding...especially since they were built by the same contractor (Lockheed Martin Denver).

The failure of Genesis was tied to a badly designed placement of deceleration sensors, a design flaw which Stardust is apparently free from (but I'm sure there will still be some serious hand-wringing on the 15th).

More details here.

--
Worst...sig...ever!
Re:Here's hoping this one doesn't...... by Bad+D.N.A. · 2005-12-22 18:08 · Score: 3, Interesting

"The failure of Genesis was tied to a badly designed placement of deceleration sensors, a design flaw which Stardust is apparently free from"

While it's premature to call Genesis a "failure" it certainly did not meet specs. There was a very interesting session at the AGU in SF from the Genesis team

http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/sessions5?meeting=fm05& part=SH32A&maxhits=400/

on what science they are doing and where they are going with their future research. No doubt everyone would have enjoyed a successful capture but even with the Utah desert impact there seems to be significant samples available for scientific study.

--
"Truth is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations"
Re:Here's hoping this one doesn't...... by cyclone96 · 2005-12-22 19:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

Thanks, that's a well appreciated clarification.

Interesting, I guess I called it a "failure" because I'm looking at it from the engineering side (I'm a NASA engineer - looking through my paradigm "success" means the spacecraft itself worked as designed).

But overall, the engineering is just a tool to complete the mission, which is science (and clearly there is a lot of good science coming out of Genesis). Sometimes we need to be reminded....

--
Worst...sig...ever!
Re:Here's hoping this one doesn't...... by ms1234 · 2005-12-22 19:40 · Score: 1

I see they are taking another shot at SCO HQ...
Re:Here's hoping this one doesn't...... by slashname3 · 2005-12-23 02:48 · Score: 1

The Genesis rocket reminded me of that short lived TV series "Master Blasters". I don't believe they ever had a successful recovery of any of the rockets they launched. And to paraphrase one of the particpants of that show "A successful launch and recovery is cool, a failed launch and/or recovery is spectacular."

Here's hoping they have a successful mission.
Re:Here's hoping this one doesn't...... by eander315 · 2005-12-23 05:34 · Score: 1

According to the article, the problem was caused by parachute release servos, not sensors:
"An investigation concluded that small servos that controlled parachute release had been installed backward, years before when Genesis was assembled."

NASA announces by metamatic · 2005-12-22 16:55 · Score: 3, Funny

This article to return to the front page of Slashdot in a day or two.

--
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak

Re:NASA announces by Hosiah · 2005-12-22 17:41 · Score: 1

Hhhhhmmmm....should I comment on this pass, or wait for the next pass? Oops...
Re:NASA announces by smooth+wombat · 2005-12-23 01:27 · Score: 1

You're a bit off in your prediction. You should have looked in the past.

--
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower

Is that accurate? by Belial6 · 2005-12-22 17:05 · Score: 1

Would a generally spherical object free falling from space actually only reach 100mph before it hit the ground? And would there really be no creator from said object falling from space?

Re:Is that accurate? by andy753421 · 2005-12-22 17:56 · Score: 1

It all depends on the size of the object. 100mph and not much of a crater seems about right for it, (although I would have expected it to be more around 200mph). The real question is whether it would slow to 100mph before hitting the ground. Large meteorites leave craters and go faster because they are more massive and thus have more momentum.
Re:Is that accurate? by Baddas · 2005-12-22 18:16 · Score: 3, Informative

It depends greatly on a couple factors:
Coefficient of drag, surface area, mass of the object, and the density of the air it's falling in.

If you assume that the object can survive the freefall from space, then the air changes density enough that it would slow to the terminal velocity of the object at approximately sea level regardless of how fast it was going (within a reasonable orbital velocity)

So to summarize a bit, it'd be easily possible to design a rough-surfaced sphere that could slow to well under 100mph. Just think of a ping-pong ball or a beach ball!
Re:Is that accurate? by cyclone96 · 2005-12-22 18:17 · Score: 3, Informative

Another variable is the entry angle. Genesis was *targeted* such that it would hit the edge of the earth's atmosphere and utilize it to bleed off almost all of its kinetic energy through friction. The parachutes were only designed to take care of braking it that last 200 mph or so.

