Slashdot Mirror


NASA Probe Orbiting Asteroid Vesta

astroengine writes "Mission managers of NASA's Dawn asteroid probe had a long Saturday, waiting for news from the asteroid belt. Eventually they got the news they were hoping for: Dawn had entered Vesta orbit. This is the first time in history that an object in the asteroid belt has been orbited by an artificial satellite. It's taken four years for the ion thruster-propelled spacecraft to reach the asteroid and there was some uncertainty as to whether the probe had been captured by the asteroid's gravity at all. But after a long period of waiting, mission managers received the signal after Dawn was able to orientate its antenna toward Earth."

132 comments

  1. I'm heard at hearing by arthurpaliden · · Score: 0

    What , Vesta is on steroids ???

    1. Re:I'm heard at hearing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the future, please make jokes in your first language only. Thanks.

    2. Re:I'm heard at hearing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought he did, he made a joke in Stupid.

  2. "Doomsday Asteroid?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wow, what loathsome editing by Discovery: they injected a video clip about a "Doomsday Asteroid" wiping out the earth into the middle of an article about Dawn visiting Vesta. The two are unrelated, but the juxtaposition somehow makes it sound like NASA is fulfilling some Hollywood fantasy about visiting the asteroid that will come smashing into Earth unless we send [current B-rate movie star] on the now-defunct Space Shuttle to nuke it.

    1. Re:"Doomsday Asteroid?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      somehow makes it sound like NASA is fulfilling some Hollywood fantasy about visiting the asteroid that will come smashing into Earth unless we send [current B-rate movie star] on the now-defunct Space Shuttle to nuke it.

      Hmmmmm.

      Alright! Get this! Combine Space Cowboys with Armageddon!

      Ok, ok, ok ....some old astronauts blackmail NASA to send them up and get the Shuttle out of retirement - they'll take if off of some space museum diner. We'll get Megan Fox to be their granddaughter with some tearful family schmaltz. Oh yeah, and there'll be a car chase and a shootout - one of the old farts goes bonkers and happens to have smuggled a .44 Magnum up there.

      Huh?!? huh?!? What'd ya think?!

      I just need a hundred million to do it.

      --Lamo Hollywood Producer (yeah, that's about all of 'em)

    2. Re:"Doomsday Asteroid?" by retroworks · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually, I just watched the video, and it's related to the story. The "doomsday asteroid" video is mostly an interview with NASA Senior Scientist Joseph A. Nuth III. When Discovery questions him about strategies for the 1/45,000 chance of an asteroid hitting the earth in calendar year 2029. When asked about real strategies for dealing with an impending asteroid impact, Nuth explains that a lack of data or record of observation of the asteroid belt makes strategies rather futile. Whether to paint it to use solar reflection power, or blowing it up, etc., requires closer observation of the asteroid belt... which is background justification for Vesta's trip to the asteroid belt.

      As for "juxtaposition", the story appears in July, the seventh month of the year. According to dictionary.com, the seventh month of the "civil year" is also called the "Nisan" or "Nissan" (from the Asyrian calendar) So this article is about the Nissan Vesta.

      --
      Gently reply
    3. Re:"Doomsday Asteroid?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "on the now-defunct Space Shuttle to nuke it."

      By far my favorite part of that movie was watching those Space Shuttles zoom around and thinking "if only!"

    4. Re:"Doomsday Asteroid?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I must be old, but was Bruce Willis really consider B-rate at the time of Armageddon?

    5. Re:"Doomsday Asteroid?" by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The asteroid in question is called Apophis and I'd say the bitch of the thing is not that it could hit us in 2029 (very very unlikely) but that it could swing close enough to earth in 2029 as to have its orbit nudged thus setting us up for an impact in 2036.

      This to me would seem like a perfect cause to get the government to invest in NASA as per the earlier article posted here, as having a beacon placed on Apophis to keep track of the sucker and ensure we are able to accurately predict its orbit would be a smart move. Its next pass will be in 2013 which isn't a lot of time but should be time enough to prep a probe to land on it and plant a beacon.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    6. Re:"Doomsday Asteroid?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      heheheehhe hard core

    7. Re:"Doomsday Asteroid?" by dakameleon · · Score: 2

      Well, at least it'll save us from having to address the Y2K38 problem.

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    8. Re:"Doomsday Asteroid?" by taiwanjohn · · Score: 1

      That would also be an opportunity to experiment with some way to steer its course. If it could be controlled precisely enough and reliably enough, it might be possible to eventually capture it in a useful orbit.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    9. Re:"Doomsday Asteroid?" by Pikoro · · Score: 1

      But John Titor didn't say anything about an asteroid impact in his world line...
      http://www.johntitor.com/Pages/Story.html

      --
      "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
    10. Re:"Doomsday Asteroid?" by lul_wat · · Score: 1

      Fuck off Michael Bay.

      --
      Divide a cake by zero. Is it still a cake?
    11. Re:"Doomsday Asteroid?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or we could save a shit ton of money and look at it with telescopes like we have been doing for years.

  3. Grammar nazi alert by cvtan · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I found this: "Orientate is more widely accepted in the U.K. than in the U.S.A., but it should be avoided in any formal or standard writing." Of course, correcting poor usage is WAY more important than orbiting an asteroid.

    --
    Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    1. Re:Grammar nazi alert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's no worse than "burglarize" which yanks have a strange fondness for.

