Slashdot Mirror


NASA Stardust Returns to Earth

quadsoft writes "The Globe and Mail reports "Dugway Proving Ground, Utah -- A space capsule ferrying the first comet dust samples to Earth parachuted onto a remote stretch of desert before dawn Sunday, drawing cheers from elated scientists. The touchdown capped a seven-year journey by NASA's Stardust spacecraft, which zipped past a comet in 2004 to capture minute dust particles and store them in the capsule.""

119 comments

  1. Wow by SunPin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is a truly impressive mission. Fire and forget is one thing but bringing back pieces of a comet is... in my opinion, right up there with the moon missions.

    --
    Laws are for people with no friends.
    1. Re:Wow by GoMissedAtTheMAP · · Score: 1

      Wake me when the hollywood style helicopters swoop in to pluck it out of the sky.

    2. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      What's MOST impressive is that they got the accelerometers on right this time!

    3. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bad thing is that they put the particle retrieval canister in backwards!

    4. Re:Wow by oldstrat · · Score: 1

      What's unimpressive is that the stardust mission is actually the first of the two missions and genisis is the second.
      NASA 'trimming' of standards and budgets for lean cost savings doomed the launched in 2001 genesis mission and the older 1999 launched more expensive stardust succeeded.

    5. Re:Wow by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      For crying out loud people, hasn't anyone from NASA seen Invasion of the Body Snatchers?

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
  2. In unrelated news..., by rah1420 · · Score: 4, Funny

    All contact has been lost with the residents of the town of Piedmont, AZ. State Police have set up a perimeter around the area and all residents are advised to stay indoors until further notice.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
    1. Re:In unrelated news..., by jerryasher · · Score: 1

      It's a Wildfire.

    2. Re:In unrelated news..., by Mjolniir · · Score: 1

      Ah. So that's why the non-descript black sedans are pulling up outside of my house. I may be out of touch for awhile guys. That's what I get for being the odd man. . .

    3. Re:In unrelated news..., by dko1625 · · Score: 1

      Amazing how a 30+ years movie suddenly is 'relevant' The event triggered me to watch the movie last night :-) Wildfire and comet Wild - a coincidence ??? ;-)

  3. Anyway, by machine117 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For my real comment, is this the stardust that NASA (or somebody else) wants to give to people people to analyze because they also grabbed some debris from a recent (and by recent I mean 10 million years ago) exploding star?

    1. Re:Anyway, by bblazer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes it is. Actually they are going to send out pictures of the capture area and have people search visually for the dust. There actually seems to be a long process to get trained for it.

      --
      My .bashrc can beat up your .bashrc!
    2. Re:Anyway, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Geez. Hopefully, someone will nail the moderator that modded this up in M2.

  4. Stardust Mission May Continue by Rob+Carr · · Score: 4, Insightful
    According to the article Capsule of comet dust lands back on Earth, "The Stardust mothership will remain in orbit around the sun, and Duxbury said NASA is considering sending it to another comet or asteroid."

    So, even after this successful capsule recovery, this might not be the end.

    --
    This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
  5. I've said it before and I'll say it again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want a box of that AeroGel stuff to play with! It's sooooooooo cool!!

  6. No Receipt? by somethingprolific · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    They should have just faked this mission like the first moon landing and saved $30 million.

    1. Re:No Receipt? by somethingprolific · · Score: 0, Troll

      $212 million... sry. Go ahead and label me a troll. I'll return to my cave now...

    2. Re:No Receipt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Batcave? Omg Can I get your autograph?

  7. At least this one didn't crash... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... like this one.

  8. Typo, I hope by troon · · Score: 5, Funny

    From the article:

    Early Sunday, that capsule nose-dived through Earth's atmosphere at a record 29,000 mph, the fastest return for a man-man probe.

    No comment required...

    --
    Ydco co ,df C erb-y go. a Ekrpat t.fxrapev
    1. Re:Typo, I hope by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

      Utah's religious population would probably object to a "man-man" probe and tell NASA to land it in a blue state instead.

    2. Re:Typo, I hope by joecr · · Score: 1

      They fixed it. It now says "Early Sunday, that capsule nose-dived through Earth's atmosphere at a record 29,000 mph, the fastest return for a man-made probe."

      I guess someone noticed it & had someone fix it. I love the fact that you can fix a problem like this on the Internet while it is another story fixing an already printed story.

  9. Stardust@home by healy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Well, now that it's back, we help them and join in the search: http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/

    --
    "Jesus saves sinners...and redeems them for valuable coupons"
    1. Re:Stardust@home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anyone know for what platforms the stardust@home client will be available, or what browser plugins will be required for participation? I've searched their page and haven't found any information about this.

    2. Re:Stardust@home by healy · · Score: 1

      What I heard on NPR that it will be a browser based search. Not sure what plugins will be required.

      --
      "Jesus saves sinners...and redeems them for valuable coupons"
    3. Re:Stardust@Home by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sit at your computer and help the search with Stardust@Home.

      Get us to hunt for collection panel dust particles? The ultimate laziness scam.