Of course, they never deployed, so it essentially hit the ground at terminal velocity - basically the same as if you had just rolled it out of an aircraft at 50,000 feet.

--
Worst...sig...ever!
Re:Is that accurate? by Baddas · 2005-12-22 18:19 · Score: 2, Informative

Also, to add more, spheres show a very interesting behavior in different fluid flows: They're almost self-parachuting.

"The drag coefficient for a sphere is given with a range of values because the drag on a sphere is highly dependent on Reynolds number. Flow past a sphere, or cylinder, goes through a number of transitions with velocity. At very low velocity, a stable pair of vortices are formed on the downwind side. As velocity increases, the vortices become unstable and are alternately shed downstream. As velocity is increased even more, the boundary layer transitions to chaotic turbulent flow with vortices of many different scales being shed in a turbulent wake from the body. Each of these flow regimes produce a different amount of drag on the sphere."

To summarize that, basically at low speed, spheres form stable airflow which reduces drag substantially, whereas at high speeds, the sphere creates an uneven "wake" (much the way you might imagine a curveball behaving)
Re:Is that accurate? by Enigma_Man · 2005-12-23 02:44 · Score: 1

Another article I read about the genesis probe said it hit the ground at around 400 mph, which sounds a lot more likely for a multi-hundred pound spacecraft the size of a small go-kart.

-Jesse

--
Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.

Ralph Yarro's ship comes in! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-22 17:06 · Score: 2, Funny

Maybe it will touch down here:

http://maps.google.com/maps?oi=map&q=355+South+520 +West,+Lindon,+UT

Re:Ralph Yarro's ship comes in! by AndroidCat · 2005-12-22 17:40 · Score: 1

I don't suppose that the probe could have picked up some anti-matter along the way? (Then again, that would be too quick for them.)

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Re:Ralph Yarro's ship comes in! by x4071k05 · 2005-12-22 17:53 · Score: 1

Uh...no...if it picked up any sizable amounts of a antimatter, it would've been vaporized before hand. Unless it has some high power electromagnetic shield to trap antimatter. Somehow, someway it does come across the path of any antimatter, then the exterior particles that comprise the probe will come in contact and go *poof* (in laymen's terms), but because antimatter isn't exactly found around here, I'd be surprised if even one antiparticle made it to the probe, at that amount, the integrity of the probe is quite intact.

Utah? by Ranger · 2005-12-22 17:24 · Score: 2, Flamebait

My God! It's full of Mormons!

--
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"

Re:Utah? by Ranger · 2005-12-22 19:50 · Score: 4, Funny

-1 Flaimbait? Wow! Mormons, sure are sensitive. At least I didn't say: My Xenu! It's full of Scientologists!

--
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"

Re:Andromeda Strain for Real? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-22 17:25 · Score: 2, Funny

Guess I'll have to check IMDB.com

Quickly! We may... not have... enough... time... (gasp)

(THUD)

Article? by RedNovember · 2005-12-22 17:29 · Score: 1

My God! It's full of Stardust!

(no, I am not high)

--
"MY APOCALYPTIC TENOR HAS NOT BEEN DISPELLED!" - T-Rex, qwantz.com

This is... by radiotyler · 2005-12-22 17:43 · Score: 1

...ground control to Major Tom.

Oh, not Ziggy Stardust? I guess my awesome rendition of China Girl is out.

--
hi mom!

Re:This is... by thebiggs · 2005-12-23 07:28 · Score: 1

let's just hope this probe doesn't unleash the Spiders from Mars

Very Important For Our Future by cyberjessy · 2005-12-22 17:49 · Score: 4, Interesting

Comets Crashing into our small planet is one of our biggest long term threats. The samples will go a long way in being able to identify their composition and look at means to destroy them in future.

Although the likelyhood of asteroids hitting the earth are higher, comets are special in that they give very little warning before they hit. Maybe a few years, while asteroids can be predicted much earlier. A large comet hitting the earth, will likely be an ELE (Extinction Level Event), destroying most life and all humans.

To me, this is something that we doing for sustaining human life. I don't care about the money spent, or the small chance of bringing in viruses, which they may have already considered.

--
Life is just a conviction.