    2. Re:Grammar nazi alert by rubycodez · · Score: 2, Funny

      Also not quite as bad as that curious predilection those in the UK have of ending a written sentence with a preposition.

    3. Re:Grammar nazi alert by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 0

      What are you speaking of?

      --
      My first program:

      Hell Segmentation fault

    4. Re:Grammar nazi alert by NEDHead · · Score: 0

      Grammar misuse is like any other form of miscommunication. If you want to be clear, unambiguous, then use the language properly. If you want to sound like a dolt, then do what you want. It is no different than accepting a standard set of units - when you and your co-workers screw up, your spacecraft has a problem.

    5. Re:Grammar nazi alert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      would it be to burgle? i would normally say burglarize but will from now on say it as burgle cause it looks as though it is so.

    6. Re:Grammar nazi alert by rubycodez · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I married my Chinese wife and she went to orientate my apartment with a rice steamer, chopsticks, various curry powders, jade and bright red and gold wall hangings,

    7. Re:Grammar nazi alert by jo_ham · · Score: 0

      Or "winningest"... *shudder*.

      I think I just had a small stroke while typing that.

    8. Re:Grammar nazi alert by Tim12s · · Score: 0

      You shouldn't start a sentence with a joining word unless you are continuing one of your sentences.

    9. Re:Grammar nazi alert by rubycodez · · Score: 0

      This is an internet forum; I should therefore enjoy the liberty of using a joining word to continue other's sentences.

    10. Re:Grammar nazi alert by Joce640k · · Score: 0

      "to have a fondness for" is a verb.

      Splitting the infinitive of it is a question of taste, but it's a complete verb in itself.

      --
      No sig today...
    11. Re:Grammar nazi alert by rubycodez · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Standardisation of grammar and spelling is only recently an attribute of English. Indeed, if one wishes to be clear and unambiguous, one should not use such an illogical language, such a language of overloaded words, as that confounded mishmash known as English.

    12. Re:Grammar nazi alert by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think I just had a small stroke while typing that.

      Masturbation does seem to be a common part of this thread.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    13. Re:Grammar nazi alert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't marry your wife, you marry your fiancée (or girlfriend/whatever). She then becomes your wife.

    14. Re:Grammar nazi alert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She orientalized your apartment.
      Do you have a balcony where she can keep the chickens and dogs?

    15. Re:Grammar nazi alert by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Just like you can't "buy your car", because it's not your car until after you buy it. Sure. Not.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    16. Re:Grammar nazi alert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "to have a fondness for" is a verb.

      Splitting the infinitive of it is a question of taste, but it's a complete verb in itself.

      No, "to have" is the verb.

    17. Re:Grammar nazi alert by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1

      but you can marry your ex-wife.

    18. Re:Grammar nazi alert by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      I guess that's for people who are into S&M.

    19. Re:Grammar nazi alert by arth1 · · Score: 1

      I found this: "Orientate is more widely accepted in the U.K. than in the U.S.A., but it should be avoided in any formal or standard writing."

      Whether something is accepted doesn't say anything about whether it's acceptable. It appears to be widely accepted to say "burglarize" instead of "burgle", and "utilize" instead of "use", but that doesn't pardon doing so.

      Of course, correcting poor usage is WAY more important than orbiting an asteroid.

      Given that choice, I would definitely recommend the former.

      The amazing thing about many-to-many communication like this forum is that you don't derail a conversation by expanding on the topic by commenting on what others have said. You just expand the discussion. Topic drift isn't just a possibility, it's a certainty, and you are free to skip parts that have drifted in a direction you don't like. Like the subthread called "Grammar nazi alert" which you started.

    20. Re:Grammar nazi alert by arth1 · · Score: 1

      You shouldn't start a sentence with a joining word unless you are continuing one of your sentences.

      Or?

    21. Re:Grammar nazi alert by qzjul · · Score: 1

      Maybe they should say they "orientatificationized" it!

    22. Re:Grammar nazi alert by troon · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The act is "to burgle". A "burglar" is the person that does the burgling. "burglarize" is the action of that person, so you could describe them as a burglarizer, I suppose. Next time I get burglarizerized, I won't know what to think.

      --
      Ydco co ,df C erb-y go. a Ekrpat t.fxrapev
    23. Re:Grammar nazi alert by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The act is "to burgle". A "burglar" is the person that does the burgling. "burglarize" is the action of that person, so you could describe them as a burglarizer, I suppose. Next time I get burglarizerized, I won't know what to think.

      Indeed. In the same manner with which a butler "buttles", rather than "butlers".

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    24. Re:Grammar nazi alert by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      But the problem with speaking Lojban, it that all your conversations are with people who know Lojban.

  4. Sending astronauts? by countertrolling · · Score: 1

    In only 14 years from now? I highly doubt it. Besides being a dumb idea, the US can't even put a man into earth orbit anymore. What makes anybody think they'll be sending anybody into deep space any time soon? Unless it's part of the war effort, it just ain't gonna happen

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    1. Re:Sending astronauts? by wsxyz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Vesta is a Taliban stronghold.

    2. Re:Sending astronauts? by rubycodez · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why are you so fixated on U.S. capabilities, it only matters that mankind can put people into orbit, and the U.S. space program has a large number of useful missions in progress or soon to launch, and many as collaboration with other nations. Patriotism has no place in science.

    3. Re:Sending astronauts? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      No, socialism is a national and patriotic thing.