      I am gonna start WriteMyCode@Home and get people to program for me for free. After that would come TrollSlashdot@Home, ScratchMyItchyBalls@Home, ModMeUp@Home, and ModMeOutOfNegativeOne@Home. (Let's hope this message will not require the last one.)

  10. Not opened yet... by thrill12 · · Score: 1

    I don't see them dropping down with clotted blood yet.

    Then again, they didn't open the capsule - and who knows what happens when they bring it to the doctor and he doesn't run a lunar lab...
    (btw thanks for copying my comment ;=)

    --
    Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
    1. Re:Not opened yet... by rah1420 · · Score: 1

      Great minds think alike. Never even saw that one. LOL

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
  11. Some things are best left undefined... by durandal61 · · Score: 3, Funny
    From the Globe and Mail article:
    Early Sunday, that capsule nose-dived through Earth's atmosphere at a record 29,000 mph, the fastest return for a man-man probe.

    I am not sure I want to know what a man-man probe is...

    d.
    --
    My motorbike travels in Chile.
    1. Re:Some things are best left undefined... by grimJester · · Score: 2, Informative

      Presumably a Freudian slip. Pretty deep when you think of it.

  12. Re:At last! by shawnce · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Guess it is to early for a joke... :)

  13. Re:At last! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    andromeda strain andromeda

    pardon my spelling and lack of knowledge you geeks

  14. Yay for science! by quokkapox · · Score: 3, Insightful
    This is another example of why science is important and why it should be respected.

    We did it this time. The previous mission didn't work right, but this one nailed it. The political naysayers and critics who want to redefine science should pay attention.

    We did it this time, but even with our previous failure, how could we attain such a level of precision with our measuring and then engineering of the laws of physics and chemistry to achieve such a specific goal, to send out a space probe that mindlessly orbits around the solar system for years and comes back to us like a cosmic boomerang, and yet be drastically and unanimously incorrect when it comes to measuring the rate of radioactive decay of various elements in the extensive global collection of terrestrial geological samples and also the synthetic elements we've created during the twentieth century atomic age?

    Have all the scientists in all the nations of the world simply got it exactly, equally wrong?

    The scientific framework of ideas is well-established and the theories are interdependent. This is why we can readily reject challenges like "Intelligent Design".

    Because they just don't fit in.

    --
    it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
    1. Re:Yay for science! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just out of curiosity, who is this "we" you're talking about?

      NASA?
      The USofA?
      The science/engineering community?
      Humanity?

      Curious, because if I hadn't directly contributed to a probe, I wouldn't say "'we' did it".

    2. Re:Yay for science! by Hao+Wu · · Score: 1
      This is another example of why science is important and why it should be respected.

      "Another" example? You've only counted one.

      --
      I suggest you read Slashdot
    3. Re:Yay for science! by quokkapox · · Score: 1

      Sorry. They come fast and hard and it's easy to get sidetracked.

      --
      it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
    4. Re:Yay for science! by stewby18 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The scientific framework of ideas is well-established and the theories are interdependent. This is why we can readily reject challenges like "Intelligent Design".

      I'm not a proponent of ID, but if you want to argue against something it's best to understand it--and your argument has nothing to do with ID. While ID my be embraced by some literalist creationists as a way to slip in the side door, ID itself has no contradiction with things like the fossil record or carbon-dating results. At the core, evolution says "we evolved over time, through a combination of pure random chance and natural selection", whereas ID says "maybe it wasn't all random chance".

      The more crackpot end is where people try to prove ID, when it clearly isn't provable scientifically. But keep in mind that we also can't prove that what is attributable to random chance is truly random, and isn't actually at least sometimes influenced by some outside force with motivations that we don't understand.

      In short, it's perfectly possible to believe in a higher power guiding the development of life at some level without the slightest contraction with accepted scientififc observations. Lots of religious people do; you just don't hear about them because they aren't raising a big stink or proposing crackpot 'science' to try to make others accept that view.

    5. Re:Yay for science! by tgrockhead · · Score: 1

      Yay for engineering. The science of stardust is just beginning.

    6. Re:Yay for science! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Radioactive decay theory and newtonian physics are completely separate. Proving one in no way proves another. I stay out of the whole ID debate as both screaming sides seem to show a certain level of, oh shall we say obsession. You know, like using a story about a space mission to bring the damn topic up.

      Anyway, what if the rate of decay changes over time? Seems new theory indicates that c may change. If c changes I would fully expect rates of decay to change.

    7. Re:Yay for science! by Decaff · · Score: 1

      Anyway, what if the rate of decay changes over time? Seems new theory indicates that c may change. If c changes I would fully expect rates of decay to change.

      We are talking about possible changes in C over 10 billion years ago. This would have an insignificant impact on radioactive dating.

    8. Re:Yay for science! by Nivag064 · · Score: 1

      The most crucial flaw in the notion of Intelligent Design (ID) - is that the justification "life is so complicated and perfect that it must be designed" is that it raises the question "who designed this designer!".

      Essentially ID is pure superstition, and has no scientific validity!

    9. Re:Yay for science! by kale77in · · Score: 1

      > The most crucial flaw in the notion of Intelligent Design (ID) - is that the justification "life is so complicated and perfect that it must be designed" is that it raises the question "who designed this designer!".