Re:Very Important For Our Future by AvitarX · 2005-12-22 17:56 · Score: 1

Arn't deadly near miss asteroids sometimes spotted after the fact? or days before the near miss?

--
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Re:Very Important For Our Future by Baddas · 2005-12-22 18:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

Composition of cometary objects isn't as important as their mass, in terms of protecting Earth from impacts.

Really, the sheer kinetic energy inherent in hyperbolic objects is so large as to make the thought of deflecting them silly.

For example, a cometary object 1km square would weigh a billion metric tons, and carry ~48 quadrillion Btus (or 1.41117626 * 10^13 kilowatt hours, a number so large it's silly), which would power the entire US for around six months if converted to electricity.

Basically, all we can do is hope. There's no imaginable engine that could be built on earth and sent to a comet in time to change it's orbit enough to avoid earth.
Re:Very Important For Our Future by Baddas · 2005-12-22 18:39 · Score: 1

Addendum to that math: Not the entire US electricity budget, but the entire US energy budget, including direct usage like gasoline, natural gas, and heating oil.
Re:Very Important For Our Future by Waffle+Iron · 2005-12-22 19:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

For example, a cometary object 1km square would weigh a billion metric tons, and carry ~48 quadrillion Btus (or 1.41117626 * 10^13 kilowatt hours, a number so large it's silly), which would power the entire US for around six months if converted to electricity.
Umm, the idea isn't to stop the comet; it's to nudge it off course by a few thousand miles. To do that, all you have to do is change it's velocity by say 1 m/s a few months before impact. That would only take 5e11 joules or 140,000 KWh for your comet. That's an amount of energy comparable to what a single gasoline tanker truck can hold.
Re:Very Important For Our Future by Baddas · 2005-12-22 19:52 · Score: 1

The amount of energy it takes to get a gasoline tanker worth of energy to a comet a few months before impact is very, very large.

Also, you're assuming that 140,000 KWh is translated into productive thrust, which again is not precisely accurate. In space you'd need the oxidizer, which for gasoline would mean approximately 8 tanker trucks of liquid O2 needed to oxidize.

Even if you're using a higher Isp engine like an ion drive, you'd need to apply at least 140 kilowatts for a month.
Re:Very Important For Our Future by KylePflug · 2005-12-22 19:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

Or you could stop thinking engines and start thinking bombs/projectiles.
Re:Very Important For Our Future by tajgenie · 2005-12-22 20:47 · Score: 1

Actually I think an even bigger threat (and maybe more likely, but I'm not actually sure) is if our volcanic activity ceases. This is more likely than you may think, and it is a situation worth preparing for. If the volcanoes go out, we lose all of our ocean currents, and therefore the weather will change DRASTICALLY.
Re:Very Important For Our Future by tehdaemon · 2005-12-22 20:50 · Score: 1

Remember the recent NASA probe that rammed a comet to see what is inside? The used a solid copper impactor, cause the kinetic energy was greater than the energy of that much explosive.
Just send up a dozen or so ion engine powered impactors, and aim for the same side, with each impact a week apart.

--
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
Re:Very Important For Our Future by Baddas · 2005-12-22 21:02 · Score: 1

Same problem with impactors as with explosive, really, although I suppose you can just sort of float them up there, since the relative velocity would be effective. You'd need ten metric tons of impediment (I'm assuming for practicality that it would be "at rest" relative to the comet's velocity)

I see the problem as being not so much stopping the comet, as the fast reaction time needed to put the projectile up. It takes months and months to find a good launch window for geosynch sats, let alone things like the Cassini probe. You're talking about trying to hit an object half an AU away with three months notice (assuming 6 months of warning)
Re:Very Important For Our Future by KylePflug · 2005-12-22 21:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

Exactly what I was thinking. Seems like a few broad, flat, even remotely massive projectiles travelling a few tens of thousands of km/s ought to be able to knock a comet suitably off course, given enough advance notice. Carry up something big and heavy and cheap in the space shuttle and send it off. Or, heck, if circumstances are dire enough, throw chunks of space shuttle or ISS at it.