    4. Re:Sending astronauts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arrest this communist!

    5. Re:Sending astronauts? by couchslug · · Score: 2

      Bodies don't explore space, probes do.

      We have centuries to perfect the robotic systems we MUST have for the utterly hostile environment of space (and for more efficient work on Earth).

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    6. Re:Sending astronauts? by countertrolling · · Score: 2

      Patriotism has no place in science.

      Heh, I actually agree with that, but ultimately there will be war between the space people and the earth people, exactly in the same fashion that we make war against our African/Middle East ancestors.

      Mutiny on the Skylab

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    7. Re:Sending astronauts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The shuttle would have put the US no closer to the surface of an asteroid, for all practical purposes, than a child flying a kite on the ground. I'm all for the space program but the shuttle's usefulness as a platform was largely coming to an end anyway. Keeping it alive just so we could toot our horn of "being able to put a human into space" would have cost dollars that are better spent elsewhere.

      Now, if we could just keep the presidents' mitts off of NASA's agenda and keep the mismanagement of NASA to a minimum we'd be getting somewhere.

    8. Re:Sending astronauts? by deglr6328 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "....Patriotism has no place in science."

      Patriotism may have no place in science, but science unquestionably has a place in patriotism.
      I'm proud that my country built and operates the Tevatron which discovered the top quark, I'm proud we built the world's most powerful laser, the National Ignition Facility which is on the verge of demonstrating controlled thermonuclear fusion in a laboratory, I'm proud we were the first to decipher the 3 billion letter sequence of the human genome, I'm proud we invented the transistor, the laser, the nuclear reactor and the Polio vaccine that is on the verge of wiping that disease from the face of the Earth forever, I'm proud we engineered the microcomputer revolution and invented the internet those machines operate on, I'm proud we were the first to robotically explore every planet in the solar system with the exception of Venus and sent probes into interstellar space, and I'm proud of a thousand other things my country did to push back the darkness of ignorance about the physical world, thereby elevating the human condition to previously unimagined heights. And I hope that someday, instead of being proud of something as stupid as military might, or the number of gold medals we win in the Olympics, that my countrymen can join me in the more nuanced and altruistic flavor of patriotism that I am proudly guilty of indulging in. My style of patriotism is anything but the last refuge of scoundrels, and scientific achievement plays a central role in its maintenance.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    9. Re:Sending astronauts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Der Asteroid gehört sowieso selbstverständlich dem Deutschen Reich.
      Das deutsche Volk benötigt dringend Lebensweltraum.

      Heil Kräuter!

    10. Re:Sending astronauts? by Teun · · Score: 1

      I see why you have no time left for science.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    11. Re:Sending astronauts? by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 2

      I thought probes explored bodies?

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    12. Re:Sending astronauts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Canada, we got the Canad-arm for the space shuttle. Or, as some folk like to call it, "The Astro-Groper".

    13. Re:Sending astronauts? by thrich81 · · Score: 1

      Patriotism has historically had a huge place in space activities, especially early on. The first 15 years of manned space activities was all about patriotism and international competition; granted much of the manned programs weren't primarily about science. But the early unmanned lunar and planetary missions were very much international competitions between the US and the Soviets. For many, (probably most) of the taxpayers paying the bills the patriotic aspect of space science and any big science is a very important aspect. NASA and NSF are funded to a large extent so that "we don't fall behind". Americans have been faulted for excessive nationalism and patriotism, but the fact is that the US has more probes leaving the Solar System (that would be all of them) than any other country. The EU has more people and a bigger economy than the US, why aren't there rovers on Mars or probes leaving the Solar System with the EU flag on them; why isn't the EU space program on par with that of the US? Why aren't there Japanese rovers on Mars (I had high hopes for them when they became a technological and economic near-superpower in the '80s).

    14. Re:Sending astronauts? by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There is no such thing as a good form of patriotism, unless it is dissent. The US has plundered the world to enrich an astonishingly small minority, and you're saying it's okay because a dollar or two fell into the science bucket along the way? Our contributions fo human suffering dwarf our contributions to knowledge. Patriotism is evil, just one more way to deny our common humanity and place ourselves above others.

      Allow me to quote:

      Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, represents, in the final analysis, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower

      America has nothing to be proud of. We are tyrants, criminals, and murderers all, not to mention the way we've polluted the earth so that our children's children will curse our names. Altruistic patriotism? The third world thanks you for your most benign munificence. It's a thin shroud to drag over two centuries of violent imperialism; you delude none but yourself, and display only conceit. You have allowed yourself to fall into comfortable ignorance, an ignorance of the world outside your borders, an ignorance not only free from want or suffering but free from their conception. The world entire is brimming with pain, and has no use for armchair altruism or fools who rest on the laurels of others and naively hope for change. They sow the wind, that shall yet reap the whirlwind.

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    15. Re:Sending astronauts? by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 1

      And the correct scientific response on being drawn in to one of these "war" things (science doesn't really get "war", it's all sociology) is to take the course of least harm. Many scientists from both "sides" of WWII worked on the Manhattan Project because they believed that was less harmful than letting Nazi's develop atomic weapons. >/Godwin

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    16. Re:Sending astronauts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      First time I heard that the Axis were involved in the Manhattan Project.