      Your understanding of Theism seems to have halted somewhere around Sunday School level. Try reading Bertrand Russell on the subject: either God OR the Universe must be eternal and uncreated. Those are the options. He thought it was the universe ("Since at least I know the universe exists"). (Sorry, I have to reference for that quote off-hand.)

      The question is what ultimately exists; an infinite regress of creators is unwieldly and may indeed be mathematically impossible (depends whether infinites can exist in reality; an infinitely old universe is philosophically equivalent to an infinitely long chain of causality; neither are in my opinion possible). Occam's Razor would suggest one, though more of course might be possible. But something 'just exists' without cause or design, whichever way you look at it.

      If the universe shows evidence of contingency (not being simply a brute fact) then Russell's position is invalidated, although his dichotomy remains -- that's the discussion that's going on here, whether in Hawking's 'bounded universe' which tries to escape the point-of-cosmic-origin-without-physical-cause problem, or, at a different level, the ID movement (minus the young-earth creationist fringe).

      It's not a simple question of science vs. superstition, but what kind of universe science reveals, and what its implications are for philosophy.

    10. Re:Yay for science! by stevesliva · · Score: 1

      Actually, Genesis was launched after Stardust. Too bad they didn't recycle the parachute hardware's design.

      --
      Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
    11. Re:Yay for science! by saladasalad · · Score: 1

      we also can't prove that what is attributable to random chance is truly random, and isn't actually at least sometimes influenced by some outside force with motivations that we don't understand.

      We can't prove it because it's not a testable hypothesis, which as you pointed out is the reason for the whole argument over ID. It's just not science!

  15. Obligatory historical reference by texaport · · Score: 1
    Maybe NASA will exceed the previous 1800 recorded instances of Stardust"

    --
    "Hoagy Carmichael (November 22, 1899 - December 27, 1981)
    He is best known for writing "Stardust" (1927), which has
    been called the most-recorded American song ever written"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stardust_(song)

  16. Went better than the last one, it seems. by FusionDragon2099 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/0 8/1625231/

    Seems NASA actually did something RIGHT for once. Three cheers for NASA!

    1. Re:Went better than the last one, it seems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah you right spirit and opportunity , mars express , pathfinder , mars global surveyor , mars reconnaissance orbiter , vikings missions , mariners missions , apollos missions , hubble , deep impact ...etc was all failed mission . We are so dumb to put money into NASA

  17. Nasa wants u! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nasa is actually recruiting internet users to look at the data under a virtual microscope to find the dust particles. They are even gonna throw in some fakies just to see how good their recruits do. I tried posting something about that (my first /. post) but it was denied probably because they thought my wording wasn't good enough =)

    http://www.toptechnews.com/news/Finding-Stardust-a t-Home/story.xhtml?story_id=023002D7XDIJ

  18. Stardust@Home by Alsee · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sit at your computer and help the search with Stardust@Home.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  19. Wow. by n6kuy · · Score: 1

    The parachute deployed this time.
    I guess the accelerometers weren't installed uposide dowm.

    --
    If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
  20. We did it right the first time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stardust was launched before Genesis. By assembly order, NASA/LM did it right the first time. Its number two that didn't work.

    I worked on Genesis and a small amount on Stardust (post-launch work).

  21. The chips are down! by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 2, Funny

    Where do I collect the one with my name on it?

    re: http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/overview/microchip/fa q.html




    1. Re:The chips are down! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Where do I collect the one with my name on it?

      Sorry, but your name was on this one.

  22. Some serious rocket science by AngryNick · · Score: 5, Interesting
    WOW! Imagine pushing the return capsule off your side of the mother ship at 28,860 mi/hr and 4 hours later finding it safely on the ground...in the exact spot you wanted it to land. Mr. Bush, this is how space exploration should be done!

    From NASA press release:
    "I have been waiting for this day since the early 1980s when Deputy Principal Investigator Dr. Peter Tsou of JPL and I designed a mission to collect comet dust," said Dr. Don Brownlee, Stardust principal investigator from the University of Washington, Seattle. "To see the capsule safely back on its home planet is a thrilling accomplishment."

    NASA has posted a few pictures and press releases.

    Congratulations to all involved.

    1. Re:Some serious rocket science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      what a waste of money. Period. People are dying from aids, war, strife and we're collecting moon fuckin dust. You have cities like Detroit that are the homes to America's largest car makers and they're fuckin bankrupt!

      But yea keep collecting that dust

    2. Re:Some serious rocket science by nitemayr · · Score: 1

      Yup, THIS, THIS is the outrageous budget waste. The persuit of knowledge. THIS IS THE MONUMENTAL WASTE OF MONEY TO NO END.

      There is no other thing that is taking money away from worthy projects, science is the waste. Science is pointless. I guess it's a good thing that money isn't being wasted elsewhere, to the tune of 8 million a day or anything... I can't imagine where else money is being tossed down the drain.

      Finally someone has the guts to point out what a waste science is. Who needs it?

      Ass.

      --
      Hello Kettle,
      You, my friend are as black as pitch.
      With love, Pot.
    3. Re:Some serious rocket science by AngryNick · · Score: 1
      what a waste of money.