If we start planning now, it ought to be relatively easy to get some kind of fairly flexible asteroid deterrent up there. The trick is making it something that isn't also conspicuously similar to an orbital weapon. Dreaming up countermeasures is no good if the other world powers won't let it sit in orbit for fear we might turn it against them.

I'm no physicist, but couldn't an anti-comet bullet be turned into, say, an anti-city bullet by throwing it around a single AU orbit and back into a terrestrial target? Would there be any way to track such an incoming object without advance notice?

Now I've lead myself down a rabbit-trail, but couldn't a superpower with a space program conceivable launch a purported comet impactor and surreptitiously swing it around against a city? Would there be any way to prove after the fact what had happened?

In an age of nuclear weapons, it seems silly to drop rocks from orbit, but still. One wonders.
Re:Very Important For Our Future by tehdaemon · 2005-12-22 22:13 · Score: 1

I do not mean to use the ion engines to accelerate the projectiles - just to move them into the comet's path. The comet's speed is what we will use. I think this is what you meant then you said " I suppose you can just sort of float them up there, since the relative velocity would be effective."
To your other objection, well, it looks like we need to launch them into some parking orbit (likely well above geo-sync) long before we see the comet comming. (ie, let's get in gear and defend our planet already!)

--
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
Re:Very Important For Our Future by tehdaemon · 2005-12-22 22:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Carry up something big and heavy and cheap"
When it comes to launching things into space, these terms are mutually exclusive.

--
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
Re:Very Important For Our Future by TallMatthew · 2005-12-22 23:27 · Score: 1

Comets Crashing into our small planet is one of our biggest long term threats. The samples will go a long way in being able to identify their composition and look at means to destroy them in future.
Yes, let us all start to prepare for The War on Comets, those Cosmic Weapons of Mass Destruction. Haliburton should be awarded a contract to develop a weapon against them. Everything is fear and destroy nowadays.
Should a comet ever threaten this planet, it won't be its composition that prevents us from deflecting it. It will be the paucity of resources available to the space program, the lag created by bureacracy and the general lack of concern in all things planet-related. It will take so long for some one to notice a comet is coming, for that person to pass that knowledge to their superiors, for their superiors to pass it up to their superiors, all the way until it reaches someone with enough authority to do something about it, then to convince them that there is a real threat, at which point a committee must be formed to figure out what should be done, with various subcommittees creating plans of action, debating the seriousness of the threat and generating something for the press, then of course to figure out how it could be politically beneficial, and finally to allocate budget for it, which in itself could be a deal-breaker extinction or no extinction, by the time all that's done, the thing will be right on top of us. Boom.
Our biggest long-term threat is ourselves, period.
Re:Very Important For Our Future by TallMatthew · 2005-12-22 23:40 · Score: 1

If a comet were to approach the planet when this current administration is in power, judging by their previous actions when the country is threatened, they'd send the space shuttle up with a dozen astronauts carrying brooms to attempt to swat the comet in a different direction while at the same time firing an arsenal of nuclear missles at the moon, destroying it completely, while citing its gravitational pull as evidence of complicity with the comet, then awarding an enormous no-bid contract to a defense contractor to investigate means of recreating tides.
Re:Very Important For Our Future by Waffle+Iron · 2005-12-23 02:12 · Score: 1

The amount of energy it takes to get a gasoline tanker worth of energy to a comet a few months before impact is very, very large.
So what? You originally claimed that it would take more energy than the USA uses in months to do the job, which makes it totally infeasible. I showed that the number is actually 8 orders of magnitude less.
At any rate, you wouldn't even have to bring the energy in the form of chemical fuel. For example, the Soviets launched dozens of small nuclear reactors into space on satellites, each one of which could deliver dozens of kilowatts of power for many months. Dust off the blueprints to one of those, grab ice from the comet to feed into a steam rocket, and you've got a package that would easily fit within our current launch capabilities.
Re:Very Important For Our Future by Enigma_Man · 2005-12-23 02:32 · Score: 1

Definitely. There just aren't enough eyes on the sky to see in all directions for incoming threats.

-Jesse

--
Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
Re:Very Important For Our Future by kin_korn_karn · 2005-12-23 03:10 · Score: 1

Does a stirring orchestral soundtrack narrate your life as you go about your daily business?