      The Manhattan Project was the effort, led by the United States with participation from the United Kingdom and Canada, which resulted in the development of the first atomic bomb during World War II. From 1942 to 1946, the project was under the direction of Major General Leslie Groves of the US Army Corps of Engineers. The Army component of the project was designated the Manhattan District or Manhattan Engineer District (MED), but "Manhattan" gradually superseded the official codename, "Development of Substitute Materials", for the entire project.

      Straight from Wikipedia.

      Am i calling you a liar? Yes, yes I am.
      Am i going to be a coward and hide behind AC? Also yes!

    17. Re:Sending astronauts? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      You use your tongue purtier than a five dollar whore...

      --
      No sig today...
    18. Re:Sending astronauts? by mywhitewolf · · Score: 1

      well. "non whites" are a large group there, are you just angry at the people with recent African decent? the reason why Africa is mostly a shit-fest has mostly to do with religion and corruption, and being white doesn't protect you from either. (in fact western countries have a tendency to encourage and support corruption). So before you think its due to you're race that you're country has made any significant contributions to humanity, you're race is also attributed with the worst acts of genocide and destruction too.

      we are the way we are because of 1 thing.. money. any other difference is superficial at best. give blacks money and they create things like Dubai & the great pyramids. Take money away from whites and you get things like Argentina.

      tl;dr
      it work both ways and your bigotry is offensive.

    19. Re:Sending astronauts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're conflating nationalism and patriotism. Common mistake.

    20. Re:Sending astronauts? by lennier · · Score: 1

      ultimately there will be war between the space people and the earth people

      Which will last approximately 2 months and end when the groundlubbers stop the launch of the next Progress/Verne capsule full of food, oxygen and water, and the skydogs realise that their station is filling up with lots of bottles of unrecycled pee.

      To give them due credit, the Space Revolutionary Forces did launch a bold surprise bombardment of Star City with 1000 litres of frozen pee, which would have even succeeded in reaching the upper atmosphere if they had had any propellant left in their thruster tanks to achieve de-orbit. However, since the only launcher available was a rubber band salvaged from the exercise treadmill, the Glorious Revolutionary Homecan is now surrounded by the small ice cloud known as the Strategic Revolutionary Pee Reserve.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    21. Re:Sending astronauts? by lennier · · Score: 1

      And the correct scientific response on being drawn in to one of these "war" things (science doesn't really get "war", it's all sociology) is to take the course of least harm.

      "Least harm", "biggest boom", "what the heck, let's just nuke the upper stratosphere and see what happens"... one of those courses, certainly.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    22. Re:Sending astronauts? by lennier · · Score: 1

      I'm proud we built the world's most powerful laser, the National Ignition Facility... instead of being proud of something as stupid as military might

      You might want to recalibrate your pridometer. The NIF's primary mission is what's euphemistically referred to as "stockpile stewardship" - keeping ageing thermonuclear weapons in tip-top megadeath condition. Any studies of nuclear fusion which don't occur with of chunks of plutonium being the spark plug are kind of a long way down the list.

      Fortunately nuclear weapons have nothing to do with military might so carry on Science!

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    23. Re:Sending astronauts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Who says it's a mistake? You could equivalently say tribalism. It all means, "I'm not like $people, I'm better, because I'm a $granfalloon!"

    24. Re:Sending astronauts? by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

      Why yes, I did type that with my tongue. How did you know?

      I prefer concision and precision in writing, but time rarely permits me to really polish a slashdot post. Whereas you obviously stayed up all night writing that one. :P

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    25. Re:Sending astronauts? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      And they download movies (streaming is impractical, given the latency).

    26. Re:Sending astronauts? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      You seem to be mistaking pride for patriotism.
      They're as different as bravery is to jingoism.

    27. Re:Sending astronauts? by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      I work on its scaled testbed twin. I think I'm slightly more familiar with its priorities than you. Thermonuclear ignition in a pure fusion fueled microcapsule is now, and has always been the primary endpoint goal for building the device.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    28. Re:Sending astronauts? by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      Nope, not saying any of that hilariously absurd, contrived, strawman bullshit at all. But I genuinely appreciate that you saw my totally unrelated point sufficient reason to fire up your obviously well oiled Chomskybot, such that you could spout your long, soporific list of dimestore, cryptofascist mewlings. Better luck next time in arguing against a transparently ridiculous point opposite to the one I was obviously making, though. Have a nice day :)

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    29. Re:Sending astronauts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      had to reply and say thankyou for such eloquence.

    30. Re:Sending astronauts? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I have no mod points, so I can only say that I lol'd XD

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    31. Re:Sending astronauts? by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      ultimately there will be war between the space people and the earth people

      Which will last approximately 2 months and end when the groundlubbers stop the launch of the next Progress/Verne capsule full of food, oxygen and water, and the skydogs realise that their station is filling up with lots of bottles of unrecycled pee.

      ....

      "I don't think we should drop any more rocks on Cheyanne Mountain" said Mycroft.

      "Why not?"

      "It isn't there any more."

      -- "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" (R.A.Heinlein).

      Read it. The ballistics and physics involved were computed by an Annapolis graduate from the age of battleships in the navy. Expertise that could drop a shell the size of a Corolla across Tasmania into any tennis court you named. The politics in the book named above cover just that sort of conflict.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
  5. Asteroid tourism? by abuelos84 · · Score: 1

    To the science-abled fellas in here: How would conditions for astronauts/cosmonauts visiting this bodies be?
    Can they walk up there or would they need some sort of exo-skeleton or something with more space for sponsors...?