      Show some respect, AC Troll. Space exploration or not, disease, war, poverty, and economic forces will always exist.

      Most people understand that research for the sake of increasing knowledge will inadvertently lead to the researcher learning something that he "didn't know he didn't know." This results in new approaches to problem solving, new ways to cure disease, new reasons to have wars, etc. Cruise this site to see some of the items that resulted from NASA research. You might learn something you didn't know.

    4. Re:Some serious rocket science by Decaff · · Score: 1

      what a waste of money. Period. People are dying from aids, war, strife and we're collecting moon fuckin dust.

      Have you any idea how little this costs compared to defense expenditure? If you want to attack spending, attack that.

  23. Hey Smarty.... by natedog44 · · Score: 1

    ... take an English class.

    Maybe they'll teach you what a "Run-On Sentence" is.

    And why must every scientific acheivement be used against ID? (I'm not for it or against it by the way)

    Can you imagine Wilbur Wright saying "Well Orville, now that we know how to fly, I guess we can tell everyone to stop going to church"

    1. Re:Hey Smarty.... by quokkapox · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Maybe they'll teach you what a "Run-On Sentence" is.

      Take an English class yourself, and maybe they'll talk about poetry.

      I like run-on sentences. I'm just trying to communicate. Don't like it? Bite me, foe :)

      --
      it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
    2. Re:Hey Smarty.... by IllForgetMyNickSoonA · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What he wanted to point out, is that this mission is one more great achievement of science and engineering, one more proof of how valid the methods and the logic behind science and engineering is - regardless of what religious teachers are trying to persuade us. The religion, includung the ID "theory", has yet to come up with something nearly as impressive as this mission was, before they can claim *any* scientific credibility (remember: ID tries to look like science)

      BTW, if you're not against ID, you are for it. Simple as that.

    3. Re:Hey Smarty.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we have natedog44: who tries to use proper sentence structure and rules that are generally accepted for everyday communication. Therefore doing his best to communicate in an organized manner to effectively detail his point of view so others can comprehend it as easily and completely as possible. He also is willing accept that with current knowlege and scientificly proven facts, or lack of (and i have yet to meet any person that can prove or disprove creation or ID) that there may be more than one explanation for what may or may not have occurred to create us.

          Then we have quokkapox: Who uses sentence structure that is not generally accepted by the A.P.A. to communicate in an open forum, and chooses to defend with a reference to poetry. It should be pointed out that some forms of poetry (ie: DaDaism) didn't last very long and are generally passing fads. Now i haven't researched this at all, so i could be wrong, but the standards for structure in communication with the written word have been fairly stable for quite a while.

          For instance my first impression of any idea is going to be largely based on how organized the presentation of the idea is and how well it takes into account the proof or disproof of it's premise.

          Your premise is that we can send a rocket to space, have it circle around and come back. Therefore we could not have been created. It's a bit lacking in the evidence department. But i suppose that if someone can insert commas after every word and call it poetry, we all can look at a McDonalds and say,"whoa, they have really big arches! there can't be a God or he would have struck Ray Kroc down."

      my small contribution

      have a nice day!

    4. Re:Hey Smarty.... by pnewhook · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Can you imagine Wilbur Wright saying "Well Orville, now that we know how to fly, I guess we can tell everyone to stop going to church"
      Actually there were lots of religious based protests at the time stating that we shouldn't attempt to try and fly. "If God intended man to fly then he would have given us wings" was the argument used.
      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    5. Re:Hey Smarty.... by d474 · · Score: 1
      "Can you imagine Wilbur Wright saying "Well Orville, now that we know how to fly, I guess we can tell everyone to stop going to church"
      Au Contraire!

      Can you imagine the Church saying "The Bible doesn't say ANYTHING about the Orville's flying a plane. There is no prophecy for such an occurrence. Therefore, flying is just a theory, NOT a fact."

      No, that would be pretty ridiculous, right? So, why, despite the fact that we live in an age of genetic engineering, continuously evolving diseases, libraries of fossil evidence of evolutionary changes, proven human influence over animal breeding (artificial selection), does the Church still attempt to claim that Evolution is just a "Theory", not a "fact"? (Which is a peculiar argument anyway, because a "Theory" is set of interwoven facts. You must be trying to say that it's only a "hypothesis"?)

      It is just as ridiculous - the only difference, seeing someone fly is more cognitively accessible than the intellectually challenging concept of billions of years of Evolution. In-other-words, the power and authority of the Church has an easier time brainwashing their flock into believing a reality fundamental to the powerbase the Church must maintain in order to survive.

      Well, my friend, survival of the smartest will eventually "deselect" the inferior explanation of creationism. It. Is. Inevitable.
      --
      Authority questions you. Return the favor.
    6. Re:Hey Smarty.... by cptgrudge · · Score: 1
      ..one more proof of how valid the methods and the logic behind science and engineering is - regardless of what religious teachers are trying to persuade us.

      Full disclosure: I am a Christian in the USA.