I mean goddamn. This is one of the most pretentious posts I've ever read on /. and that's saying something.
Re:Very Important For Our Future by enrgeeman · 2005-12-23 07:45 · Score: 1

aren't near misses hits? if you nearly miss it, you hit it.

--
sent from my slashdot browser.

There's always room for Aerogello by AndroidCat · 2005-12-22 17:57 · Score: 4, Interesting

This probe used Aerogel for catching comet dust. It looks like bad-assed Blueberry Jello with a Cherenkov glow!

I can't believe I didn't get on either of the name list microchips on this probe. Poot!

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.

Re:There's always room for Aerogello by bronney · 2005-12-22 22:44 · Score: 1

Here's the description of "aerogel" from NASA:

Crayons on Aerogel over a flame Aerogel is not like conventional foams, but is a special porous material with extreme microporosity on a micron scale. It is composed of individual features only a few nanometers in size. These are linked in a highly porous dendritic-like structure. This exotic substance has many unusual properties, such as low thermal conductivity, refractive index and sound speed - in addition to its exceptional ability to capture fast moving dust. Aerogel is made by high temperature and pressure-critical-point drying of a gel composed of colloidal silica structural units filled with solvents. Aerogel was prepared and flight qualified at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). JPL also produced aerogel for the Mars Pathfinder and Stardust missions, which possesses well-controlled properties and purity. This particular JPL-made silica aerogel approaches the density of air. It is strong and easily survives launch and space environments. JPL aerogel capture experiments have flown previously and been recovered on Shuttle flights, Spacelab II and Eureca.

so what the hell is that in English?
Re:There's always room for Aerogello by GodLived · 2005-12-23 04:12 · Score: 1

so what the hell is that in English?
Silly Putty.
Re:There's always room for Aerogello by terrymr · 2005-12-23 05:05 · Score: 1

Think silica gel ... only with a lot more air in it and therfore a lot less dense. It almost looks like solidified smoke. You can probably buy some on ebay.
Re:There's always room for Aerogello by qwertyatwork · 2005-12-23 05:43 · Score: 1

...I can't believe I didn't get on either of the name list microchips on this probe

I did :)
Re:There's always room for Aerogello by AndroidCat · 2005-12-23 09:31 · Score: 1

My full name is there, but with a different middle initial. I doubt it was a typo, so I probably tried, got a "that name is a dup" message, figured that I'd already done it and forgot, gave up. Ah well, the ill-fated Mars South Polar Lander and Deep Impact had my name so the Martians and Comet People will be looking for me.

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Re:There's always room for Aerogello by qwertyatwork · 2005-12-23 09:37 · Score: 1

Im on the new horizons mission to. Im worried that maybe aliens will intercept it and think its a list of people to probe :~(

Re:Cool! by node+3 · 2005-12-22 17:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

Other than the cool factor, the article doesn't touch on what good it will do us to study particles older than the sun. Anyone in the know care to elaborate?

Two answers, depending on if you mean, "why are we spending money on this?" or "science is cool, teach me more!"

The answer to the first question is two-fold. One is you never know where the next crucial clue or insight is going to come from, but even if you discount a scientific endeavor altogether as impractical, it's the same reason we play sports, watch TV, listen to music, etc. These all serve no primary, "practical" purpose, but they are crucial to a robust culture.

The answer to the second question is it will help us (I'm speculating here) understand which of the models regarding the formation of stars and star systems best match observed reality. This leads to answering other questions, for example, which stars to look at more closely (perhaps for signs of life). If you're still at a loss to why we should do such a thing, I refer you to my first answer.

Except... by thesnarky1 · 2005-12-22 18:00 · Score: 2, Funny

They forgot we use meters on Earth, and not Quantum Light Years... my guess? Big smash, nice crater, Nothing to see here folks, please move along.

--
Want to find other gamers to play board and role playing game

Re:Cool! by Bad+D.N.A. · 2005-12-22 18:22 · Score: 1

"Other than the cool factor, the article doesn't touch on what good it will do us to study particles older than the sun. Anyone in the know care to elaborate? "

Well, it's like Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs) hit us all of the time, (thought to be) accelerated by super nova shocks many (suns ago) it does make sense to try to understand their acceleration mechanisms, the spectra, and their (if possible) temporal evolution (doubtful, but a "wet" dream of mine).

