Slashdot Mirror
NASA to Launch Solar Sail
arbitraryaardvark writes "Physorg reports that NASA will launch a solar sail around the end of July. It'll be the first of its kind; a previous attempt blew up. It's a small proof-of-concept gizmo, not a full-on spaceyacht.
Solar sails operate on photon pressure from sunlight. They are well known to science fiction readers, otherwise not so much." C-net has coverage, too.
Yeah well, Hollywood and science haven't ever mixed well, for the most part.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Obviously they weren't aware that one data point nullifies a generalization. Stupid indeed.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
"Yeah well, Hollywood and {science, art, engineering, law, philosophy, history, fantasy, ...} haven't ever mixed well, for the most part."
There. Fixed it for you.
I'll give you a hint. Hollywood is like a marketing department at an engineering firm. They have learned very well that they don't need to understand the product to sell it. Package a movie with a couple of hunks and babes as well as some explosions and dramatic music, and nobody is going to care about its accuracy.
Stupid disney and their stupid wooden ships in outer space.
And stupid children too dumb to even think about questioning any of it.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
The Physorg article notes: "And like a marine sail, a solar sail could also bring you home. You could use the solar sail to tack your vessel, making it travel "against the wind," back to Earth." But, I thought that do sail across the wind you need something to provide "lift" to counter the lateral force of the sail, which is provided in boats by a keel, or centerboard, or daggerboard, or a fin and rail on a windsurfer, or a skeg, etc. etc. Where's the counterforce in a solar sail in space?
Well thanks captain obvious. But if they meant that they should have said that. "The first of its kind"<>"The first of its kind that didn't blew up". Also, might I add that it didn't blew up because it hasn't been launched yet? And yeah, it could have meant that its the first kind (like in model) of its kind or something like that. Yeah, this is slashdot so I'm kinda used to that.
ics
Joke, right? Because know a lot of science fiction movies that contain some very rotten science, doesn't mean they're bad films only that you shouldn't take it as a science class. I'd rather have entertaining entertainment than accurate yet extremely boring movies. Yes, I know that in space noone can hear you scream but I don't care when the star destroyer comes "whooshing" by. And that most things don't blow up like they were packed with dynamite. If you didn't learn that outside the movies, maybe the problem is that you take all your learning from movies rather than the movie...
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Even if we could make antimatter cheaply and on a large scale it still isn't very practical for interstellar travel. The distances are just so unimaginably immense. There isn't yet even a theoretical substance that could propel us to the stars within a human lifetime and then have enough "fuel" to slow down again. Surely everyone has read that NASA "warp drive when" link by now. I'm getting tired of posting it. The idea is that we really need a true "space drive" for practical interstellar travel. Rocket technology regardless of the fuel just isn't going to do it.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Probably interesting to watch, but something of a waste. The moon's close enough we could study an area carefully (for minerals and features and other details), then when we know it's composition well, we put a nuke up there, and we'll get much more helpful information about it, as well as be able to select the damage threshold more exactly. Less variation in the results is better, correct?
Roughly speaking, a 220lb spacecraft at a million miles an hour would be 6-1/2 kilotons, about 1/2 the energy of Hiroshima, except of course, it would distribute that energy directly into the ground, not in an air burst. It wouldn't even make the news, from an earthquake point of view, they're measured in thousands of megatons. To eyeball it, take a look at "Minor Scale", it's a little smaller, 4.8 ktons, but wikipedias got a decent picture of the detonation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_Scale
My guess is the moon probably still gets impacts like this on occasion, so wasting a spacecraft might be redundant.
Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
> It will travel to space onboard a SpaceX Falcon 1 rocket
Good luck with that one. They can't even get any time on the island because they have to beg & steal for government launch facilities.
A bit disappointing that the space station isn't being used for breathrough research like this. Instead it's busy enough keeping itself alive & selling Buzz lightyear promos.
Yes, I know that in space noone can hear you scream but I don't care when the star destroyer comes "whooshing" by.
This always seemed like a weird pedantic objection to me. If your ears were exposed to the vacuum of space you'd have bigger problems than not hearing spaceships. Why not question the fact that there's an all-seeing camera fraudulently providing the visuals?
... also, I can kill you with my brain.