      I'm not disagreeing with you, but just (re)iterating that there are those people out there that can reconcile science and religion. Religion and science (for me) are both ways to find out more of the world around me. Not all people that subscribe to a religion take Creationism as law; I would venture that most don't. For instance, I believe that God created the universe. It's just that simple, with no extra baggage. No timeline, no creation of animals, humans, whatever.

      Through furthering science, we expand our understanding of the universe. I just can't fathom how the religious fundamentals can't cope with the fact that both can exist. In my mind, science is furthering my understanding of existence, that which God initially created. The universe operates according to rules, which God created. I disagree vehemently with Intelligent Design, not because I don't believe that the universe was created by a higher power, but from the fact that it is a veiled attempt at injecting religion into scientific education. Their agenda, fueled by fervent zealotry, actually goes contrary to understanding a God-created universe!

      If scientists had advanced this theory with verifiable evidence of extra-terrestrial influence on the path that life had taken on Earth, I would not object, but this "theory" is being pushed by those that have no business in science. It is utterly untestable.

      Perhaps what marks the difference is that the religious fundamentals see God intervening everywhere, in everyday things, when it's only the rules that were set down in the first place. (I have thoughts on Christ's miracles, but I won't go into them here.)

      It often seems that the vocal minority outweighs the silent majority. I probably haven't said anything here that hasn't been said before, but I just wanted to say again that there are religious people out there that have no problem with science, and the efforts to advance it. I am one of them, and I know hundreds more.

      --
      Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
    7. Re:Hey Smarty.... by IllForgetMyNickSoonA · · Score: 1

      Hi,

      I'm afraid only a very tiny minority of the religious folks out there share your views. As the matter of fact, you are the second person that I come to know to have this view and still call himself religious. The first person with that attitude that I have met is now my wife[1].

      The great unwashed masses, including all official christian churches, would disagree with you vehemently.

      [1]: no, NOT for that reason! :-)

  24. Man-Man by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Funny

    the fastest return for a man-man probe
    No comment required...

    Not that there's anything wrong with that!

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  25. Re:..a truly impressive mission-but unnecessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you have a kid with an earache and you can't get medical insurance because your job only pays $11 an hour

    Then you can look at yourself and wonder "what the FUCK was I thinking and why didn't I keep my dick in my pants?". If you're on a job worth $11 an hour, get another job. Better yourself. Anybody can do it. If you want to choose to stay with your $11 an hour job, DON'T HAVE KIDS.

    Words cannot express how much I hate the "gimme gimme" culture where people expect they're entitled to help just because they decide to work for peanuts and have kids, something you can't well support while working for peanuts.

  26. Re:..a truly impressive mission-but unnecessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hey Wetblanket,
    Flipping off the use of public funds for the advancement of knowledge of our environment beyond our atmosphere is a liget use of funds. How much have you helped those same people you seem to be so concerned about? Oh, not a gift of money or your time. I thought so.

  27. The Martha Stewart of scince fanboys by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Independant of how you feel about ID, there is a major problem with your argument.

    It is one thing to measure exactly how things behave now, to send a cosmic boomerang off and have it return with absolutle precision - that is our domain, our expertise if you will. It is in the now.

    It is quite another to look back over millions of years and accurately say exactly how something came to be without the ability to be there and observe. Untiil a day comes that we can send an Hourglass mission winging back through time to return samples for us our degree of absolutle certanty will always be less that something we can measuer at the moment. We will always have theoories with gaps in understanding.

    For someone who professes such an admiration for science, you sure don't seem to be observing many of the protocols.

    P.S. - just to stem the tide of idiotic responses, I am not a fan of ID. Nor am I a fan of someone who professes fanatical devotion to anything without thought.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  28. Welcome back, Ziggy! by pablodiazgutierrez · · Score: 1

    Oh, wait, another Stardust... Bummer.

  29. Re:..a truly impressive mission-but unnecessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hello, short-of-mind.

    If you want to have kids, fine by me. if you want to have kids on an $11 an hour job, fine by me.

    If you choose to do that, don't complain about how fucked up you've made your life and don't sit there with your hand out waiting for someone else to rescue you from the life of your choice.

    I haven't lived with my parents since I was 16. They too realised what a screwed up situation they got into by having 3 kids while aged 20 with one wage. So they chose to better themselves, pick up and move the family to somewhere they could get better jobs. And they did. And they studied, and they made well for themselves. They picked their own asses up and didn't complain that NASA was spending money on shooting guys to the moon, rather they went out and PROVIDED FOR THEMSELVES.

  30. Gotta love the press by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The last time a NASA capsule came down there, one paper ran the headline, "Saucer from Outer Space Lands in Utah Desert". Pretty clever way to grab attention without outright lying.

    1. Re:Gotta love the press by cyber-dragon.net · · Score: 1

      It was not a UFO it was a weather baloon... I mean swamp gass... No I mean space dust capsul *grumbles having to remember the right cover story*

    2. Re:Gotta love the press by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      Orbes volantes exstare.

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
  31. How many years before results are out? by edxwelch · · Score: 2, Funny

    They have been analysing the genesis wafers for more than a year now and there is still no scientific results.

  32. And now the dead walk! by DurendalMac · · Score: 1

    BRAAAAIIIIINNNSSS!!!