    There are so many cool things about this mission!
    ION FREAKING ENGINES!

    --
    -- Counting backwards since 1984!
    1. Re:Asteroid tourism? by Baloroth · · Score: 2

      To the science-abled fellas in here: How would conditions for astronauts/cosmonauts visiting this bodies be? Can they walk up there or would they need some sort of exo-skeleton or something with more space for sponsors...?

      Well, from Wikipedia the asteroid's gravitation field is .022g or about 1/50th of Earth's, so its basically micro-gravity. You could probably escape the gravitational field by jumping really hard, so tethers are probably a must for working outside. Exo-skeletons would probably hurt, rather than help, unless you meant just a space suit, which yes, is absolutely required. Not sure what "space for sponsors" even means, so....

      There are so many cool things about this mission! ION FREAKING ENGINES!

      Yes. Ion engines are cool. Delta-v is a bit low though (0-60mph in 4 days, which makes it almost as bad as a Yugo... I kid, I kid). Very useful for deep-space missions, but I can't wait until we get plasma engines, which could potentially have the efficiency of ion thrusters AND the thrust of chemical rockets.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    2. Re:Asteroid tourism? by vlm · · Score: 1

      Well, from Wikipedia ... You could probably escape the gravitational field by jumping really hard, so tethers are probably a must for working outside.

      From wikipedia the escape velocity is a big fraction of a kilometer per second... Jumping not a hazard.

      Put that gravitational acceleration into the 1st semester physics kinematics equations and you will not be walking around down there. If I did my scaling factors and estimates correctly, each step bounding a couple times your height in the air, and each step taking a good part of a minute. Like lunar bunny hops, but worse.

      Speaking of bunnies, to head off the inevitable pr0n questions, it would be a cross between orbital and lunar, nothing particularily qualitatively different. Probably pretty awkward.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    3. Re:Asteroid tourism? by symbolset · · Score: 1

      When people live there the habitat will have to spin to simulate gravity because in the long term humans don't do well in microgravity. The weak gravity and ample resources make both of these rocks nice spots for spaceports, especially if they have substantial water. Ceres may have an astounding amount of water - more than all the fresh water on Earth.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
  6. This is Madness! by Comboman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The possibility of successfully navigating an asteroid field is approximately 3,720 to 1.

    --
    Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    1. Re:This is Madness! by jo_ham · · Score: 2

      Never tell me the odds!

    2. Re:This is Madness! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think NASA developed the Improbability Drive yet, but once the odds are infinitely improbable, they should do OK...

    3. Re:This is Madness! by White+Flame · · Score: 1

      Madness? This is VESTA!!!!!

    4. Re:This is Madness! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't that mean it is very likely to succeed? If there were poor odds wouldn't it be something like, "The possibility of successfully navigating an asteroid field is approximately 1 in 3,720."? or perhaps "3,720 to 1 against."? I do get the allusion, though....I suppose it is correct that "he has been known to be wrong...on occasion...."

    5. Re:This is Madness! by Comboman · · Score: 1
      --
      Support Right To Repair Legislation.
  7. Ah, Vesta first by Baloroth · · Score: 4, Interesting

    FTFA:

    Dawn will remain in orbit around Vesta for a year, before gently boosting away to begin the trip to Ceres, the second half of its asteroid belt adventure.

    That was actually my first thought: "Why is this visiting Vesta and not Ceres?" Ceres (might) have surface water and an atmosphere, so it makes more sense as a base. Its also larger (about 4 times the mass/size, although, surprisingly, it has nearly the same gravity, .027g to Vesta's .022g) and looks one hell of a lot more interesting. I mean, both are just big rocks in space, but Ceres is actually dwarf planet class and looks like it could serve as a quite effective base for more missions past the asteroid belt.

    Of course, visiting both makes sense. Vesta may have also been a nice test run for gravitational capture, since it doesn't have an atmosphere and its smaller, but has similar gravity. Establishing a (manned) base in the asteroid belt seems like it could be an enormous step forward in space. The asteroids could potentially be mined, providing a financial incentive to visit, plus their low gravity makes them easy to escape after loading up on fuel/ore or for constructing spacecraft (anyone else think the idea of a spaceship factory in the asteroid belts is pretty cool?). All in all, this is a pretty cool (if pretty small) step forward in getting off this rock. I can see why Obama wants to send an astronaut to the belt by 2025, even if I know it'll probably take till 2040 or so.

    --
    "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    1. Re:Ah, Vesta first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FTFA:

      Dawn will remain in orbit around Vesta for a year, before gently boosting away to begin the trip to Ceres, the second half of its asteroid belt adventure.

      That was actually my first thought: "Why is this visiting Vesta and not Ceres?"

      Why Vesta first? My guess is that it's probably easier to change orbits from Vesta to Ceres than the other way around. The current NASA way means boosting outward from the Sun all the way, as Ceres is farther out. Having to backtrack would kinda waste time and fuel for no reason.

    2. Re:Ah, Vesta first by trout007 · · Score: 1

      That number for gravity on Vesta looks suspect. The mass is about 1/4 of Ceres and it's radius is about 10% bigger. The law of gravitation shows acceleration at a distance from center of mass is G*m/r^2. The gravitational acceleration on Vesta should be around .06 m/s^2.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    3. Re:Ah, Vesta first by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      If you look closely, you'll discover that Wikipedia lists Vesta's diameter but Ceres radius. So, yes, Vesta has a bigger diameter than Ceres radius (by the 10% you mentioned). But that means Ceres diameter is a little less than twice the size of Vesta's (974km vs 529km). So, twice the diameter/radius, and 4 times the mass = identical surface gravity.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    4. Re:Ah, Vesta first by trout007 · · Score: 1

      Good catch there.