--
"Truth is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations"

Re:Andromeda Strain for Real? by oaklybonn · 2005-12-22 18:38 · Score: 1

Actually, the great thing about this movie was that they *didn't* save the world. The virus was totally out of control and spreading fast. By chance, it mutated to an inert form - so the world was saved by dumb luck and not through science... So its a cautionary tale, really - mess with stuff you don't understand, kill everyone in the world.

Oh, spoiler alert. Sorry.

Great movie, though. At least, for geeks and James Olson fans.

stardust? by pintomp3 · 2005-12-22 18:43 · Score: 3, Funny

damn, i got all excited reading the headline. i thought my fav stripclub was going to reopen. oh well. btw, no need to mark your calender, you will be reminded here in a couple days.

Brownlee Rocks! by ChuckleBug · 2005-12-22 19:25 · Score: 4, Interesting

I was student of Don Brownlee at the University of Washington, and I think he's about the most decent and caring professor I've ever had. Even when I was an undergrad, I could go to his office and he'd just talk about his work for what seemed like hours, even to a lowly undergrad. I'm not saying this to name-drop -- I want people to know what a cool person he is. If anyone deserves success, it's Dr. Brownlee. Truly one of the good guys in science. He's one of those rare professors who managed to make himself famous (the guy has an asteroid named after him) while remaining humble and committed to helping his students learn. We need more scientists like him.

Re:Cool! by Vellmont · 2005-12-22 19:32 · Score: 1

Other than the cool factor, the article doesn't touch on what good it will do us to study particles older than the sun. Anyone in the know care to elaborate?

Well, I'm not an astronomer, but I can make guesses as to what interstellar dust and comet particles would be usefull for. For one thing by studying the chemical and isotope makeup of the particles you could determine where they came from. That would likely tell you something about comet origins (do they come from our solar system, or from outside it), and maybe something about stellar evolution and, our local group of stars, and probbably a whole lot more I don't know about. Stars make different balances of isotopes and elements based on the type of star and its initial composition of elements. By looking at the composition of these elements in a particle you can tell a lot about the origin of the particles.

Looking at the larger picture for a moment, one of the biggest problems in Astronomy is simply lack of information. Astronomy is widely critisized (and not unjustly so) for its imprecision because of this lack of data. Getting particles from comets and inter-stellar dust could give a boost to many areas of Astronomy.

--
AccountKiller

It's Already Happened, Check Out the Movie by Pulsar · 2005-12-22 21:26 · Score: 1

Alright, so it's fiction, but it's really good fiction, in my opinion. All about a sat. that returns to the Earth with unknown organisms aboard that create a series of crisises.

Michael Crichton wrote 'Andromeda Strain' back in the 70's, which is a pretty good book. (Barnes & Noble link, no referral ID).

It was later turned into a movie, although the movie was so-so, in my opinion.

Crichton is probably best known for Jurassic Park, but he raises some interesting issues in Andromeda Strain, if you're at all interested in science, check it out. It's also an interesting look at technology and security - Chrichton goes into detail about the safety, security and containment systems at his imagined government research facility, and then...well, read the book, but you can guess how it turns out.

Re:Andromeda Strain for Real? by MichaelSmith · 2005-12-22 21:44 · Score: 1

By chance, it mutated to an inert form - so the world was saved by dumb luck

They also figured out that a nuclear explosion would cause it to start mutating again, about five minutes before the dead town was going to be nuked, and right before the nuclear self distruct almost went off in the underground lab.

So the other point would be something like "If in doubt, don't" WRT setting nukes off.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au

Particle age by Atario · 2005-12-23 00:05 · Score: 3, Interesting

we believe some of the particles in the comet will, in fact, be older than the sun

All particles are the same age -- about 13 billion years, when the universe cooled enough for them to form.

Oh, you mean superatomic particles. Never mind.