  33. Too nice Again! by sebastinator · · Score: 2, Funny

    I am very happy that this can happend! This is the greatest combat that is actually forbidden by the majority of the human population. This is the most important thing that we should understand as soon as possible. This represents the future of the humanity. And in 2005 it looks that there is again a politicised 'anything you can do we can do better' like somedy told before. But we must work in group and organization that can bring new stuff without beeing limited to the cash! We must give all our energy in the developpement of a good space transporter! I know I dream but the earth will not be there for a long time! Focus gang, Focus! -- Sebastinator! Thanks for visiting my Web site! Post your comments on my forum!

    --
    Thanks for visiting my Web site! Post your comments on my forum!
    1. Re:Too nice Again! by grimJester · · Score: 1

      This is the greatest combat that is actually forbidden by the majority of the human population.

      I'm not sure what you're smoking, but I think it's forbidden by the majority of the human population too.

  34. Any zombies yet ? by MarkTina · · Score: 1

    So have any of the people who come into contact with the "space dust" started getting an appetite for brains ?

  35. Re:..a truly impressive mission-but unnecessary by sholden · · Score: 1

    And you spending money on electricity and internet access helps these people how?

  36. You just can't stop science! by brownpau · · Score: 1

    You can't stop modern science. Can't stop it, you can't stop it. Can't stop science. Can't be stopped, no way, no how, science just marches...

  37. Re:..a truly impressive mission-but unnecessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Parent poster's point is insipid, but your response is just embarrassing. You sound like you believe in having high standards -- you might want to apply that to the way you express yourself and the way you think about others.

  38. Anyone see it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did anyone see the reentry from Silicon Valley? I went out last night in West San Jose and attempted to spot it, but saw nothing. On the other hand it was never supposed to be more that 15 degrees from the horizon, and the sky was a bit hazy.

            A. Coward

  39. Mission not necessarily over by Tablizer · · Score: 1
    (From space.com:)

    Meanwhile, still up in space, is the Stardust "mother craft" that successfully ejected the sample return capsule.

    "Our mighty little spacecraft is still out there," said JPL's Duxbury. "This thing is still alive and well. It may have a future life as well," and is capable of further exploration of comets and asteroids, he said.

    Mission controllers have placed the spacecraft into a "divert maneuver"--to keep the hardware from hitting Earth. It has been put on an orbit around the Sun.

    After nearly seven years of space travel, the solar-powered Stardust and onboard gear--including an operational navigation camera--have weathered well. An expected 44 pounds (20 kilograms) of fuel should be left onboard after the divert maneuver.

    "NASA has no current plans for an extended mission," said Tom Morgan, Stardust Program Scientist and Executive at NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C. However, individuals who wish to propose post-return uses for the spacecraft to NASA may submit a proposal for the use of the spacecraft in...a document released on January 3 ...


    "Spying on nude beach babes" probably won't qualify. Any other ideas? Seems there is probably a comet or asteroid out there wanting for a visit if the trajectory is reachable.
    1. Re:Mission not necessarily over by dabigpaybackski · · Score: 1

      How about Mercury?

      --
      "OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
    2. Re:Mission not necessarily over by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      How about Mercury?

      I suspect that the probe is not really designed to operate long close to the sun, and it's camera resolution is not that great such that it would not contribute a whole lot. An asteroid or comet would be a better choice IMO.

    3. Re:Mission not necessarily over by GrassyNoel · · Score: 0
      Tablizer wrote:

      "Spying on nude beach babes" probably won't qualify. Any other ideas?


      Close: Spying on and sending postcards to his girlfriend, Mars Rover Opportunity.
      --
      Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
    4. Re:Mission not necessarily over by amliebsch · · Score: 1
      Any other ideas?

      Of course! That's no moon, it's a space station. Its defenses are designed around a direct large-scale assault. A small unmanned probe should be able to penetrate the outer defense.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
  40. Re:..a truly impressive mission-but unnecessary by Decaff · · Score: 1

    While this was a truly impressive stunt, er...mission...it was completely unnecessary. Its scientific results don't matter to anyone, nor do they change or improve the lives of anyone.

    How can the results not matter? How can anyone not wish to find out their origins or their place in the universe?

    When you have a kid with an earache and you can't get medical insurance because your job only pays $11 an hour and your local community health clinic shut down because the federal funds went to the trillion dollar insane war or to reduce the taxes of the super rich, then you will have an appreciation of how stupid, insulting, and unnecessary it is to spend money on pathetic stunts such as this.

    The money spend on these things is nothing compared to the money spend on the Iraq war, or on defense in general

    Without the ability to explore or to increase our understanding, many of us feel our lives would be less worth living.

    I find the idea that such research should be prevented insulting to humanity.

    We must judge these space and so-called research projects from the perspective of the total and effective benefit to our society,

    Have you no soul? There are millions in our societies who follow such investigations with awe and wonder. They don't have small closed minds which won't look up above the horizon.

    Projects like this make lives better.

    Then grow up and join the human race. Learn to see all these stunt projects with a long-term humanistic sense of understanding.

    This is precisely about a humanistic attitude.

    We can stay living small lives on a small planet, perhaps trapped in our religions, or we can look billions of miles beyond our world and raise humanity to a space-exploring species.