      I guess the greater mass of Ceres compacted the material tighter hence the smaller radius,

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
  8. They're sending a UAV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on. UAVs over Afghanistan, Earth are flown from Los Vegas, Nevada, Earth. Why would they send people to outer space instead of using a remotely piloted vehicle? Remotely piloted vehicles have a good track record in outer space.

    1. Re:They're sending a UAV by camperdave · · Score: 2

      Maybe the quarter second signal lag vs the 30 minute signal lag has something to do with it? You cannot effectively remotely pilot things much beyond the Moon's orbit; and Vesta is definitely much beyond the Moon's orbit.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    2. Re:They're sending a UAV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't speak common sense and science around here. This is Slashdot! The bastion of knee jerk political reactions to things scientific presented by the non-scientific.

  9. Pics or it didn't happen. by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 0

    I'm annoyed by the lack of images from the Dawn team. Compared to other NASA probes, they've really skimped on the public images. (Every week or so they've posted a single image from the low-res navigation imager. Not even a complete sequence of Vesta's surface (it rotates every 5 hours, so not exactly difficult.)) I hope that isn't going to set the standard for the entire mission.

    (They have an excuse for the insertion burn, but not during coasting.)

    --
    Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    1. Re:Pics or it didn't happen. by confused+one · · Score: 1

      That's because the only images they have are from the low-res navigational imager. They will fire up the high res camera and other instruments now that they're in Vesta orbit.

    2. Re:Pics or it didn't happen. by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      When the ion drive isn't running, there is plenty of power. There's no reason to not gather as much data as possible. After all, if something went bung during insertion (when the probe was out of comms with Earth) it would be the only data they have. Given the detail in the last image (from ten days ago), what prevented them from at least getting a full surface sequence?

      Other NASA probes take images from distant approach, trying to milk as much data as they can before the arrive, as well as PR for the mission. I can't find an explanation of why the Dawn team have been so reticent to image their target. It doesn't bode well for the rest of the mission.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    3. Re:Pics or it didn't happen. by vlm · · Score: 3, Informative

      When the ion drive isn't running, there is plenty of power. There's no reason to not gather as much data as possible. After all, if something went bung during insertion (when the probe was out of comms with Earth) it would be the only data they have. Given the detail in the last image (from ten days ago), what prevented them from at least getting a full surface sequence?

      Other NASA probes take images from distant approach, trying to milk as much data as they can before the arrive, as well as PR for the mission. I can't find an explanation of why the Dawn team have been so reticent to image their target. It doesn't bode well for the rest of the mission.

      I can think of a theoretical reason that may or may not have any application to reality.

      We know the asteroid's orbit and our (the earths) orbit from a zillion years of position observation. We don't know the vehicle's relative velocity to the asteroid, and thats kind of important to put it in orbit. In ye olden days the stereotypical way to figure orbits was to put what amounts to a crossband linear repeater on the vehicle and spend inordinate amounts of effort on the earth measuring the doppler shift of signals transmitted thru the repeater. In ye olden days that was best done using an continuous information free carrier CW tone. Now a days the youngin's probably use some sort of spread spectrum solution to avoid ionospheric scintillation or just to plain ole be cool? At any rate the radios would probably be busy doing the navigation-thing as opposed to the science-thing.

      Now a "news for nerds tech site" could make an interesting article about how this mission did navigation...

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    4. Re:Pics or it didn't happen. by symbolset · · Score: 1

      Patience little monkey. There will be many glorious images soon.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    5. Re:Pics or it didn't happen. by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Would a T-shirt placate you?

    6. Re:Pics or it didn't happen. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      *sigh* So much misinformation floating around here...

      GP said

      That's because the only images they have are from the low-res navigational imager. They will fire up the high res camera and other instruments now that they're in Vesta orbit.

      Which is absolute bullshit, because there's only one science camera (well, two identical cameras, for redundancy), and it's currently getting crap resolution because it's ~2x10^7m away, while science orbits will range from 2x10^6 to 2x10^5m altitude. There's also the star trackers, which while technically cameras, are not used for imaging Vesta or Ceres at all.

      When the ion drive isn't running, there is plenty of power. There's no reason to not gather as much data as possible. After all, if something went bung during insertion (when the probe was out of comms with Earth) it would be the only data they have. Given the detail in the last image (from ten days ago), what prevented them from at least getting a full surface sequence?

      Other NASA probes take images from distant approach, trying to milk as much data as they can before the arrive, as well as PR for the mission. I can't find an explanation of why the Dawn team have been so reticent to image their target. It doesn't bode well for the rest of the mission.

      (It's not a power issue, it's an attitude issue -- each of the three ion thrusters is gimbaled in a narrow range, and the high-gain antenna and cameras are fixed completely -- same result, though.)
      The mission's design duty cycle for the IPS (ion propulsion system) is 95%; the remaining 5% of the time is divided between imaging Vesta and relaying data to DSN ground stations. There's certainly time for more pics than they've taken, but allocating more time for imaging and less for thrusting means postponing your arrival, which reduces your time for doing high-quality science in orbit.

