Slashdot Mirror
Hayabusa Returns Particles From Asteroid
The collection module of Japan's Hayabusa spacecraft, as recently noted, was on recovery believed to contain no samples from the asteroid Hayausa it had been sent to investigate. That conclusion may have been premature; reader mbone writes that
"The BBC now has a story, 'Hayabusa capsule particles may be from asteroid.' Apparently JAXA (the Japanese Space Agency) has opened the sample container returned to Earth by Hayabusa, and has released 'images of tiny dust particles inside the container.' Whether they are asteroid particles or pieces of dust brought all the way from Earth remains to be seen, but they were certainly returned from the asteroid — a remarkable technical feat. This announcement, I think, gives considerable hope that these particles are from the near-Earth asteroid, Itokawa, as the Japanese have been very careful in trying to avoid contamination. Even a tiny speck of dust would be very revealing about the asteroid's constitution and possibly its history as well. Kudos to JAXA for a job well done."
...the fact that they managed to land on a moving asteroid is amazing. The fact that they were able to land on a moving asteroid, take off from that asteroid after landing, and successfully make it back to Earth is nothing short of astounding.
Living With a Nerd
Next time, they need to leave Bruce Willis.
If these prove to be dust particles from the asteroid, this will be a big step for mankind.
Yes, we'll have found yet another place that needs vacuuming.
If you don't feed the trolls, they will be cold and underground.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The "moving" part doesn't complicate anything once you're in space. It wouldn't be like a fly landing on a bullet; the asteroid is only moving relative to other objects in space. As far as the spacecraft is concerned the asteroid is stationary and it can take all the time it needs to land on it.
Try adding a rotation into the mix. Imagine your asteroid is rotating around any axis - and trying to get a space-ship to FOLLOW that rotation without the gravity necessary to actually pull it in.
It's much more complicated than high school physics class.
While I am a fan of this mission, you really can not call it a landing since the asteroid has such little gravity. The fact is, that if you were next to the asteroid and simply had a small leak in your face place, and faced the asteroid, you would take off. It is probably more accurate to say that Hayabusa was parked next to the asteroid, which in itself is quite an accomplishment.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
...the fact that they managed to land on a moving asteroid is amazing. The fact that they were able to land on a moving asteroid, take off from that asteroid after landing, and successfully make it back to Earth is nothing short of astounding.
Especially considering that portion of the mission was secondary. It's primary mission was to test the ion engines.
Of course, setting the bar relatively low is very common for these sorts of activities. The Mars Rovers had what, a 90-day, mission? Spirit was functional (in some form) for over 6 years. Opportunity is still functional since January 2004.
Of course the 90 days was just the 'minimum for justification of the mission' and the 'warranty' period of the rovers (The minimum amount of time that they were expected to operate). But like Scotty, with an absurd over-estimate (or in this case, under-estimate) when you shatter that estimate it makes you look pretty spectacular. (Or just really bad at estimates)
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Considering the number of failures that they had it is nothing short of astounding.
I just hope that they are from Itokawa. If not it will be yet another failure in a string that has plagued this mission. Let's hope it ends on a high note.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Curiously enough the ion engines failed big on this one...
they had 3 engines. They would stop working, then get back to work, etc. They had to "take parts" of one ion engine and fit it on another engine (all electrically of course)
how long until
You can't forget that gravity either. Its small, but its significant. Because asteroids tend to have awkward shapes too, you can't depend on orbits or any of the other tools you'd use for a real planet. If you're not keeping a kilometer or more away, you have to have a really good gravity map to avoid smashing into the thing.
But like you said, you can't depend on that gravity to actually hold you down, which makes it all harder still. Operations near asteroids are definitely one of the hardest things we do in deep space right now.
Of course the 90 days was just the 'minimum for justification of the mission' and the 'warranty' period of the rovers (The minimum amount of time that they were expected to operate).
No, that was just the estimated amount of time before dust accumulation on the solar panels would prevent it from receiving adequate power. The rovers and their components were never designed, estimated to last, or "warrantied" for 90 days, even as a low-ball minimum-guarantee. It was always a statement about environmental conditions on Mars, and once they saw that the environment was different and the Martian wind was strong enough to blow the panels clean, 90 days got thrown out the window because that's all it ever meant.
But like Scotty, with an absurd over-estimate (or in this case, under-estimate) when you shatter that estimate it makes you look pretty spectacular. (Or just really bad at estimates)
There was nothing absurd about it. It was just based on a faulty assumption. If the rover mission had been planned knowing Mars would be kind enough to clean the solar panels for them, they would have planned for a much longer mission. It would have probably still been a lower estimate than the possible lifetime of the rovers as one would expect to ensure that it is probable they would last that long, but not an absurd under-estimate.
The enemies of Democracy are
Space already has a vacuum you idiot!
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
Good thing they're doing the opposite of scaling back their program, broadening their cutting edge research along with their budget, and freeing up all the money wasted developing an in-house vehicle. NASA will be able to pursue more missions similar to what JAXA has done, testing new forms of propulsion and automated systems etc. Things that would not be possible if we kept pursuing an Apollo repeat that does nothing to advance us, just proves we can still do what we did 40 years ago, like a man in a mid-life crisis whose big ambition in life is to simply repeat what he did in high school.
Or put another way: If you're impressed by this mission, or at least what it was trying to achieve, and want to see NASA do things like it, then you should be 100% for the new plan.
The enemies of Democracy are