    If this capsule brought back a cure for cancer, malaria, or AIDS, then it could be celibrated by everyone. But, in reality, there nothing in it but a few milligrams of dust .

    The urge to investigate is what will help cure these things. It should not be stifled.

    But anyway, you are wrong - it is not dust.

    It is star dust. There is an astronomical and wondrous difference.

  41. The view in Calif* by heroine · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For a good time, go to geocities.com/heroineworshipper/sharpened.jpg. The faint line in the sky is the spaceship re-entering as seen from Antioch, Calif*.

  42. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MOD PARENT UP

  43. Reporter Falls Ill by wa2flq · · Score: 1

    AP News

    During the NASA briefing revealing the first samples from the Stardust mission, Clark Kent, Science Reporter for "The Daily Planet" fell violently ill.

    To the reporters further emabarrasment, the Fire Department EMT's reported that "..he's wearly these funky red tights under this suit.." Mr. Kent recoverd quickly and refused treatment at nearby Columbia Medical Center.

    During all the confusion, there were initial reports that one of the green samples were stolen. A NASA spokesman, Lex Luthor labled those reports "Pure Fiction"

  44. Obligatory Simpsons reference... by wirehed · · Score: 1

    "I repeat, we are sold out of Bort microchips!"

  45. Re:..a truly impressive mission-but unnecessary by Schickie · · Score: 0
    Am I correct in assuming that you are not living under mommy's roof but you believe that other people's tax dollars should (must?) be dedicated to supporting your "right" (god-given or otherwise) to procreate whenever you so choose, regardless of your personal ability, capability or willingness to provide such support yourself?

    Hey, really, I just want to get it straight. Because if I've deciphered that post correctly...[facing the audience now] ...what we have here is an incredibly rare combination of Anti-Bush Liberal, Right-to-Life Fundamentalist and Shining-Path Marxist-Socialist. (Not to mention anti-Bill Gates cloning).

    Phew. That takes some doing. The poor guy is gonna self-destruct.

    As to my tax dollars - If you don't mind too much, I'd just as soon they go toward a manned mission to the Oort cloud, thank you very much. (Though I must admit that a selective and covert sterilization program has it's attractions).

  46. Actually you can get some of it here by dimension6 · · Score: 1
  47. Re:..a truly impressive mission-but unnecessary by fluffy99 · · Score: 1

    "The money spend on these things is nothing compared to the money spend on the Iraq war, or on defense in general"

    According to NASA, the total cost of the original failed Genesis was $264 million. This one they claim was cheaper at $212 million. Even though it's only slightly less than $1.65 for every person in the US, it's still not an insignificant sum. The money would have been better spent on stem cell research. Oh wait we can't do that because the ignorant Religious Nazis think stem cell research is evil because it requires killing babies (ignore that entire stem cell lines can be created from naturally aborted babies).

  48. Re:Crap Missions by catahoula10 · · Score: 1

    "America and the European Space Agency continue to spend billions of dollars exploring space dust"

    Lets hope they don't bring back space dust that will melt our eyeballs from their sockets. Because no one can afford health insurance!

    Who gives a shit where the dust came from? Who gives a shit if water existed on Mars?

    I know *I* don't. But someone more important then me does! The project got financed.

    "Do you really believe that America landed on the moon"

    Well,..It looked fake to me! Especially when ya look at the shadows made in the film, because there was no sunlight.
    However,,,I am sure it scared the pants off the Russians who made it into space first-- major ego problems i'm sure.

    "Are you people stupid?"

    Did you have to ask? Dont think so...

    "I'm going to FUCKIN PUKE!"

    Me too, i'll BRB!!

    ----

    --
    This has been another valuable and informative opinion from:
    Catahoula!
  49. Re:At last! by niktemadur · · Score: 1

    Whoever modded this offtopic is obviously not a Michael Crichton fan.

    Make that early Michael Crichton fan. Crichton has in recent years become something of a joke with his views on a "widespread scientific conspiracy" that's foisting the "myth" of Global Warming upon an unsuspecting public. Crichton even went so far as to testify in the United States Congress as a so-called authority on the subject. Hello, ladies and gentleman: Crichton is a writer of fiction, not a climatologist.

    But I digress, so I'll get back on topic. What makes The Andromeda Strain such a gripping read is the fact that this microorganism is so shockingly deadly, and it is fascinating to read the high-tech, top-secret response to the crisis. Which is to say, Crichton would never have written a book about a harmless organism landing on Earth, as it would not have created any tension, therefore he would have had no story.

    Any writer worth his/her salt knows that science fiction begins with an absurd premise and develops logically from there. In the case of Andromeda Strain, the absurd premise is a worst-case scenario, and of course it falls apart if inspected closely: the Earth has been bombarded by meteorites and small comets (as well as 'dust' that enters the atmosphere much more gently) since the dawn of time, so surely any microorganism could hitch a ride to Earth in that manner.

    So yes, Stardust has landed in Utah with cometary dust. And yes, I'll be sleeping soundly tonight.

    --
    Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
  50. Onto or INTO? by Archades54 · · Score: 0

    didn't the last one of those also land ont...Into the ground ?