      Unlike many other missions, which use a chemical rocket to perform a Hohmann or similar transfer into a near-final orbit, with relatively small deltaV reserved for orbit adjustments, Dawn will be gradually spiraling in under power to reach any given orbit. It's completely free to stop thrusting at any point and coast in a nearly-circular orbit while doing science observations, then resume spiraling in later, though they will likely stick to the mission plan of 3 orbits (2700km, 950km, and 460km radius -- subtract ~280km to get altitude). So there's very little to gain from more low-res approach images that we won't already get from the two full-rotation sets already scheduled (and I presume completed) during approach, and especially the full surface mapping that will be done in the first (highest) orbit. For more info on the navigation imaging strategy, see the latest Dawn Journal.

      The main issue is that they're not releasing the pictures they have -- particularly the full-rotation sets mentioned above, As I understand it this is mainly a manpower issue, but I certainly wish they could set up a low-overhead nerd-ready channel separate from their press-ready channel, so they could just dump all the images and let the bloggers sort 'em out.

    7. Re:Pics or it didn't happen. by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      the two full-rotation sets already scheduled (and I presume completed) during approach, [...] The main issue is that they're not releasing the pictures they have -- particularly the full-rotation sets mentioned above,

      Thanks for the details. I didn't realise they had the images I wanted, and just weren't releasing them. At least if the probe dies, or the camera fails, or some other disaster, there will be some data available. What's left is just my nerd-rage-impatience.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  10. Great by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    Now all we need to do is settle it.

  11. What if they Pentagon bought more efficient A/C? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2

    I would not begrudge our soldiers in Afghanistan small comforts. But still I was taken aback by the news that Pentagon spends more on airconditioning barracks in Afghanistan than the entire NASA budget. If Pentagon bought some more efficient air conditioners without compromising comfort, may be we could fund a few more of these missions. Quite sad to see the congresscritters make grand statements about government waste and then ram their pet pork projects through defense appropriations.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  12. Re:What if they Pentagon bought more efficient A/C by vlm · · Score: 1

    I would not begrudge our soldiers in Afghanistan small comforts. But still I was taken aback by the news that Pentagon spends more on airconditioning barracks in Afghanistan than the entire NASA budget. If Pentagon bought some more efficient air conditioners without compromising comfort, may be we could fund a few more of these missions.

    Sounds like it would be a heck of a lot more cost effective for NASA under DOD contract to launch a "solar umbrella" arrangement to cool Afghanistan. As a bonus we'd be able to use the required heavy lifter / orbital construction gear for other purposes. Finally we could sell advertising space on the solar umbrella.

    As a side note, there are not many US barracks in the sandbox. They're air conditioning tents and trailers. I spent some time in the 90s baby sitting some computers in a US Army air conditioned trailer; We were very thankful the "computers required air conditioning", it was just a side effect that we got comfortable.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  13. Re:Pitiful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do you expect when the topic is a lame Micro$oft product like Vesta?

  14. Re:What if they Pentagon bought more efficient A/C by thrich81 · · Score: 4, Informative

    If it makes you feel any better, (it did for me) that number ($20 billion) for air conditioning in Afghanistan is highly debatable and was put forward by a guy who was a brigadier general but now is in the private sector, selling technologies branded as energy-efficient to the Defense Department. More from the source article (http://www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137414737/among-the-costs-of-war-20b-in-air-conditioning): "Now it's important to note that wrapped up in Anderson's $20 billion figure are all kind of other expenditures – for instance, the cost of building and maintaining roads in Afghanistan, securing those roads, managing the security operations for those roads. That all costs a lot of money and is part of the overall war effort in Afghanistan." And, "The Pentagon disputes the calculation made by Anderson about air conditioning costs. Defense Department spokesman Dave Lapan says that in fiscal year 2010, the Pentagon spent approximately $15 billion on energy for all military operations around the world. The Pentagon says when it comes to Afghanistan, it spent $1.5 billion from October 2010 to May 2011 on fuel. That fuel was used for heating and air conditioning systems, but also for aircraft, unmanned aerial systems, combat vehicles, computers and electricity inside military structures."

  15. Oriented by PingXao · · Score: 1

    It oriented its antenna, it didn't orientate it. Someone needs to documentate the English language a little bit better.

    1. Re:Oriented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No more racial slurs from you, please sir.

    2. Re:Oriented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok I LOLed. Well done.

      I'm still confused why anybody could consider "Oriental" to be a bad word.

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

      Someone needs to read more dictionaries.

    4. Re:Oriented by lennier · · Score: 0

      Thank you for your correction. We will proactively expedite an interofficely administrationed solutioneering approach with broad-based win-win upside expectations, on a level playing field, with a proven track record, at the end of the day, in the large, scaled comprehensively viz-a-viz our cross-paradigm global "e" synergy best-practice value-driven innovation vision. Ism. Thing. We're a little vague on the details, but it will probably involve eating our own dogfood while we push the bleeding edge of the envelope to smash silos while we focus on key deliverables of our core competencies and not sweat the small stuff while we throw the fish who moved our cheese.

      It's the least we could do for you, our valued customer!

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    5. Re:Oriented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Orientals say "velly solly, but washing is not finish. come tomollow again prease." but Asians say "rungs sound vellly bad. I check you into hospital light away."

    6. Re:Oriented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to think that too, but looked it up and they're equally correct, or in this case, equally bad. 'Point' would be a better word, unless you're being paid by the syllable.