--
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt

Dubious Reentry by applemasker · 2005-12-23 01:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

As pointed out here , Stardust uses the same re-entry method and was built by the same contractor (LockMart) as the Genesis probe which cratered into the Utah desert in 2004 (Sarcastic photo caption: "Thud!"). An investigation revealed that the gravity switches (sensors which are to detect the probe's deceleration in the atmosphere and trigger parachute deployment) were the most likely installed in the "incorrect orientation," which sounds like bureacraticese for "backwards."

--
Bush Lies On the Record.

Gundam by nremorse · 2005-12-23 01:33 · Score: 1

Anyone who has ever seen an episode in the Gundam series would be a little worried about "Operation Stardust"...

Touchdown as in... by Mysticalfruit · 2005-12-23 02:01 · Score: 1

plowing into the ground and 14 times the speed of sound...

--
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.

Reruns... by ddmckay · 2005-12-23 02:03 · Score: 1, Redundant

Is it time to dust off the reruns of the "Andromeda Strain"? :-)

(see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066769/)

Bugger, I thought they meant Alvin. by TractorBarry · 2005-12-23 02:58 · Score: 1

And here was me giving the article a quick glance and thinking this meant meant that Alvin Stardust was making a comback...

Buggeration, I'd already got my elephant gun cleaned & oiled before I realised I'd misread it.

Yo ho hum.

--
Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !

Re:First Andromeda Strain comment? by Detritus · 2005-12-23 03:09 · Score: 1

I've seen real films of lab animals exposed to nerve agents. It can kill them in less than a minute. A chemical can get in your body and screw up your nervous system very quickly. A biological agent takes more time. There were reported cases of the Spanish Flu that killed people within hours, although it's unknown how long the virus was present and multiplying before symptoms were noticed.

--
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat

Some other type of reentry by CodeHog · 2005-12-23 04:04 · Score: 1

Instead of waiting to see if this probe will crash and burn into Earth like a previous one, couldn't we come up with another method of retrieving this thing? How about a rendezvous with a shuttle? IANARS but it seems like there will be little control over how this thing lands.

--
Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

Re:Some other type of reentry by jswhitten · 2005-12-23 18:09 · Score: 1

The probe will be approaching Earth at a very high speed. The easiest way to slow it down is the friction from the atmosphere on re-entry. Otherwise, in order to slow it to orbital speeds so that a shuttle could retrieve it, it would need to carry a rocket with a lot of fuel, which greatly increases the cost and complexity of the mission.

--
-Jed

Wild 2 is not so "Wild" by wjsteele · 2005-12-23 04:38 · Score: 1

In case anybody is interested... Wild is pronounced "Vild" or "Vilt" after the Swiss astronomer who discovered it.

Bill

--
It's my Sig and you can't have it. Mine! All Mine!

Comet Wild 2 by Torgen · 2005-12-23 04:44 · Score: 1

sent to intercept Comet Wild 2 Hmm, I must have missed "Comets Gone Wild 1: Shake That Tail!"

Re:Andromeda Strain for Real? by a.c.walker · 2005-12-23 05:03 · Score: 1

and all copies and generations of said virus spontaneously mutated to a safer form? I'd think even Michael Crichton would think of that as poo poo. I know I read it like 15 years ago and all I remember is the blinkinlights triggered some guys seizure.

But where to see it by heroine · 2005-12-23 17:39 · Score: 1

They said it would be visible from Calif as a streak of fire but not where to look for it in the sky.

If the burning doesn't get them... by leonbrooks · 2006-01-01 19:30 · Score: 1

...then the plasma discharges probably will. Shuttles come in relatively slowly, yet at least one of them has been photographed with something that looks suspiciously like a "Blue" Jet (they aren't all blue) striking it, immediately before it blew up.

Interestingly, one of the analyses used to back statements that there was no lightning involved provides a fairly sound reason for it: there was no warning, no change in the Shuttle's acoustics right up to the point when it all came apart. A strike that high, coming down would be nearly soundless, quickly drowned in the breakup noises, and recovered pieces of the damaged wing show damage characteristic of a high-powered electrical discharge.

Anyone who wishes to assert that such things don't happen is invited to read up on Positive Giants, Rocket Lightning, Geophysical Meteors and Ball Lightning before replying.

--
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing

Slashdot Mirror

Stardust to Return January 15

110 of 144 comments (clear)