    --
    If your neighbours roof is flying past your window, you know it's cyclone season.
  51. Re:..a truly impressive mission-but unnecessary by curious.corn · · Score: 1

    Yeah way to go! Rant against some peanuts well spent and back your argument up mentioning cartloads thrown away against useless pursuits. Am I the only one sensing the non sequitur in this reasoning? You should be going after the ass holes that brought your country to WAR with a useless LIE, for an UNETHICAL agenda, rather than bitch about the crumbs given to the enrichment of humanity's knowledge and ultimately progress. Idiot.

    --
    Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
  52. what is happening to /.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nowadays it looks like slashdot is getting dumber (or is it apathy ? ).

    Earlier, the discussions used to revolve around the possible repurcussions of this research, what they are trying t find, technical details about the mission and what its goals are etc.

    Now most of them are inane jokes, discussions that gets veered towards ID (whats the big deal here anyway ? ) or Bush or similar.

    I think we are giving too much importance to jokes here.
    This is killing the discussions.

    Regards

  53. Re:..a truly impressive mission-but unnecessary by niktemadur · · Score: 1
    I am reminded of a story I read a long time ago that is analogous to this particular debate. It may seem a simple and childlish story, but it makes a very clear point, please bear with me:

    In medieval times, there was a feudal lord who was kind and generous, providing good food and medical care to his serfs. One day the feudal lord started giving resources to a man who polished glass, and he was much criticised by the population and the clergy, as his perceived duty was to provide for the immediate needs of his people, not on ridiculous, alchemist follies of no apparent altruistic value. However, the lord paid no heed to these criticisms and kept on sponsoring the glass polisher.

    A century or two later, the microscope was invented, and shortly thereafter the ability to detect the source of many diseases that plagued all the land. Urban sanitation became a priority, the tide of disease had turned. Much of the groundwork in optical lenses that led to the microscope was done by the glass polisher that the feudal lord had stubbornly sponsored back in the day.


    More recently, many people believe that the only things that came out of the Apollo missions were moonrocks, Velcro and Tang, that the money would have been better spent on other, more altruistic and pressing issues of the day. If that wish had been heeded back in the day, many of the fruits of research and invention of new technologies that made the Apollo missions possible would not be around today, and today they are everywhere, in medicine, in computing, in communications, transportation, the list goes on and on.

    When it comes to most of the gigantic problems plaguing mankind, we cannot tackle them frontally in a linear fashion. Hints and solutions come from "outside the box", which is to say the by-products of other areas of research.

    So, if 'star dust' is too obscure and abstract a bounty for some people, not to worry, their payoff will come not from the actual mission itself, but from the by-products of the labs and shops that designed and built the spacecraft. These are the Menlo Parks of today. But we probably will never know that the payoff came from Stardust or Cassini or Spirit and Endeavour, as the benefits will reach us in an indirect manner, such as new components that make radiation treatment for cancer a bit more effective, for example. And of course, there are longer-term benefits that we can't begin to imagine.
    --
    Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
  54. Lots of religious-based protests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please support this with a link. Thank you.

  55. Re:At last! by MickDownUnder · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes...

    I think it would be the alien organism in peril not us...

    Earth organisms have had billions of years to evolve with billions of other organisms competing against them... Lining up an organism that has been floating round space with one from earth is most likely going to be like putting a featherweight up against a super heavy weight.

    The story of a killer organism from outer space is only slightly less ridiculous than the story of superman.

  56. NASA's stunning performance by newsblaze · · Score: 1

    Of course, this has to be done. Man is an adventurer. There will always be 1000 reasons to not do something. Nothing would get done otherwise. We wouldn't even be here having this conversation. NASA Stardust Mission Capsule Brings Comet Dust to Earth That little spacecraft was sent out on a 4.6 billion Km round-trip for 7 years, had a rendezvous with a comet, as planned - and it came back to earth and sent the payload exactly where they wanted it to. That alone is worth it. The main parachute opened perfectly after being packed up for 7 years. The money it cost is a drop in the ocean. The movement of the stock market can destroy that much in a few hours. The research that made it do all that is all around us. The good that comes out of such things affects us in ways most of us don't realise. I'm in awe of the minds that did all of this.

    --
    Daily News http://newsblaze.com
  57. Re:Crap Missions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Do you really believe that America landed on the moon when they can't properly orbit and re-enter the space shuttle 40 years later?
    Do you really believe Europeans sailed to America in tiny ships in 1492 when they couldn't even get the Titanic there 400 years later?
  58. Re:..a truly impressive mission-but unnecessary by Decaff · · Score: 1

    Even though it's only slightly less than $1.65 for every person in the US, it's still not an insignificant sum.Even though it's only slightly less than $1.65 for every person in the US, it's still not an insignificant sum.

    I would have thought that that is very good definition of an insignificant sum, especially when compared to defense spending.

  59. Dumb joke? Yes. Offtopic? Not... really.... by Chmcginn · · Score: 1

    I mean, come on, if you've read any of Micheal Crichton's pseudoscience novels, this would be the one to start with. Although it was a meteor, not a comet, that carried it, if I'm remember rightly.

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?