  16. Re:What if they Pentagon bought more efficient A/C by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe you were taken aback because you were too stupid to actually think about what you were reading and realize it was a lie. I'm sure "I read it on the internet so it must be true" is a great standard to live by though.

  17. Fist orbit of an asteroid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Third orbit of an asteroid after Eros and Itokawa.

    1. Re:Fist orbit of an asteroid? by sysrammer · · Score: 2

      First orbit of an asteroid *in the belt*.
      Eros was the first discovered near-Earth asteroid.
      Itokawa is an Apollo and Mars-crosser asteroid.

      sr

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    2. Re:Fist orbit of an asteroid? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I actually don't think any orbits were done of Itokawa. Hayabusa seemed to be using engines to maintain its distance from the asteroid. But I definitely agree that NEAR Shoemaker has the record here. I don't think it matters much that Eros is not in the main belt. And the landing on Eros was a genuine first. I can't see any way for Dawn to land on Ceres without a crash. There is too much gravity and it doesn't seem to have non-ion thrusters at all.

    3. Re:Fist orbit of an asteroid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually don't think any orbits were done of Itokawa. Hayabusa seemed to be using engines to maintain its distance from the asteroid. But I definitely agree that NEAR Shoemaker has the record here. I don't think it matters much that Eros is not in the main belt.

      The significance of orbiting something in the main belt is one of delta-v. It's fairly easy to get out to the vicinity of Jupiter or so, but the easy way puts you in an elliptical orbit so you have a high velocity relative to Jupiter when you get out there. (Which works great for a slingshot, of course, but not for entering orbit.) Matching any orbit beyond Mars has never been done before, because it's just insanely expensive to get that delta-v with chemical rockets.

      Matching orbits with near-Earth objects is comparatively easy, and entering orbit around any asteroid big enough that stable orbits are possible (they're really, really shallow gravity wells, and many of them have a Hill sphere smaller than the asteroid itself) is almost trivial.

      Orbiting Eros (with ~1.5km/s delta-v) = "first" for trivia books, yay!
      Getting clear out to the main belt, matching Vesta's solar orbit, entering and leaving Vesta orbit, matching Ceres's orbit, entering Ceres orbit (with >10km/s delta-v) = huge progress in spaceflight.
      Even Hayabusa, with a similar delta-v, was much more significant than Shoemaker, as a technology demonstrator for JAXA's IPS.

      And the landing on Eros was a genuine first. I can't see any way for Dawn to land on Ceres without a crash. There is too much gravity and it doesn't seem to have non-ion thrusters at all.

      That was a first, and quite impressive considering NEAR wasn't even designed for it.

      Actually, Dawn also has twelve hydrazine attitude control jets to desaturate the reaction wheels, but they don't have enough thrust for a controlled landing either. (The above sentence is 100% factual, but still makes me feel like Geordi LaForge. Think I'll go to the holodeck and fall in love with a computer-simulated woman now...) The hydrazine jets each deliver 9N of thrust, 100x the IPS, but of course you can't run them for years on end...

    4. Re:Fist orbit of an asteroid? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Hmmm.

      Mass of Dawn: ~1200kg

      Weight of Dawn on Vesta: 0.022 * 1200 * 10 = 264 Newtons. Yeah its not going to work. Escape velocity 0.35 km/s. Its a pretty decent little planet. Enough to require something like the Apollo LM for a landing I would think.

  18. Patriotism is not compatible with science by rocket+rancher · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Science is a collaborative effort. Nearly every advance the parent cited can be traced back to development work done by people who were not born in the US. Von Braun, Tsiolkovsky, and Fermi come to mind immediately, along with Einstein, Turing, Goedel, Bohr, Pauling, Dirac, Mendeleev, and Roentgen. National pride is fine, but it rings kinda hollow when one is aware of just how connected all scientific advancement is. The idea that all of those achievements are somehow the sole purview of the US is absurd.

  19. Re:What if they Pentagon bought more efficient A/C by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2

    Thanks for the information. Oddly I feel better knowing that Pentagon is not wasting that much. Sorry to have fallen for some marketers' spiel.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  20. Re:What if they Pentagon bought more efficient A/C by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    I've seen analysis that the number is about right, and that most of the cost is getting diesel out there for the generators.

    I'm sure they could spray the tents with foam or something though to make it much more efficient. Tinfoil on the outside...?

    --
    No sig today...
  21. Re:Pitiful by mywhitewolf · · Score: 1

    Oh if i had mod points!

  22. Yes by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    the Chinese will be far more benevolent and altruistic than the running dog Yankees.

  23. There are two NASA's by Squidlips · · Score: 1

    There is the good NASA (JPL) which run unmanned probes such as Dawn while there is the pointless NASA (Houston) that sends humans into space for stunts. Guess who gets the funding?

  24. Do you *want* the space pirates to win? by mr.mctibbs · · Score: 1

    If we go to Ceres before meeting the Chozo, who's gonna use their power armor to defeat Ridley and the Mother Brain?

  25. Re:uh oh... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Use the laptop while sitting on the toilet, problem solved :-P

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  26. Re:What if they Pentagon bought more efficient A/C by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tinfoil? Really? Is it just me or does that sound like "TARGET HERE" XD

  27. Orbiting by geoffball · · Score: 1

    I'd like to orbit Princess Vespa.

  28. Re:What if they Pentagon bought more efficient A/C by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Camouflaged tinfoil?